Wake up America

Biden Thinks Voting For Obama Just Because He is Black 'Will Be Transformative'

Posted: 15 Sep 2008 10:45 AM CDT

If Barack Obama continues to allow Joe Biden to speak, the he has worse judgment than anyone understands. Vote for Barack Obama because he is black? Are you kidding me?

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

"That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally," Biden said. "That all by itself will be significant."

First he tells a man in a wheelchair to stand, then in New Hampshire he admits Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice as vice president than he was and now this?

The man is a walking, talking gaffe.

Most people have a filter in their head, which stops every thought from just being blurted out, and filters what should be said and what shouldn't just come tumbling out.

Biden's filter is gone, never existed maybe or is simply malfunctioning but he doesn't seem to understand that every thought that goes on in his mind should not necessarily come out of his mouth.

H/T Michelle Malkin.

.

Obama Tried To Interfere With Iraq Negotiations During His Trip

Posted: 15 Sep 2008 08:20 AM CDT

The New York Post has Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on record showing that Barack Obama tried to interfere with ongoing negotiations with Iraqi leaders when he was on his so-called fact finding, photo-op, trip to Iraq not long ago.

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.

Why would he do such a thing?

Because in order for him to have any type of credibility he needed to convince Americans that things were still going badly in Iraq.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

The fact that Iraqi officials are going on record to let people know what Obama tried to do is bad, very bad, but what is worse is that Barack Obama was telling his supporters one thing while deliberately, secretly doing another.

Worse yet, he was interfering with ongoing negotiations without the right to do so which could have jeopardized those very negotiations for no other reason than to use it for his campaigning.

Barack Obama has no authority to negotiate with Iraqi leaders, yet he did, which shows incredible hubris on his part as well as a lack of concern for what is best for America and replacing what is best for America with what is best for his own political aspirations.

Hot Air weighs in with another factor involved with his trying to interfere with diplomatic negotiations.

Hypocrisy isn't the issue here; it's the interference of Obama in military and diplomatic affairs. Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation. Interfering with war policy treads on even more serious ground, especially since the primary motivation appears to be winning an election without regard to whether it damages our ability to fight the enemy or drives wedges between us and our ally, the elected, representative government in Baghdad.

Big mistake, rookie mistake and goes to show that Obama is willing to try to cause Americas defeat simply so he can obtain victory into the White House.

Far cry from John McCain, who fought for the surge in Iraq, which has succeeded as even Obama has recently admitted, with McCain saying back in 2007, via Politico, "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war."

Which man is willing to put his country before his campaign and political aspirations?

In July, according to a Fox embed, John McCain said it seemed to him Barack Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

Perhaps he was right.

Which man stands for "Country First?"
.

Michigan Branch Of ACORN Putting Through "Sizable, Duplicate, Fraudulent Voter Applications

Posted: 14 Sep 2008 05:30 PM CDT

The Michigan branch of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), located in Detroit, is being investigated after several municipal clerks reported fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications coming through.

The majority of the fraudulent and duplicate applications are coming from the ACORN group based in Detroit, Michigan, which now has ACORN investigating the problem once again as well as the Secretary of State's Office turning over some of those applications to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

According to the report by Freep.com, the spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office, Kelly Chesney, says there is a "sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications. And it appears to be widespread."

ACORN has registered 200,000 voters statewide in recent months with the use of paid, part time employees.

In recent years, ACORN's voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.

Examples of the problems they are finding with some of the ACORN submitted applications are numerous applications filed in one name, described as a "huge number," and some with names that appear to be made up.

A spokesman for the Detroit office of ACORN, David Lagstein, claims the problem stems from "sloppiness or incompetence -- not an intent to let people vote more than once."

More information about ACORN and their previous history of voter registration problems can be found at Wikipedia.

Recently ACORN was in the news when the Milwaukee Election Commission started an investigation because of voters that ACORN was trying to add to voter rolls were dead, imprisoned or imaginary people.

The Pittsburgh Tribune also reported the Barack Obama campaign recently amended their Federal Election Commission report to reflect $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal ACORN group, called Citizens Services Inc., which is a subsidiary of the ACORN group.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.

FEC spokeswoman, Mary Brandenberger, says it is not unusual for campaigns to amend reports regarding large sums of money.

The Pittsburgh Tribune article details much more information about ACORN and Obama's prior associations as an organizer for Project Vote, an ACORN offshoot, and represented ACORN in legal actions, which was reported by various media outlets as well as the Associated Press.

Coincidentally, The Pittsburgh Tribune was discussed in a report here yesterday about the papers owner, Richard Mellon Scaife and his most recent meeting with what has been called his "archenemy," Bill Clinton.

Scaife, once called the "Funding Father Of the Right, by Washington Post in 1999, spent millions of dollars to "unearth damaging information" regarding Bill Clinton during his presidential term.

Seems like a whole lot of coincidences here.

.

It would be impossible to defend that Daily Kos 9/11 cartoon, right? Wrong.

Posted: 14 Sep 2008 05:05 PM CDT

A note from Radarsite: After posting this article to the History Channel Boards I started wondering if anyone would actually write in to defend the Daily Kos' publication of this cartoon. No, I decided, that would be impossible. They might find a way to attack me, but no one in their right mind could defend that hideous cartoon or that despicable website that published it.
And yet, incredibly, unbelievably, they have.
To me, this response is even more disturbing than the cartoon itself. Although the author of these comments addresses me repeatedly by name, I am deleting his. However, if anyone wants to read these comments for themselves I have provided the link above. Normally Radarsite posts a commentary at the end of an article. But in this case I will not. I will not reply personally because, even though these comments were directed at me, I feel that they are in reality directed at us all. I await your responses. - rg

From The History Channel Boards

Re: The Daily Kos: Beyond Outrage, Beneath ContemptSep 14, 2008 6:35 AM
> Can someone, anyone, explain this to me? > > http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/09/daily-kos-beyond > -outrage-beneath.html

I can...but you won't like the answer. I can...but you don't WANT ananswer: If any Democrat or liberal out there does not immediately and passionately condemn this post, and condemn this vicious traitorous website and everything it stands for, if any Democrat or liberal out there does not at oncedisassociate themselves from this horror, then you are indeed the enemy, and I hate you as vehemently as I do al Qaeda. Perhaps even more vehemently, because you have the arrogance to consider yourselves to be Americans.

Therein lies the problem, Roger. Since I am not about to do what you have demanded, you will immediately label me, as you said, the "enemy". This is a sickness common to the right; you feel that you MUST have 'enemies". Not just to help you sort out
friend from foe, you actually need them to justify your very existence. Before you condemn me however, I would ask only one thing: that you be honest enough to read what I am about to write--in its entirety. You still will not like me, but if you are HONESTLY seeking an answer to your question (assuming it was notrhetorical) I will give you one.

I suppose that a dislclaimer is necessary at this point: I lost a very good friend whom I had known since childhood that day. He wasn't a policeman or firefighter, just one of the office folks desperately trying to get out of the building. He didn't make it.

Now, for your answer. It would help if you understood something of the grieving process we ALL suffer when tragedy of any sort occurs, from losing a job, to death of a loved one, to facing our own deaths, to deaths on a scale, or under circumstances, that we cannot even begin to wrap our minds around. To this day, the Holocaust, the Stalanist purges, the Pol Pot regime, the Bataan Death March, the fire bombing of Dresden, and others like them are events that I can comprehend intellectually, but not emotionally. Could I take another person's life? Sure. Could I kill 1,000 people at once? No. Would I feel some overriding guilt at being the agent of another person's death? Only if I was an unintentional agent.

That being said, the grieving process follows a pretty standard path: first, there is denial that whatever the tragedy is has happened, or is happening. Then, once forced to acknowledge it, we get angry, for we don't like to suffer pain of loss (and if you believe that people grieve first for others, you are wrong; we grieve first for ourselves, then for others).

As the anger begins to cool down, we begin to bargain. "God, if you take away this disease, I will go to church every Sunday, and build a shrine in your name!" We promise that which we have never been able to achieve before as a gesture that we are serious. It doesn't have to be to God; it can be to a doctor, ("cure my child, and I'll give everything I have to your favorite charity!") our spouse or parent ("If you will forgive me and take me back, I will change my ways!") the bargaining is pretty straightforward.

But when fate pursues its inevitable course, we enter into depression. We can't shield ourselves from the truth with denial; our anger hasn't done us a bit of good; and whatever force(s) in the universe that control things seem to want a higher return on their investment than our good intentions. At some point during the depression, we come to a realization--that whatever it is that has made us grieve is not going to change, to stop, to reverse itself, so we must accept it. We don't have to be happy about such acceptance--but we acknowledge that things are what they are. If you are outside when it begins to rain, you don't have to like the rain, but you accept the fact that you are wet. Acceptance is a crucial point in the grieving process; it allows you to move on in your life. It doesn't mean that you forget what (or who) made you grieve, nor does it mean that you stop feeling sad; it simply means that this thing did, is, or will happen, and nothing is going to change it.

When the twin towers were struck, do you remember your first reaction? I remember mine. "No--this can't be happening! I refuse to believe it!" That's denial. A part of the denial is a false hope: "Okay, this is bad; but they'll be able to get out..."

Then the shots of the buildings collapsing: "NO! Buildings just don't fall down like that!" False hope: "They had enough time to get everyone out. Those poor people who jumped didn't have too; they just panicked..."

Then the anger begins: "WTF just happened, and why?" As the story comes out, and it becomes clear that terrorists are trying to hurt this country, that anger becomes rage: "This isn't your g-damned backward third world country, you a$$holes; this is the USA!" The rage intensifies: "find the f**kers who did this, and kill them; painfully, if possible. Then kill any of their friends with the same idea, then kill their families; hell--find out where they came from and nuke the whole f**king country back to the Stone Age!" We lash out at Afghanistan: "God, let us just go in, grab Bin Laden, and kick the s**t out of anyone who gets in our way. If he puts up a fight, please make sure his death is slow and very painful..."

Then comes a period of depression. We have searched for him and not gotten him. The a$hole keeps eluding us." (A return to anger). But then we come to acceptance. We have cleared Ground Zero; we have buried the dead. We have supported the families who had direct losses; we have honored the heroes of that day. Each in our own way, we have tried to understand what Abraham Lincoln understood 143 years ago at Gettysburg: But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

But we Americans have a couple of problems with tragedies of this sort. This first is an almost congenital belief that we are (or should be) immune from the same problems that the rest of the world has. We are not. Then, too, we have a large portion of the population which needs to justify their continued anger and hatred against others outside this country--and we do this by great public displays of mourning, even 8 years after the tragedy. Are there people who are still genuinely mouring? I'm sure there are; but the majority do so because it has become expected of them (and certainly, with sentiments such as those you expressed on your blog, perhaps you can understand why someone would rather mourn publicly than be accused of anti-Americanism) .

But there are an even smaller number who continue to use the tragedy for blatanlty self-serving means. This is not the first time it has been done; "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember the Maine!" "Remember Pearl Harbor!" are examples of tragedies which were used for blatantly political causes. (Please note that I DO NOT impugn any of them; I merely state the truth: that they were used as ignition points to fan the flames of both patriotism and hatred in this country, ) The British cartoonist who drew the picture is under no compunction to share our ingrained societal outrage. He may, in fact see our annual mourning as an exercise in ghoulishness, picking at a wound, not letting it heal, as a way to justify our behaviors abroad (and at home).

Finally, why would the Daily Kos call it ghoulish? Perhaps because they understand that Dubya used the tragedy to further his own presidency, and that perhaps giving the country a chance to heal would have been better. Also, when you look at the history of Republican politics, there has ALWAYS been an amorphous external enemy or a heinous internal enemy against which to rally the faithful. And that is what the Republicans need to do: to use 9/11 as a visual image around which the faithful can rally. One need only look at Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the GOP convention to see that they pulled out every patriotic image to flash on the sceens behind her; a constant reminder to the faithful of who the "real" patriots were.

It is this reckless willingness to divide the people into "patriots" and "non-patriots" based on their adherence to proper modes of behaviors that is a Republican staple, and leads to assinine statements such as this: ...then you are indeed the enemy, and I hate you as vehemently as I do al Qaeda. Perhaps even more vehemently, because you have the arrogance to consider yourselves to be Americans.

Given that trian of thought Roger, how long will it be before you can rationalize calling someone the "enemy" because he comes from a different part of the country, or has a different color skin, or worships differently than you do? There is the answer, roger. I told you that you wouldn't like it; but it IS th truth.

A PS from Radarsite: It seems that that entire response in support of that DK cartoon posted at the history Channel has mysteriously disappeared. If this was the decision of their moderator, I applaud them. Unfortunately however, it's too late. The article has already been written and I am not going to delete it. Someone wrote that response. Someone thought those thoughts. And you published them. Moreover, I believe that these comments did not originate in the mind of one lone lunatic, but accurately represent the opinions of those associated with the publication of those cartoons. For these reasons I am leaving this article untouched. If the History Channel wishes to make any statement regarding this issue I will happily post it - rg

Press 4 TRUTH Video Blog

Pages

Monday, 15 September 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

No comments:

Post a Comment