Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘President’

Citizen Wells has a new post with some very revealing information about the vetting process where it concerns elected officials.

We have received a lot of question asking “How did Obama get this far, he must have had background checks as he is a U.S. Senator.”

However, this is inaccurate according to Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI. Background checks are not performed on those elected, once elected they work for Congress and are handed a secret clearance. See below:

This is a conversation between the Special Agent-in-Charge: C. Frank Figliuzzi of the Cleveland FBI and Mike Trivisonno on the Mike Trivisonno Show, WTAM 1100, 7/02/08, Hr. 2.

Caller – Do they perform background checks on candidates and fellows who are in Congress and the Senate and perhaps potential presidential candidates?.

FBI – The short answer is no, no we don’t, but they’re given top secret clearances because they’re members of Congress, or Senators, or even higher ranking officials.

Host – Time out. There are no background checks from the FBI on the people that lead the country, the United States of America?.

FBI – Let me emphasize, elected officials. This is a democracy, the people have elected an official to represent them in Washington, and we do not routinely run background checks on those people.

Host – Even people running for president of the United States of America?.

FBI – That’s correct.

Host – That’s a little weird

FBI – Well, its part of democracy, its part of what the American people want, they want to be able to vote for somebody to represent them in Washington and they don’t want us to get in the way of that and we have no predilection to get in the way of that.

Host – Yeah, but what if they’re voting for a bad person and they don’t know that person is bad, do you follow me?. I’m saying, if the guy’s got a background and maybe he’s involved with some people that he shouldn’t be involved with, shouldn’t we know that as voters?.

FBI – Well, I think you’d agree that the American political process is about as rigorous as you’ll ever see and if there’s dirt back there, probably the opponent is gonna get it out probably before anyone else will.

Host – Now I know why you’re the head of the FBI, they’re good, aren’t they?.”

Read the whole post for more here.   http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obamacrimescom-colb-update-comments-insights-fbi-response-special-agent-in-charge-background-checks-elected-officials-american-political-process-berg-website-comments/

Now isn’t that an interesting little tidbit? Nobody does background checks or vetting in an official capacity on elected officials even candidates for President of the United States!

They figure it’s the discretion of the voters and that political campaigns will expose and vet candidates potential problems. In other words the people voted for them it’s up to them to make sure of who and what they really are.

So all the people out there saying the Birth Certificate thing is a non issue because he would have been checked out before running I guess that’s not the case at all. I suppose next they will “justify” why Obama should not have to show proof that he’s eligible for the job.

McCain faced similar questions and had at least the consideration for his supporters, the country and his own reputation to show proof and put the matter to rest. Will Obama do the same? Or will he continue to show us the fake COLB on his website even though it’s been examined and shown to be a forgery. Yet another crime that is going unpunished and “justified”!

 

CQ

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Nice! Real patriotic NOT! Here is the first of three articles that tell the truth about how Obama feels about Iraq and our troops there.

Obama Interferes In US-Iraq Agreement

 

In direct interference in US foreign policy and the execution of the war in Iraq, Barack Obama today told the Iraqi foreign minister, according to the New York Times’ Caucus blog report,

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable. 

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said.

According to Obama, “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”
What else could he say when confronted with such effrontery by someone not the president who might be.

The CBS reporton the phone conversation doesn’t think it’s significant enough to mention this part of their conversation, nor that regardless of the progress that’s been made Obama says he’s firm on withdrawing US troops quickly. Jenifer Rubin at Commentary’s Contentions blog, however, correctly sums it up: “Great Surge, Let’s Quit.”

The Washington Post’s editorial today says of the agreement,

It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm. So it’s hard to fathom why Democrats in Congress have joined Ayatollah Khamenei in denouncing the U.S.-Iraqi agreements even before they are written….

 

Ed Morrissey comments,

So why haven’t the Democrats shown more enthusiasm? They would have to admit that they were wrong about the surge, wrong about Maliki, and wrong to declare defeat fourteen months ago. Democrats from Barack Obama down have insisted that the US should abandon Iraq as a failed mission rather than adjust to better strategies. Had the Bush administration listened to them, Iran would already be in charge of Iraq through Moqtada al-Sadr.

 

Another example to add to the many that Barack Obama is a dangerous poseur.

Bruce Kesler | Jun. 16, 2008 | 4:52 PM

So not only did he meddle to try and influence the elections he used the troops that he claims he is so concerned about to do it! The media did know but said nothing. I see the pattern is not straying from the traditional Obama “whatever it takes to climb the ladder” mindset that we’ve all come to know so well.

Here’s more:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_tour_de_farce_122049.htm?page=0

 

O’s Tour de Farce  by Amir Taheri 

Posted: 3:24 am
July 29, 2008

TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama‘s eight- day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.

“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.

In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.

Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.

Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains madein Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi officialtold me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”

Even so, Obama knows that most Americans believe they’re still at war with an enemy prepared to use terror against them. So he can’t do what his antiwar base wants – declare an end to the War on Terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which “citizens of the world” build bridges between civilizations.

That’s why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as “his” war. He claims that Bush’s focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of love and attention. Even though US military strategy is to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war is possible at a time.

But what does that mean practically?

Obama says he wants to shift two brigades (some of his advisers say two battalions) from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magicalfigure come from? From NATO, which has been calling on its members to provide more troops since 2006.

NATO wants the added troops mainly to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance doesn’t face an actual shortage of combat units – it’s merely facing a rotation schedule that obliges some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is normal for NATO armies.

Overall, NATO hopes that its members will have no difficulty providing the 5,000 more troops it needs for a “surge.” So there’s no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama’s plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other NATO members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics think that President Nicolas Sarkozyshould postpone sending more troops until after the US presidential election. “If President Obamacan provide all the manpower needed in Afghanistan, there is no need for us to commit more troops,” said a Sarkozy security adviser.

Obama’s move would suit Sarkozy fine because he’s reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons. Other Europeans would also be pleased. German Chancellor Angela Merkelwill soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to “the Afghan adventure.”

Today, with the sole exception of Spain (where the mildly anti-American Socialist Party is in power), pro-US parties govern Europe. These parties feel pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the Afghanistan war effort. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook.

Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed the European scene’s subtleties. Despite his claim that he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his 10,000-mile trip.

Having announced his strategy before embarking on his “listening tour,” he couldn’t be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offered a different picture.

In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there was anything that he’d heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter anyaspect of his polices. Obama’s answer was clear: no.

Amir Taheri’s next book, “The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution,” is due out this fall.

 

So Obama saw the whole tour as a photo op. Not news. That he tried to interfere in foreign affairs for his own political gain? Big, game changing news. This article was from July, the previous one from June yet we haven’t really heard much about this until now. The media for the most part is beyond not doing their job they are now doing Obama’s job.

The latest again from the New York Post is by the same author and is dated today. Really informative.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

There’s more. Click the link to read the entire article.

The idea you might get here from reading these things about Senator Obama is that he really doesn’t care as much as he claims about the troops and getting them home. He cares about how he can spin this to favor him in the election. How refreshingly new and full of hope and change! (Sarcasm off sorry  couldn’t resist)

Mr. We need to Just admit defeat and bring our guys home decided he wants them to stay a bit longer because he doesn’t want the Republicans to look less lik the Devil if people know that they did at least one thing right. The surge that Obama did not support actually worked to some degree and the American officials are actually working with the Iraqis to get things under control and get our troops headed home. Remember how hard he fought to admit the surge actually worked? How about the NAFTA thing with Canada anybody remember that? How he denied it all and then had to admit that he did just what he said he would not do. Pander to the guys he was railing against just to make him look “good”.

That’s a joke. Nothing could make him look good to me. Everthing about him screams narcicistic, arrogant fraud. He is not above using anybody and anything to further his own career and adgenda.

Oh I forgot to mention that what Obama did by trying to interfere in the politics of a foriegn country without authorization from our government is illegal. It is against The Logan Act.

So yes by any other name it is still a stinky, fake, hypocritical rose just the same! (Sorry Shakesphere!)

CQ

Read Full Post »

This one has been simmering for a while now. I have been a Dem all my life. I am a Dem because of what they stood for. True democratic princials like equality for everybody, We the People, One Voice, One Vote, the lifting up and support of the middle and lower classes. In fact Democrats as I knew them were the ultimate good guys. They stood for eliminating classes and making all Americans truly equal.

We have some great examples to look up to in our party. Some great people who inspire us and make us strive for those great causes the party aspires to. Names like Franklin Delenor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton the only two term Democrat president in the last fourty years, just to name a few. In my opinion we as democrats need to go back to our core and really find and hone our message of equality and opportunity, the message that these great leaders were so passionate about instead of reverting to the childish and disgusting tactics that have been taking place in this election cycle. In particular I am talking about the last few days since John McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The internet has been abuzz with rumors flying about like millions of flies on shit. Sorry for the crude reference there but it’s truly appropriate I think. The Obamabloggers and even the media pundits (most not all) have been going on and on with things that are so not in line with the message they preach.

They claim they are the party who treats women as equals (Hillary supporters would say different) yet they are starting rumors that Gov. Palin’s last child was really her daughter’s and that she lied and faked a pregnacy and childbirth to cover it up. (Gotta admit it’s hard to fake a childbirth! There was a hospital and an attending Dr after all.) They even started passing around photos and discussing if she were “fat enough” to have really been pregnant and if her daughter looked “fat enough” to have been the mother. How progressive and liberal of them.

Then they moved on to saying her son was born with Downs Syndrome because of supposedly bad pre-natal care. WTF? How would any of them be privy to the quality of her pre-natal care? Again sooo progressive and liberal. Feminist even. Snark!

Now Gov. Palin has disclosed that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and they are standing behind her for making her own decision to marry the father and have the child. The Bots are saying how terrible that she has a daughter unmarried and pregnant as if it is not a part of life. Terribly progressive of them also to critisize not only this young girl but her family for standing by her and John McCain for knowing about it and still having the gall to pick this woman for his running mate.

I think it shows how much this woman stands by what she says. The daughter chose to keep her child and the family chose to support her. Sounds to me like she walks the walk of someone who believes in family values. Contrary to the bot’s belief that this makes her some sort of hypocrite it actually shows that she would not turn her back on her daughter in a time of great need as to do so would be for more hypocritical.

The fact that McCain knew ahead of time and still picked her shows that he cares about more than just “appearances for politics’ sake” and that what Gov. Palin brings to the ticket is more important to him than what some bigoted people who would rather throw the girl to the wolves think. In other words her intellect, integrity and strengths are what he made his choice on.

If, like me you might have wondered where some of this stuff originated I will link to a site that did some digging into this. Before you say it I know this is a conservative site. They, unlike the Dems will stand up for their own so they have gotten to the bottom of it. If there were more liberal sites that would be brave enough to publish this stuff and digg into it I would have linked to them but the so called liberal siteslike DailyKos and HuffPoand the reat of the Obamaphiles are the ones spreading this crap as you will see below.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31096_Whos_Behind_Anti-Palin_Smear_Site

Nice huh? I mean that it’s definitely Obama supporters is bad enough but they were even stupid enough to re-direct the traffic to Obama’s website is beyond belief. Again I must say how progressive and liberal and pro-women’s rights all this crap is. NOT!

I have heard it all from the smears mentioned above to the other aguments that I’ll go into here. The Obama team and supporters were obviously knocked for a loop here. They did not expect, have a plan for or react to this in anything even resembling a demeanor befitting a presidential candidate.

The Dems are quickly becoming everything they claim to hate these days. Who are the real hypocrites here?

I’ve been told that it’s just shameful that McCain only picked her to win! Imagine that. Did they think he was trying to pick someone who would cause him to lose? It’s a clear case of pandering! Well what do you expect? Isn’t that what politicians do? Try to get your vote?

She doesn’t have experience. Yeah because you know actually being a Mayor or a Govenor where you really have to make executive decisions is not helpful experience at all. I suppose Mr. Inexperience himself who’s very thin record is all legislative and not anything resembling actual leadership skills at the top of the ticket is okbut someone with more actual experience as VP is not. Do they realize how dumb this argument sounds?

Then there’s the totally sexist response about the fact she’s a former beauty queen, has five kids (how irresponsible! Yeah and not in line at all with her pro-family, pro-life political stance. Eyes rolling) her children, particularly the youngest who has special needs and they aren’t really sure if he’s her’s or her daughter’s might suffer because of her run for VP and the job if she gets elected. Hmmm very pro-women’s rights there. NOT!

Even scarier they claim is that she could be a heartbeat away from the actual white house and be in charge of the nation! McCain could croak at any moment the shout gleefully! Do I even have to go into how many ways this is just wrong? Is it even remotely progressive or liberal or even decent to be gleeful about someones perceived imminentdeath? Hardly. The thing about how she could be in control well what’s wrong with that? She’s a woman? Is that the problem? Really? From the progressive party?

If it’s experience they have no right to go there. If it’s her family having an un-wed teen mother to be in their ranks then Mr. “raised by a single mother” has absolutely no ground to stand on. Oh, and if it’s because she’s a former beauty queen and pretty how the hell does that reconcile with or reflect on the Democratic party? Please! As if looks are what makes the person. She’s not going for America’s Top Model or anything and she went to college and has done pretty well for herself so the brainless bimbo tactic is not going to fly. Sooo progressive.

I also heard the argument that it wasn’t fair to pick her and she got special treatment by being promoted to this position because she’s not qualified. OMG! I nearly blew a gaskett the first time I read one of these opinions! You mean special treatment like awarding delegates to someone who wasn’t on the ballot? Or maybe like giving delegates earned based on actual votes cast to another candidate? Maybe like having someone add your name to a whole bunch of legislation that you had nothing to do with so you can pad your nearly non-existent resume? That kind of special treatment? Pot? This is Kettle…you know the rest.

And the unqualified thing I can’t believe they would go there with all the questions on so many fronts as to Obama’s qualifications for the job. Do they not see the total idiocy of this approach? They are only shining light on their own candidates flaws with this line of attack. They are shooting themselves in the foot and doing it with fervor that is unbelievable. This guy really is more “evangelical” in some ways than the folks who are actually characterized as evangelicals. I mean to say he seems an awful lot like a Jim Jones style Preacher in a crazy, we’re right and everybody else is wrong revival tent with the cult of followers and their fanatical devotion to him. They will do anything for him including the smearing of people with lies and stereotypes they claim to hate.

There seems to be a consensus among Obama supporters that since Hillary suspended, endorsed and went along with their sham roll call vote and faux unity for her party’s sake that those who don’t jump ship and join the Obamaphenomina are not true democrats and that we aren’t true Hillary supporters. They want to believe this because they want to believe the lie that Clinton supporters are falling in line like good little soldiers. I’m not denying that some are but the majority I talk to are not by any means going to vote for Obama. They are varied in their plans for November 4th. Some will stay home, write in Hillary, vote 3rd party and yes some will vote for McCain/Palin. Hillary can do what she must but we will each do the same.

I recently had a Obama supporter tell me in a forum I have belonged to for years (btw this person had just joined and had 12 posts all that day all that thread yet they called me the troll) that I don’t “get to call myself a Clinton supporter if I don’t support Obama”. I let them know in no uncertain terms that I get to call myself anything I please and they do not get to define me. A friend there male, libertarian and believe it or not very anti-Clinton told them in no uncertain terms what to do with that attitude. He said I could quote him so here it is:

> “She can call herself any-damn-thing she wants to —
> first of all — and second — just because Hillary
> gives some ass-saving speech telling everyone they
> should support Obama and anyone who thinks that is
> prima facia evidence of Hillary’s real position
> probably has their head so far up their ass they
> can’t see daylight.
>
> But, hey, have a nice day & hopefully you’ve got
> other tricks up yer sleeve besides being a shill for
> Democrat unity. “

Far less polite than most of my fellow PUMAS like to put it but the meaning is the same. Hillary is doing what she has to and what she feels is right. Each of us must also make our own choices and we will. Nobody has to right to tell another person how to make that choice. It’s personal and it deserves to be respected. That is one of the core principals the party I have always known holds dear. Or at least they used to.

I guess the one silver lining to all this is it will shine the light bright on the tactics of Camp Obama and the utter hypocrisy and sexism that is more prevalent than any of us would have liked to think existed in this day and age. The light will shine on elections and the need for reform of the system and of the parties. For sure you know this stuff will no longer be dismissed as just a bunch of disgruntled Hillary supporters exaggerating about abusive tactics. Now that they are using this line of attack? Or maybe they think it’s a defense? The republicans will see to it that people know all about it in great detail because that’s what they do. Plus we all know the media LOVES the republicans and they believe everything they say. OK I’m exaggerating there but since it’s no longer perceived to be about Hillary it will get coverage and that’s a good thing.

Unless your a member of Team Obama that is. I will never join that team. I like the ideas and I still look up to the people who have represented our party so well. There are many wonderful, passionate and brilliant democrats still around and alot of them call themselves PUMAS. They are waiting for the current party leadership to finish their self destruction so we can get down to reforming our party and adhereing to the values we once stood for. Those democrats are not going away and because leadership decided to do everything but the right thing they will teach the leadership and the party a lesson. It will hurt but the alternative would be far worse. Those who would sacrifice all that The Party and Democracy stood for only to acheive a means that was not worthy will regret their decision in time. In any case they are not my concern. My party and my country are my concern and I will work to defeat anyone who would hurt either one.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

This information is coming to light through the blogger’s network. I think it is extremely important that we get the word out about this. We are NOT saying that Barrack Obama himself is involved although we don’t know either way I would highly doubt it. I don’t think he would be so stupid as to be personally involved in this kind of thing.  Having said that what is being said is that at least three seperate IP’s linked to the Blogger accounts that were shut down by a coordinated spam flagging attack were traced back to mybarrackobama.com by law enforcement and are currently being investigated.

Citizen Wells has an excellent post on the matter:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/obama-camp-stops-free-speech-democrat-party-left-wing-brown-shirts-nazi-germany-revisited-barackobamacom-fairness-doctrine-nancy-pelosi/#comment-3064

Here is another from bloggasm:

http://bloggasm.com/whos-responsible-for-shutting-down-a-number-of-anti-obama-blogspot-accounts#comment-77765

Finally here is a link to macsmind where the proof was uncovered:

http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/08/02/macsmind-hacking-update/#comment-47531

Truthfully I believe Senator Obama though he is not personally responsable, SHOULD DENOUNCE THIS KIND OF ABUSE OF THE INTERNET! I believe he should come out publicly and denounce this sort of behaviour and let people know it will not be tolerated on his official website. If he does not then he is by proxy condoning such behaviour!

This country was founded on the principals of freedom and justice for all. These freedoms include the right to free speech. If we have come to the point where free speech has become a luxury only to be enjoyed by those in power or those who can intimidate, harass, threaten and over-power the voices of the rest then we must act now to restore freedom before it’s too late!

It’s a very thin line these folks are walking. One blog, who shall not be named as I refuse to give them any more free publicity for thier disgusting site, makes no bones about the fact they feel they are free to post anything they want. I would agree with them to a point. That point, which they have gone way past, is where they feel they should be allowed this freedom but those who disagree with them are fodder for their jokes and their intimadation tactics, of which I myself have been subjected to and they include hateful and threatening posts, impersonating people I know in real life to send me threats and harassment. Impersonating me in other forums and blogs saying terrible things, claiming I will “never work again” (Funny since I am self employed. I don’t know who they think will fire me.)

They have called me a racist, a republican, bitter, xenophobic (This is really funny because the person posting that one seemed as though that word wuold be out of their normal vocabulary from the rest of the post.). They posted my personal information on their blog and all this because I visit the site of Larry Sinclair who they feel does not have a right to free speech.

As a matter of fact they are so against Larry Sinclair being allowed to express himself they have threatened his life, shut down his blogs with coordinated complaints and attacks, they have gone out of their way trying to have him arrested and have suceeded on one occasion so far, they have taken it upon themselves to call the Social Security Administration claiming that Larry is a fraud, a con man and should have his disability benefits (His only sorce of income. ) and his medical coverage denied.

So this is the rub. They are allowed to freely speak or write what they want but they are not allowed according to the law to stop someone else from excersising their own free speech. Nor are they allowed to try and interfere in someone’s life, job, financial situation or medical coverage! How is any of that OK by any standard?

Yes Obama supporters have the right to free speech. No they do not have the right to silence, harass or intimidate those who disagree!

Yes Larry Sinclair has a right to free speech. Yes Barrack Obama has the right to sue him if it is a lie.

No those idiots do not have the right to harass, intimidate and threaten Larry. No they do not have the right to interfere with his right to free speech, medical coverage and his lively hood just because they don’t believe him.

These people claim to be for freedom and the American way but it is not the American way at all to engage in such a thuggish and un-American behaviour.

We must expose these people/movements for what they really are bfore it is too late! If this kind of behaviour is tolerated even sanctioned by not only those who have the power to do something about it but also by the rest of us allowing this to stand then we will be seeing more of our hard won freedoms going by the wayside! We must stand up to the thugs and bullies and Senator Obama must do so also or he is guilty of condoning it by proxy!

Speak out people! Do not let this stuff stand!

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Please sign these petitions and send them on to your friends and family. if john McCain who is a true American WAR HERO had to deal with questions about his birth and legitimacy then Obama is and should be held to the same standard! If he has nothing to hide then why they fake BC on his website?

John Mccain actually showed his birth certificate (the real one on paper not some fake on the net) to a reporter is Obama man enough to do the same???? I DARE YOU BARRACK!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/produce-obama-embossed-birth-certificate

This one is to impeach Obama for various legal reasons like recent drug use (at least ’99), ties to corrupt and anti-American people like Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, Auchi, Farrakan just to name a few!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment

We need to do everything we can NOW before it’s too late! If this moron gets elected somehow I fear we would not recognize our country within a year.

 

CQ

Read Full Post »

Hillary has had far worse satire made about her and has had lots of mean spirited insults hurled at her in this election season and all along but especially when she was the First Lady. Didn’t hear Obama complaining about any of that. Nope he has comedians making jokes about menopause and ho’s.

Remember all those Hillary nutcrackers and the Bros before Ho’s T-shirts? How about the very real attacks she dealt with on a daily basis in the media? Like when they said she was only in the race because Bill had an affair or when they said she was pimping out her daughter? How about when she was ridiculed for her hairstyles, not being a cookie baker, her pantsuits, her laugh, her voice?

They compared her to their mother-in-law, their ex-wife at probate and wondered if America would stand for watching a woman president age? Sound familiar? This stuff was all sanctioned by the Obama campaign although they wanted us to think the oppisite.

He attacks and then claims everyone is attacking him. He and his big mouth wife say all kinds of crude, inappropriate things in public and even on video tape and yet they whine that it’s not fair to attack them like that when they are called on it. “I’m proud of my country for the first time in my adult life..” springs to mind as does “How can you run the whitehouse if you can’t run your own” or “He’s been my spiritual mentor”, “Typical white person”, “God Damn America”? Ok paraphrasing here but we’ve all heard it so many times we know it by heart anyway.

So it’s ok to critisize and attack his opponents and he will, if forced to, make some weak comment and try to brush it off or better yet insist that although yes, there was sexisim in the campaign, it was not harmful to Mrs. Clinton (OOOHH it really pisses me off when he calls her Mrs. and NOT Senator! It’s called RESPECT and she has earned it!) and furthermore, according to Obama, there was more than one woman who was battered by it. WTF???

Seriously, he can barely admit that Hillary had to deal with a plethora of sexisim and that he and his supporters were behind a lot of it. Yet we are supposed to feel sorry for Michelle because she got attacked for stupid crap that actually came out of her own f-ing mouth! 

Sorry! I don’t feel one bit sorry for her she brought every bit of it on herself. I DON’T condone sexisim ever and do not condone it against Michelle Obama any more than I do against Hillary Clinton. Having said that I can hardly see how they can complain about attacks for something one has actually said or done!

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. The Obamas are supposed to be special and to be treated with kid gloves. After all they are both where they are today because of affirmative action and special, preferential treatment. Before you start sreaming I will say I don’t have  a problem with affirmative action in general. I think it was created to try and level the field and hopefully it will eventually die a quiet and respected death after the field has been deemed at least mostly level. Having said that I don’t think it should have any place in our political election process.

When you are talking about electing the people to represent all of us and to be in charge of our country then I beleive it is our duty to elect the people we trust to do the job best and the people who have earned the right to do so with their service and commitment to this country. I don’t believe that means propping up someone who lost a contest by huge margins and calling them the clear winner and calling the actual winner of said contest a loser!  I don’t believe a 36 or a 41 point win is meaningless regardless of what the media idiots tell me.

I also don’t believe John Edwards when he says the party has spoken and so has he because it made no sense coming on the heels of such an astronomical loss. Every time he lost big we saw a trotting out of super delegates claiming he was the clear winner and we better get behind him. Yet if he were really the clear winner as they wanted us to believe we would not have needed them to come out and tell us so. It would have been obvious. You know like the DNC bias that’s as plain as the nose on your face.

These are the tactics of Senator Obama. Throw shit as far and as fast as you can then duck and cover. You can blame it on someone else and drive over them with your bus, ‘er I mean campaign. Cry that you are being persecuted for being black and then call everyone who disagrees with you, regardless of the reason a racist or republican and every word spoken or written against you  a smear whether it’s true or not. If they complain about the shit you threw at them just say that yes there was some shit but they were not the only ones who got some on them. So what if it was on your hands!  The last rule is the most important. If the media quits bringing you presents and starts depicting you realisticly come out with a statment saying that it’s tasteless and inexcusable making sure they don’t see your guys working on your next smear campaign.

Honestly, I don’t care much for the cartoon either but if Obama wants to run for president then he should be at least as tough as his competition and not expect to be treated like royalty or some spoiled, rich brat that people cow-tow to. In short grow up and deal with it because if he were to ever get elected this is probably mild compared to the attacks he would undoubtably endure as president. If you can’t take the heat….

Read Full Post »

Well I don’t know about any of you but I had a decent weekend. It wasn’t too hot here in the high 80’s and low to mid 90’s. Nice but not too hot!

Apparently one of my posts 

https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/puma-call-to-action-let-the-dnc-know-you-wont-be-supporting-obama-in-november-and-oh-by-the-way-we-wont-be-sending-the-dnc-any-money-either/

was used by Obamabots on Yahoo answers as I had several visits yesterday from there I decided to see what was up. Kind of comical. The comments I mean.

What Will Obama Supporters do If Puma gets their way some how?

This Puma thing where they are pretty much black mailing the DNC to make Hillary the Nominee. I myself don’t think it will change anything. If they did that, I am sure some group that supports Obama would turn around and say the same thing.
But if some how Hillary pulls out an the nominee. How will Obama supporters react? Key word hear is Obama supporters, not Hillary supporters.

PUMA Call to Action; Let the DNC know you won’t be supporting Obama in November and OH, by the way we won’t be sending the DNC any money either https://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2008/0…

  • 14 hours ago
  • 3 days left to answer.
  • Here’s the link:  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsJVEq9zdJUdgaG75EaSSYTS7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20080713152431AAUHOKh

    Fricking Bots! I notice some Hillary supporters commenting there too! i’m still composing my own special  response. ;^0

    So they’re calling us blackmailers now! Hmmm! Wait a minute! I thought they said using the word black in any negative context was racism???? I mean if you can’t say black hole, black sheep and black-balled then they should not use such a word as blackmail right? Doesn’t that make them racists by their own standards?? I’m just sayin’!

    Funny how they see our demanding fair treatment for our candidate as extortion isn’t it? So then if things had been the other way around and their candidate had been robbed of rightfully earned delegates, constantly attacked and called a racist, persecuted by the media, and pretty much forced out of the race in spite of a long history in which no other candidate has ever been pushed and strong armed out of their right to compete they would not be demanding fair treatment, respect and the same treatment that every democratic candidate has been granted automatically in the past? They wouldn’t consider that blackmail now would they? The hypocrisy of these people is unprecedented! Apparently, if you drink the kool-ade, all judgement goes out the window and instead is replaced with a perverted sense of justice that only goes in one direction!

    I think I’ll just post a link to this post there instead of respondindg seperately. Unless that could be called racist…..   ;^I

    Whatever!

    CQ

    Read Full Post »

    « Newer Posts - Older Posts »