Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘John McCain’

I cannot believe that I am actually quoting and linking to an article from Karl Rove! (Watch for flying monkeys!!) Much as I detest the man he is not an idiot and occasionally he actually tells it like it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835139848377873.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

McCain Couldn’t Compete With Obama’s Money

America affirms Chicago’s Golden Rule.

If money talks, we’ll likely soon hear the real reason why Barack Obama beat John McCain. Both men and the national parties will report to the Federal Election Commission today how much money they raised in October and November. And what the numbers will probably show is that Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain by the biggest margin in history, perhaps a quarter of a billion dollars.

On May 31, as the general election began in earnest, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee had a combined $47 million in cash, while the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee had a combined $85 million.

Between then and Oct. 15, the Obama/DNC juggernaut raised $658.7 million. I estimate today’s reports will show Mr. Obama, the DNC and two other Obama fund-raising vehicles raised an additional $120 million to $140 million in October and November, giving them a total of between $827 million and $847 million in funds for the general election.

Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election, including the $84 million in public financing Mr. McCain accepted in exchange for his campaign not raising money after the GOP convention.

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

 

Snip     (Wait theres more)

To diminish criticism, Mr. Obama’s campaign spun the storyline that he was being bankrolled by small donors. Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, calls that a “myth.” CFI found that Mr. Obama raised money the old fashioned way — 74% of his funds came from large donors (those who donated more than $200) and nearly half from people who gave $1,000 or more.

But that’s not the entire story. It’s been reported that the Obama campaign accepted donations from untraceable, pre-paid debit cards used by Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong and other questionable characters. If the FEC follows up with a report on this, it should make for interesting reading.  (Emphasis added)

The really sad and scary part of this is the FEC will most likely NOT look into this or audit Obama’s campaign contributions. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15497.html

Obama likely to escape campaign audit 

 

 
 
The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more – allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations – but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.

Through the end of September, McCain had socked away $9.4 million in a special fund to pay for the audit.

 The Obama campaign does not expect to be audited, but spokesman Ben LaBolt said it would be ready in the event it is.

“We have had a first rate compliance operation for an unprecedented national grassroots fundraising effort,” LaBolt said.

“Nobody wants to go through an audit,” said former FEC chairman Michael Toner. As the top lawyer for George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, which accepted public financing, Toner prepared for that campaign’s mandatory audit, before he was appointed by Bush to a seat on the FEC.

Agency investigators fan out across the nation interviewing campaign staffers and vendors to account for even the most seemingly trivial expenses.

The resulting audits have dinged publicly financed presidential campaigns for billing the press for port-a-potties accessible to supporters at events (Bob Dole in 1996) and using the wrong formula to divide the cost of outfitting campaign planes between primary and general accounts (John Kerry in 2004).

Obama – the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election – certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FEC’s E Street offices.

Obama’s campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an $832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community organizing group that became a top target for Republicans alleging voter fraud.

And FEC analysts over the course of the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didn’t supply adequate information or from whom he accepted donations exceeding the $4,600 limit.

 
 

Spokesman LaBolt said the campaign has corrected errors as it was made aware of them. It’s  not at all unusual for the FEC to send many such letters – “requests for additional information” in agency parlance – to big-money campaigns. McCain’s campaign received at least a dozen, for instance.

But the media – first conservative outlets then mainstream publications – seized on the FEC letters to Obama, singling out donations from apparently fictitious donors as well as from foreign addresses – which are permitted as long as the donors are U.S. citizens. Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.

Seizing on Obama’s reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaign’s refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each – a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September – the RNC asked the FEC “to immediately conduct a full audit” of all of Obama’s contributions.

It’s very rare for a complaint to trigger an audit, campaign finance insiders say. And ironically, the historic volume of Obama’s small contributions, which may have made it tough for the campaign to weed out problem donations, may also help spare Obama an audit.

That’s because the byzantine formula the FEC staff uses to determine whether a campaign has engaged in “substantial” violations of federal election rules – the trigger to recommend an audit to commissioners – takes into account the size of the campaign’s coffers, according to David Mason, who served as a Republican appointee to the FEC until this year.

“So if a House campaign makes a $100,000 error, that’s huge and they’re likely to get audited,” he said. “If a campaign the size of the Obama campaign has a $100,000 error, then maybe not. It would depend on what the error is, obviously,” he said, explaining that mere accounting snafus are unlikely to prompt an audit. More serious and systemic problems, such as illegal contributions, result in campaigns getting tagged with more “audit points,” Mason explained. “If you get enough audit points, you get audited,” he said, adding “nobody outside the commission would know how many audit points the Obama campaign has.”

Mary Brandenberger, an FEC spokeswoman, declined to comment on the likelihood of an Obama audit. But she explained that if campaigns adequately answer the agency’s requests for information, it’s less likely they’ll be recommended for an audit.

Even if Obama’s campaign reached the audit recommendation trigger point, it’d be tough to muster the majority commission vote necessary to initiate the audit. That’s because the FEC is comprised of three Democratic commissioners and three Republicans and, as such, is prone to deadlock on partisan issues.

Well now! Isn’t that comforting? NOT!

So McCain, who made available information on every single donation, will be audited and charged a small fortune for it, while The  One, who has been far from transparent, will likely not.

Nope. He won’t be asked any embarassing questions about all those cartoon characters and people such as Doo Dad, employed by Loving and who’s supervisor is listed as You. Not to mention all those who donated purposely under false names to see if the fact that the name on the credit card was different than that of the donor would trigger any vetting process to make certain the donations were legal, legitimate and allowable. NOT!

What a crock! The One proves the saying  “Crime doesn’t pay.” is not true. At least not in American politics!

 

CQ 

 

Read Full Post »

And here we have a reporter who is actually doing her job! Barbara West with Channel 9 News in Florida askes Biden some real and tough questions about his Marxist and Socialist tendencies! It’s about damn time!

Folks the station has been bombarded with angry Obama supporters and the Obama campaign has said the station will not get any more interviews with Democrats “at least through the election”! Well! I guess they told Channel 9! How dare they report the news or ask REAL questions?

 

You can call or write to thank them for their integrity and give support.

Newsroom: 407-822-8353

Newsroom: 407 841 9000

barbara.west@wftv.com

news@wftv.com = send letter of support to the station

Read Full Post »

This is from Hillbuzz and it is unbelivable! Warning the language written in some of these actual photos may be offensive. I would ordinarily not post stuff like that on this blog but it’s importantthat people see what is really happening in all it’s vulgarity!

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/obama-followers-vandalize-homes-in-gainesville/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice huh? Obama tells them to “Get in their faces” and we keep hearing and reading the words “by any means necessary” well apparently his followers are takng him at his word!

I can tell you this much I have 5 dogs and they are not little ankle biters either! They would not have let anyone get this close to my home! First the dogs would get them then my husband would chase them off with his double barrel shot gun! If they were really lucky he might just use rock salt!

I’m quite sure that we won’t be seeing this on the evening news. They will probably lead with yet another false story about people at McCain/Palin events threatening The One with bodily harm even though NO ONE will collaborate because it isn’t true! The media expects us to buy their BS hook, line and sinker and feel obligated to vote Obama becuase “poowr wittle Bawarck” is the Victim! Excuse me while I puke!

On a happier note my husband says he will dress up as Obama for Halloween and promtly announce that he is dropping out of the race! Oh, how I love that man!  🙂

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Seems to me she gets it just fine! I think she interpeted Joe Biden’s remarks the other day quite well!

Hat tip to Texas Darlin’ for the video. And Deadender’s blog who posted the vide on youtube.

And here’s something else to ponder. I only wish the major news outlets would report on this stuff.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_smears_fact_check/2008/10/20/142379.html?s=al&promo_code=6DC0-1

‘Smears’ About Obama Largely True

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of “smears” — and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

 

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth — and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

 

Obama’s http://www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama’s ideological allies are not dominant.

 

These “smears” and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate’s answers.

 

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama’s critics as “pushing misleading research and distorted claims” because they are “ideologues” busy “spreading a ‘pack of lies’ about Barack.”

 

In a section of the site titled, “Who’s Behind the Smears?” visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

 

 

 

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington’s small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the “Clinton 1992 Campaign.”

 

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the “smears” against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

 

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama’s ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here’s what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama’s campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

“Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years,” the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

 

“Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts.”

 

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama’s allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival “Exxon John” McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

 

“The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law,” claims the Obama site, “including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements.”

 

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won’t release their names and addresses.

 

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

 

Critics argue that the other half of Obama’s campaign haul — the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests — came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

 

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers ”served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s,” but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

 

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

 

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama’s first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers’ home.)

 

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, “In the revolution, some innocent people need to die.”

 

“Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . .” says the Obama Web site.

 

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

 

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media’s and Obama’s judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

 

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

 

“John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads,” says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution — James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines — whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

 

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as “members of Mr. Obama’s political circle.”

 

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site’s present-tense claim that he “doesn’t [not didn’t] take advice from Fannie Mae execs” is technically, if deceptively, true.

 

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama’s campaign.

 

And despite Obama’s lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama’s Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

 

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama’s site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN “was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992.”

 

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell — calling him a “discredited Republican voter-suppression guru” — for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

 

As Newsmax has documented in [“Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,”] Obama’s Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never “hired” to work as a trainer for ACORN’s leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

 

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

 

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, “[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it.”

 

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as “a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” after interviewing its national director.

 

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN’s “family of organizations.”

 

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November’s election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

 

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

“During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” says Obama’s Web site, “while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.”

 

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, “is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them.”

 

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September [“NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,”] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

 

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”

 

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of “radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack.”

 

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were “born alive.” Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist’s decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

 

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

 

Obama’s Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that “none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide.”

 

True, but Obama’s site does not quote the rest of Winkel’s statement: “[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”

 

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

 

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

 

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama has said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

 

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama’s true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

 

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama’s visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: “As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama].”

 

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: “After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong.” He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

 

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he “was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl.” But as The Washington Post reported, Obama “canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate” and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

 

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

 

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

 

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

 

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

 

Obama’s Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined “Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid.” Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama’s Muslim faith and says he is “lying” when he says he was never a Muslim.

 

It’s important to note that Obama’s Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama’s site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

 

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

 

 

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

 

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

 

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world’s second-highest business taxes.

 

“Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases” said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. “They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don’t worry. It’s not going to affect you.”

 

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

 

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

 

 

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as “completely false” and “groundless.”

 

As proof, the Obama’s campaign has produced a “certificate of live birth” from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

 

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

 

Skeptics note that Obama’s “Father’s Race” is identified on this document as “African,” a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been “Negro.”

 

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama’s paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

 

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been hearing for a while now the common theme that  the McCain/Palin camp is supposedly inciting racism, hatred and violence. See https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/newest-obamacrat-talking-point/  for more on this.

 It has even been “proclaimed” that Mac and his supporters are trying to get someone to assassinate The One. Total BULLSHIT! Just another “poor me the victim” claim from camp Obama and it’s just as false as all the rest.

I’ve read and heard many say that the anger expressed by supporters at McCain/Palin events is “out of control rage and racism” and that supposedly McCain isn’t doing enough to stop it. I’d say it’s more like they don’t want this socialist in control of the country and they are angry because the race is close when they think it should be a slam dunk for Mac against the worst candidate ever.

I feel the same way. I cannot believe the people who tell me they are not at all concerned about Obama’s radical associates, his connection to foriegn and domestic terrorists, his ties to ACORN (Yes he IS tied to ACORN in a very big way), his affection for radical religious leaders like Rev. Wright, Father Phleger, Louis Farrakkan and more. Mostly radical religious leaders who peddle hate speech as sermons.

Not only that but these are the same people (Obamabots) who have posted things on The Daily Kos and even the Official DNC website not only advocating but in some cases out right calling for physical and/or sexual violence against Hillary Clinton and many of these hateful posts are still on display for all to see while any reference to anything not positive about The One is immediately deleted and the user(s) banned and admonished as haters and racists.

Remember the “Bros Before Hoes” T-Shirts or all posts about “Hitlery” or all the times even MSM seemed to say she should be taken in a room by someone and “only he comes out”? I suppose that was in no way inciting hatred or violence?

This from the campaign that told supporters “I want you to get in their face”, and “if they bring a knife then we’ll bring a gun”. The wonderful candidate who has blogs from his supporters on his own website demanding that they commit to making sure Obama got the nomination “by any means necessary” and the same supporters who have written numerous blogs and essays about how “violence and rioting will ensue” if Obama is not the next president.

This from the guy that went to Kenya on the taxpayers’ dime to campaign for his cousin Ralia Odinga. You know the guy that lost his first attempt at power and incited race riots, ethnic cleansing and general chaos afterward claiming that the election was “stolen” from him though it was clearly not. The guy who won his second attempt in large part because of those tactics and the fact that he basicly bought the support of radical muslims by promising to install Sharia Law. The cousin who took notes from Obama on how to do this. If you don’t beleive me read up on Odinga. Or you can watch this video. 

Seriously these Obama supporters have been the nastiest, the rudest, the most hateful and violent I have ever encountered in an election cycle. They will threaten, stalk, hack whatever it takes to supress any views other than their own. I have heard of more death threats and threats of violence and various reprisals from Obama supporters than should ever be allowed and yet I have not once seen him try to reign them in.

Well , he did say that the families were off limits after his supporters and his official surrogates had already been smearing sarah Palin and her children for a week or so. It’s easy to speak out after the damage is done.

Suddenly telling the truth is racist and hateful. I had one message from an Obama supporter saying that she did not care one bit about his relationship with Bill Ayers and she wouldn’t care even if he were still doing the despicable things he did back then. It would have absolutely no effect on her decision making!

I have to wonder if these people are all complete nuts. Anyone who doesn’t care if the candidate they want to see in the white house has friendships with terrorists really isn’t smart enough to vote. Sorry but there it is. If you can seriously look at all his associations and think  nothing of it you are a fucking idiot of the highest order.

Seriously does this guy have even one friend or associate that is not either a criminal, a terrorist, a radical hate monger or a far-left nutjob? Not even one normal friend?

How many of us would have this number of anti-American leaning friends? All we hear from camp Obama is how he’s the poor widdle victim of hate and wacism and the mean ol repubwicans are trying to kiwl him! (Sorry for the tweety bird speak I just can’t help it)

Ever notice no matter what happens or who says or does what Obama attacks then claims he is attacked. he is always the “victim” and those of us who love America and democracy are always the “bullies”. Funny because if you look around you won’t see threats from Hillary Clinton supporters or from McCain/Palin supporters. That is unless you consider people saying they won’t vote for Ovbama a threat. I don’t. I call it a promise!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Told you this would be the next talking point!

From http://rallygrrrl.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/palin-uses-hate-to-motivate/

The ‘dangerous road,’ however, is not just a generic attack on Sen. Obama’s trustworthiness or honesty.  Rather, the McCain campaign has chosen to stand before campaign rallies and accuse Sen. Obama of hiding sympathies with domestic terrorists–to accuse their opponent, essentially, of being a terrorist.

With the McCain campaign now using the Palin stump speech to accuse Sen. Obama of hiding a terrorist agenda, the McCain campaign has staked its future on rhetoric that skirts the boundary between character assassination and incitements of actual violence against their opponent.

Inspiring progress is good. Inspiring assassination is bad. Ironically, this kind of rhetoric actually makes Palin sound like a domestic terrorist herself.

Idiots abound! Seriously Palin remarked that Obama “pals around”with a domestic terrorist not to promote hate or incite violence. No! She points this out because it is TRUE!

Apparently to Obamacrats she was promoting hate and inciting people to assassinate Obama! How and where did they get this out of the statements made by Sarah Palin? See if you can read any of that stuff out of this statement.

I see nothing in that that would incite hate or violence. Now even though Obamacrats will say it’s all so untrue, it’s a smear, a travesty, a character assassination, “I mean Barrack was 8 years old!” and all that standard crap, the fact remains that William Ayers is in fact an unrepentant terrorist, the only reason he is not rotting in jail for his crimes is a technicality in his trial and he has said publicly on many occasions that he is not sorry and he wishes they had set more bombs.

I don’t care that Obama was 8 when Ayers did this but I do care that Obama, the adult has had a long, working relationship with this man and continues to do so completely aware of what he did and the fact that the man is still not sorry to this day and in fact said he did not want to discount the possiblility that he could do such a thing again in certain circumstances.

Obama sat on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Annenburg Challenge with Ayers, they live in the same neighborhood, they not only know each other Obama’s political career was launched from Ayers’ living room. The organizations they served on together gave money to ACORN, Trinity United Christian Church, Louis Farrakkan and the Nation of Islam, Kahlidi and others.

You know it would be one thing for the bots to say this is just guilt by association if in fact Ayers were someone who had admitted his crimes, repented and asked forgiveness for them. It would be one thing to say it’s just a smear if in fact Ayers was “just some guy in the neighborhood” and not the long standing association that is the case here. Ayers in fact does not consider the bombings and acts of terror crimes and is even quite proud of them. As for repentance or forgiveness you can forget that too. In fact Ayers was quoted on Sept. 11, 2001 as saying he “wished they could have done more”.

I could forgive someone who once did something wrong as a young, idealistic, college student if the student actually grew up and admitted that they were wrong and he regretted his actions. I cannot forgive a man who insists to this day he was right and does not regret any of it.

I’m also tired of bots saying that no one died as a result of the bombings. That is total BULLSHIT! People did die. People went to prison. In fact it really wouldn’t make it any more right if they did not kill people but they did. Here’s a video that tells a bit more of the story about Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like far more than just some angry college kids protesting. Protesting the war I understand. Bombing buildings, violence, disregard for innocent bystanders I will never understand or tolerate. Could you be “friends” with a guy like this? Really? Not me. Never. Period.

So you have to ask yourself how is it that Sarah Palin referring to the well known fact that Obama is friendly with and has worked with Bill Ayers, the fact that they have given speeches at the same events, the fact that Obama launched his career from Ayers’ living room translate to “The republicans are trying to incite assassination!”?

Answer: It doesn’t but the Obamacrats want you to think it does and they want to razzle, dazzle you into looking away from the facts. They would have you believe that it’s all some right wing conspiracy designed to promote race and class wars and to incite violence. In fact it is the far left who have been flirting with turning this into a violent revolution and they have not been shy about it. Brazen is a word you could use to describe some of the blog posts I’ve read urging people to use “any means necessary” to get Obama elected.

Then you have all the threats of the havoc that will suposedly ensue if the election is lost, “stolen” from Obama. You know his cousin Ralia Odinga in Kenya has had very similar campaigning “techniques” and to be brutally honest the violence that ensued after Odinga lost a bid for the presidency and claimed it was “stolen’ from him were terrifying and cannot be allowed to go on here.

Obama is the least patriotic, most dangerous and the least qualified candidate we have ever had. We have never had a presidential candidate with so many ties to so many extremist and criminal people!

Yet the media and the DNC continue to spoon feed us with the “he-is-the-greatest-thing-to-come-along-since-sliced-bread” and “if-you-critisize-or-question-him-you-are-a-bigot with-qestionable-motives” memes. It amazes me that in this day and age so many people still wait for the media to tell them what to think instead of thinking for themselves. If anyone can get through this election cycle and not see that the media are not credible sources in fact they are basically all about the ratings and the advertising revenues well , they are either naive, hiding out in a cave or lying to themselves.

Long gone are the journalistic standards we came to depend on like say, Walter Kronkite for one. If we have learned anything it is not to trust the media. I suggest that we also suspend the trust in the leadership of the DNC at least in it’s current form as they are the schmucks who got us into this situation by nominating a complete and utter fraud.

Many say that if Obama loses and we have four more years of Republican control it will be the fault of Hillary and PUMA. I say to you no that it is/will be the fault of the DNC for discarding the only candidate with a chance of winning and the candidate who had the solutions to fix what ails America.

They discarded a candidate with a true servant’s heart, one that had the desire and willingness to serve the people (all of them) of America to instead nominate a candidate who is far more like a spoiled brat with a huge ego and an overblown sense of entitlement.

In short they axed a candidate who longs to serve to nominate a candidate who longs to be served. (Think of teenagers who want to live in your house and let you pay the bills while they drive the car you bought for them and eat the meals you cook and serve and wear the clothing that you paid for and launder for them…getting the similarities here?) Can we really expect anything good from someone with his almost child-like insistence that he “voted” against the war ( He wasn’t a senator yet so it wasn’t an option at the time) and he toured Europe and lived in Indonesia, Plus he ran his campaign so that qualifies him and we are never to question this! To question is to admit you are a card carrying racist! Can we expect any quality results from a candidate of this calibur?

The republican candidate, John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin also have a desire to serve. Like “my” candidate, Hillary, they want to serve their country while Obama wants the country to serve him, his buddies and his socialistic ideas that serve the same.

Our choice this time is of the greatest importance! The outcome of this election is make or break for Democracy as we know it! It usually comes down to the lesser of two evils but this time that difference is so much more stark! The stakes have never been higher!

I will vote McCain/Palin to defeat the evil that is Obama. This is not an easy or a happy decision but it is the right one. No Obama. No Way. No How.

CQ

Read Full Post »

McCain tells it like it is in Albuquerque, New Mexico!

I’m so glad to see someone finally call him out on this stuff! Mac hit hard with a dose of truth and I’m pretty sure we’ll see a plethora of “news” articles claiming that his remarks were “racially tinged” tomorrow. it was worth it! That’s the McCain that will fight tooth and nail to protect this country and it’s citizens, ALL of them! Go john!

I’m sure everybody already heard and/or watched Sarah Palin making comments about Obama “pallin’ around with terrorists” this weekend and saw that she may as well be an honorary PUMA now as the media immediately labeled her remarks as racist.

Then we have Dianne Feinstien constantly repeating the word assassination to Bob Schiffer Sunday morning. Apparently telling the truth about Obama is racist and means you are plotting his demise. or at least that seems to be the newest, sinister talking point of the Obamacrats. Well, you have to distract the voters somehow I guess.

I guess next they’ll start talking about natzisms from GOP operatives and all the while handing out the brown shirts and sizing jack-boots!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »