Posted: 18 Jul 2008 12:06 PM CDT
The McCain campaign unveiled a video showing Barack Obama's ever changing words on Iraq, from his very own mouth. The video is called "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand"
It is 7 minutes and it is found at YouTube here.
What this shows undoubtedly is a consistent attempt to rewrite history and to claim he "always" said one thing when, thanks to video proof, everyone can see for themselves that he "always" said the exact opposite.
On 1/10/07 it shows Barack Obama stating, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 addition troops in Iraq is gonna solve the sectarian violence there, in fact, I believe it it'll do the reverse".
The video jumps forward to 1/5/08, where he says, "And I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops there then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence."
Compare the two statements...
It is easy to pretend that you said one thing when you actually said another, but these blatant lies are being caught on tape to be used in campaign videos like this.
After those first completely contradictory statements, on the screen the video shows this caption- TRANSLATION: You're never Wrong If You Pretend You Gave The Right Answer All Along.
I believe this is one of the best videos, to date, because it shows these contradictions from Obama's own mouth.
Watch the whole video, it is well worth the 7 minutes and 49 seconds it will take.
The most powerful campaign video to date, in my opinion.
Posted: 18 Jul 2008 11:37 AM CDT
Today a column came out in Washington Post from Charles Krauthammer discussing Barack Obama's intention to speak at the Brandenburg Gate and calling that intent the "Audacity of Vanity".
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
He goes to explain why he feels that Obama has an "elevated" opinion of himself.
Read the whole thing...
That type of criticism has been heard around the conservative blogosphere and Obama's intention of trying to use the Brandenburg Gate for his planned speech, also caused quite a stir in Germany.
The Victory Column at Grosser Stern in Germany is second most well-known landmark of Berlin, with the Brandenburg Gate being the most well known.
What became a controversy within Germany over Barack Obama's desire to speak at the historical site of Brandenburg Gate, has been resolved and the location of his speech will be the Victory Column instead.
It was announced weeks ago that Barack Obama planned to give a speech in Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate, which became a hot button topic in Germany with conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel criticizing the proposal and the Social-Democratic vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking out in favor of it.
The official statement from Merkel's office, via her spokesperson Thomas Steg, regarding using such a historical site being used as a way to pull a potent symbol of German division and reunification into the American elections, was, "To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans."
As the Germans fought this issue out within Germany and it became apparent that it was becoming highly controversial, Obama's campaign weighed in, via his spokesperson Bill Burtonm saying, "Senator Obama looks forward to his visit to Germany and his opportunity to meet with the chancellor. He has considered several sites for a possible speech, and he will choose one that makes the most sense for him and his German hosts."
The internal German struggle continued and as a result a compromise has been reached, where Barack Obama will speak at The Victory Column instead with the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop.
The Brandenburg Gate is the spot where Ronald Reagan gave the speech where he told Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", and John F. Kennedy visited the landmark site in the 1960s.
Posted: 18 Jul 2008 01:24 AM CDT
The Physics and Society, one of 39 units of the American Physical Society will be sponsoring a public debate on the validity of global warming science. (Links to the first two papers below, one against the consensus and one for the consensus)
The debate is back on with dueling experts as the Physics and Society Forum unit within the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 50,000 physicists, now proclaim that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
On the APS' Physics and Society Forum, which is only 1 of 39 units of the APS itself, has an editors note declaring that "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
They go to say that because of the ramifications of any conclusions that are made will have "immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere" they will be presenting a debate within the pages of Physics and Society concerning the conclusion.
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Although this unit of the APS is arguing against the stated position of the APS itself, the APS has not changed their official position since November 2007, which is that global warming is from human activities, and they make it very clear that the Physics and Society paper is at odds with their official position and the newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed and that the Physics and Society forum is only one of 39 units within their organization.
In an email that Lord Monckton, who was the science adviser to Britain's Thatcher administration, sent to DailyTech, he says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
What this goes to show is that even physicist experts within the APS group, that has held and still holds, the official stance which says evidence of global warming is "incontrovertible", are still debating the issue despite that official stance.
What the Physics and Society Forum is doing is opening up the debate, publicly, that many have tried to declare as over.
The debate starts with Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley with the first article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion. In favor of the IPCC conclusion we have a jointly written article from David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz from from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
Scientists and experts from a variety of different fields are still arguing about this issue and with this new debate starting within the Physics and Society, the dueling experts are putting on their gloves, coming out of their corners and getting ready to rumble.
Posted: 17 Jul 2008 09:11 PM CDT
Background: on 02 JUL 08, two days prior to the 4th of July celebrations, Czar Barack delivered a speech. In that speech he said the following:
[...] We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." [...]Taken out of context, the Worry Alarms begin to wail. However, taken in context, the Worry Alarms cannot be heard or detected because the Tornado Klaxons across the nation are wailing.
The list of posts below reveal the on-going investigation and a gathering of many others looking into this subject of Barack's Private Army. However, as ususal, the Lame Stream Media is silent.
Be advised that we have the entire audio capture as well as the entire video capture as well because Barack has a nasty habit of scrubbing his web sites clean of potentially damaging items of interest and many You Tube videos have also been deleted.
Barack does not like a "paper trail".
We posted on this topic on 09 JUL 08 and have refused to give up and will press forward relentlessly until Barack Hussein Czar Obama comes clean and "clears the muddy waters", as it were. Good luck on that but the crowd he was addressing were the gathering of the IVAW Winter Soldier frauds associates of the Colorado Vets Against the War. Imagine that.
Was Barack in a feeding frenzy because fellow anti-Americanists were in the room? And what about Mr Bobble Head to the right of Obama and the poor wee lad to his left? Amazing. Sometimes I hate being able to read body language.
Will all that said, I have encountered others writing on this in recent days, today and others about the same time frame we began writing about it. Baracks' apparent desire to start a Civilian National Security Force comprised of members of AmeriCorp and Peace Corp members is strikingly eerie.
The Confederate Yankee and now Hot Air are talking about it. I originally thought, "What took them so long" but, there is so much news to cover it is a wonder that we even caught the drift of this. I have sent approx 20 emails with the audio clips of Barack Obama announcing this new Force on an equal par with the military to the major Lame Stream Media outlets, including Faux News...I mean Fox News. To date, not one network or cable news outlet has discussed this to my knowledge.
Why is that? What are they afraid of? Or, what are they trying to hide? How about we have a Special Investigative Council look into this unconstitutional endeavor on the part of the would be First Czar Obama?
Again, we will not let this go until there are viable explanations, wafflings and backtrackings but most importantly, apologies to the American People.
We Live In Upside Down Land
The Obama Youth: What's Next?
Barack's Civilian Army Just Keeps Getting More and More Interesting
Barack's Storm Troopers - The Obama Youth Corps
The Aspirants To The Presidency Say A Lot Of Things, But...
There are four more to add that are now blogging on this...'bout time
Right Wing News
Blue Collar Muse
The FIRST Moonbat Libtard Anti-Americanist site to mention it...ROFLMAO!!! Typical libtard.
Posted: 17 Jul 2008 08:25 PM CDT
Cross posted from Radarsite
From an original article at Counter Terrorism Blog.org
Crossroads in History: The Struggle against Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies
By Jeffrey Imm
In fighting Islamic supremacism, instead of an approach only based on tactical measures and efforts at clever twists of terminology, what if America had a true strategy that was instead based on the defense of our values on human equality and liberty?
The true challenge of Islamic supremacism to America and the free world is not about Islam, Islamism, or terrorism, but about us. It is a historic challenge to determine whether we truly have the courage of our convictions on equality and liberty and we are willing to fight for these ideals, or if we will instead accept the continuing growth of anti-freedom ideologies here and around the world.
Islamic supremacists are counting on their belief that America is no longer willing to fight for such freedoms, that it has gotten too soft to do so, and that regardless of the success or failure of individual Jihadist tactics, eventually we will tolerate a continued growth of Islamic supremacism. The crossroads in history that we stand at remains whether or not we will prove Islamic supremacists correct, or if the idea defined in our very Declaration of Independence and chiseled in a marble memorial in America's capital - that "all men are created equal" - is an idea that America will once again sacrifice to defend.
America and the West are at a critical crossroads in history in their faltering struggle with Islamic supremacist ideologies and Jihadist terror tactics. Increasingly, groups seek to halt any meaningful debate and halt any challenge to the ideology behind Jihad, and they seek to redirect such debate and action to focus only on the terrorist symptoms of such a supremacist ideology. Such diversionary efforts are being made by non-violent Islamic supremacist groups and activists, government officials, academics, and media commentators. The solution to this can be found in recognizing how Islamic supremacism (as any supremacist ideology) is opposed to our values, and in understanding America's historical experience in defeating other supremacist ideologies.
A. The Islamic Supremacist Declaration of War on Equality and Freedom
From a counterterrorist perspective, the Al Qaeda declarations of war against the United States in 1996 and 1998 are widely examined as a basis for a "war on terror." However, the Islamic supremacist challenges to equality and liberty have been occurring long before declarations of war by Al Qaeda or any other Islamic supremacist terrorist groups.
Three years after the defeat of the Nazi supremacists, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly advocated a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on human rights, freedom, and equality. In addition to abstention by Communist totalitarian nations, the Islamic supremacist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refused to support such a resolution on equality.
In 1981, the Islamic supremacist Republic of Iran effectively issued a Sharia-based declaration of war on such ideas "when its representative affirmed that the UDHR represented a secular interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition which could not be implemented by Muslims; if a choice had to be made between its stipulations and 'the divine law of the country,' Iran would always choose Islamic law." The Islamic supremacists leading Iran were more forthright in their position than Saudi Arabia; they stated clearly and unequivocally that equality and Sharia were clearly incompatible. In the midst of the Cold War, few truly appreciated this as the Sharia declaration of war on equality and freedom that it was.
In 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, the 57 nation Islamist supremacist organization, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah" -- an exclusionary ideology only for Muslims that denies freedom of religion and many other fundamental human rights of equality.
In 2001, nearly two months before the 9/11 attacks, the European Court of Human Rights determined that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society."
Throughout the world on a daily basis, as analysts pore over the details of violent groups and their tactics, the details of terrorist finance, and the details of battlefield theaters, the anti-democratic stories of Sharia repression are widely ignored by many as the war of ideas with Islamic supremacism is not fully understood even today.
B. "All Men Are Created Equal" Versus Sharia
Tacticians believe the war is between Al-Qaeda and the West, the Taliban and the West, Hezbollah and the West, between Shiite and Sunni "extremists," or between terrorists and those who advocate non-violence. But this tactical view of world war only sees snapshots of individual theaters of violent activity and propaganda. The true aspects of the war remain a clash of ideological views, not merely individual political demands or battles.
Many in the United States and United Kingdom government leadership positions definitely do not want debate on this clash of ideological views, because they rightly fear that this will lead to more, not less confrontation. The historical mistake that they make is the assumption that such confrontation is something we don't need and something we can avoid. American leaders who fear such confrontation ignore the historical lessons of how other supremacist ideologies were fought and defeated.
The root of the real war is the ideas of equality and liberty versus Sharia and an Islamic supremacist form of societal control. Little is written about this war, which has numerous fronts around the world -- violent and non-violent, with propaganda fronts, economic fronts, demographic fronts, legal fronts, educational fronts. It is really what happens in this war of ideas, not in the individual battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere that will be the deciding factor in our victory or defeat. But to understand this war of ideas, and understand the application of history in fighting supremacism to dealing with Islamic supremacism, we must understand the dual aspects of freedom and how they remain the greatest weapon in America's arsenal.
While Islamic supremacists view their growing population as their greatest weapon, America has its twin towers of freedom -- liberty and equality - which combined provides the greatest weapon on Earth against supremacism. Liberty and equality are the twin towers of America that can not and will not fall as long as American retains its commitment to its national values. America has proven the value of these hard-won ideological weapons against supremacist ideologies repeatedly throughout our history.
Liberty alone is not enough to fight supremacism. Liberty is only half of the equation of freedom; equality is the other completing half of freedom that provides the values to truly challenge any supremacist ideology -- the values of America that all men and women are created equal. We learned that nearly 90 years after America's creation, and we fought to rectify this with a dual commitment for equality as well as liberty.
In the larger, strategic war against Islamic supremacism, it is America's unique historical experience in the war of ideas against other supremacist organizations that our leaders must examine in finding answers and strategies in fighting Islamic supremacism today.
Click here to continue reading this commentary.
A note from Radarsite: This, I believe, is a vital essay. It is both alarming and encouraging. Alarming in the breadth and depth of our challenges, but encouraging in our potential for victory. I have long suspected that behind our leaders ongoing denial of the true Islamic menace, that stubborn, and seemingly delusional refusal to name Islam as our clear enemy, there has been the practical fear of escalation. Seen in this light, their apparent denial is more readily understood. It could then be assumed that, rather than being a result of ignorance or cowardice this has been a calculated strategic decision. A decision based on a position of an implied weakness. It is simply a matter of numbers. If we openly declare Islam to be our mortal enemy then we will most assuredly set the course for our own defeat. It is a mathematical certainty that if we take on the whole of Islam we will lose -- there are just too many Muslims in this world. Therefore, this hypothetical reasoning goes, it's better to contain the threats, to localize them, to subdivide the war into more winnable battles. In short, to decline the greater challenge and accept the consequences. Hoping that by winning these smaller battles we will eventually either demoralize our enemies, or perhaps eventually win them over.
Although this strategy may make some sort of short term sense, it is at best a losing hand. Why? Because our enemies are not going to be dissuaded by lost battles nor converted by stealth. In the end, the major confrontation we seek to avoid still looms and we still must choose our fate. We cannot escape our fate by ignoring it.
But, now comes the encouraging part.
"America has its twin towers of freedom -- liberty and equality - which combined provides the greatest weapon on Earth against supremacism. Liberty and equality are the twin towers of America that can not and will not fall as long as American retains its commitment to its national values. America has proven the value of these hard-won ideological weapons against supremacist ideologies repeatedly throughout our history."
America itself, our author reminds us, is our most formidable weapon. The force of its promise of freedom and hope is simply irresistible. Once experienced, the taste of freedom and hope is unforgettable. How many people of this world have freely chosen slavery and subjugation?
This, then, is our greatest guardian. Our omnipotent defense.
Posted: 17 Jul 2008 07:06 PM CDT
Barack Obama recently gave an interview to Glamour magazine, which LA Time's Top of the Ticket discusses in detail, showing that Barack Obama complains that "the conservative press -– Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk" pick on Michelle Obama. In fact, Obama calls it "infuriating".
Andrew Malcolm from Top of the Ticket correctly points out, "Trouble is, when any candidate's family members openly campaign as actively as Michelle Obama has been promoting her husband's agenda at huge and small rallies, in media interviews and at fundraisers, they're considered pretty much fair game. And rightly so."
Well said and valid point.
Obama needs to understand if he is going to put his wife in the spotlight, he cannot be surprised when the light shines on her and her mistakes.
To top it off and guaranteed to have Obama even more infuriated, the Washington Republican Party has a new ad out, "welcoming" Michelle Obama to the state.
YouTube URL here and video below-
Obama and his wife are going to need some thicker skin, because as long as he puts her in the limelight, he should expect her words to come back and haunt him.
After all, the GOP would haven't the video of Michelle Obama saying that "this campaign marked the first time she was proud of her country" if she hadn't actually said it.
According to Ben Smith's Politico, the Obama campaign, Bill Burton, is already complaining about this new Washington GOP ad.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds: "With our economy in shambles, our nation at war and our challenges mounting by the day, it is beyond sad that the Republican Party of Washington would spend its time launching shameful attacks on the wife of a candidate--attacks our current First Lady Laura Bush has decried . Michelle Obama has lived the American Dream, and it's love of country that leads Michelle and Barack to make this race. But how does it strengthen our country to pollute our politics with false and mean-spirited attacks? John McCain promised us better. It's up to him to curb these tactics, or take responsibility for them."
When the McCain responds, I will update this.
Posted: 17 Jul 2008 05:22 PM CDT
The controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright and his sermons that were made public, via video, and the fact that Barack Obama sat in Wright's church for 16 years, while bringing forth questions about Obama's agreement or disagreement with Wright's controversial words, the very fact that he was sitting in a church and not a mosque would imply strongly that Barack Obama is a practicing Christian and not a Muslim.
Despite all of that and the extensive public relations campaign to make it clear to the American public, 12 percent of Americans still think that Obama is Muslim, according to Pew Research in their latest release.
The breakdown shows that 12 percent of Democrats, 12 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Independents still hold that belief.
The poll also shows that Democrats that share that misconception about Obama are "significantly less likely to support Obama."
Among the 12 percent that still believe that Obama is Muslim, despite evidence to the contrary, 51 percent back McCain and 37 percent back Obama. Among those that believe that Obama is a Christian, those numbers reverse themselves, with 52 percent backing Obama and 32 percent backing McCain.
Then the report delves into the one-quarter of voters that say they do not know.
One-quarter of voters say they don't know what Obama's religious beliefs are, including 10% who say the reason they don't know is not that they "just don't know enough about him," but instead that they've "heard different things about his religion." Significantly, those who have heard different things about Obama's religion favor McCain by a margin of 48% to 33%, while those who just don't know enough about it favor Obama 48% to 33%.
The issue is less substantial with the Independents, with those believing that Obama is Christian showing that they are evenly divided between John McCain and Barack Obama and those who think or have heard Obama is Muslim, show more support for McCain by a 50 percent to 34 percent margin.
In a Pew poll from March 2008, the numbers show a slight difference.
In March, 14 percent of Republicans believed that Obama was a Muslim, which has gone down to 12 percent in the latest report but the number rises the same 2 percent with Democrats, going from the March figure of 10 percent, to the most recent figure of 12 percent and Independents back in March showed that only 8 percent believed the misconception while todays numbers show 11 percent now do.
This shows that the belief that Obama is Muslim has decreased in the minds of Republicans but somehow increased in Democrats and Independents.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|