The United States On The Verge Of A Civil War

The United States is on the verge of collapse, and the government is readying a respond. Internment camps to house dissidents are being built, secret meetings on Capitol Hill to “discuss” economic collapse, and preparing the military to quell a looming civil war, are all happening under our very noses. Is this the storyline of a big-budget Hollywood movie or the plot for the next season of “24?” Not at all. This is the gist of several “articles” written by Linn Cohen-Cole, for opednews.com:

Linn Cohen-Cole: United States Building Internment Camps

I hope Ms. Cole believes in the 2nd Amendment, because it looks like we are going to need it. Ms. Cole is trying to pass her opinion off, and the opinion of others, as factual news, as many conspiracy theorists do. The United States has been on the “verge” of failing since 1776, yet somehow we manage to overt catastrophe every time. Go figure.

There is a sense of disappointment by some when their apocalyptic beliefs fail to materialize. Ms. Cole probable thinks of herself as “one of the canaries in the mine” warning all of us of our pending doom. In reality this “Mad Max” vision of the world is nothing more than the fantasy of the polluted mind of a Progressive.

The Housing Bailout: Unfair To Those That Played By The Rules

President Bush signed the housing bailout bill into law, something he promised he would not do. It does not take a genius to figure out that the housing crisis was completely avoidable. It also does not take a genius to see that the housing bailout bill is the wrong response:

Wall Street Journal: The housing bailout sends the wrong message

Once again the burden of paying for irresponsible behavior falls on the tax payer. The bill rewards bad credit behavior, while punishing those that followed the rules and spent within their means. Additionally, this bill will increase the federal debt limit by $800 BILLION DOLLARS to $10.6 trillion dollars. The bill also features a provision requiring the reporting of ALL credit transaction that occur on-line (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Ebay), regardless of whether they have anything to do with the purchase of a home (????????....why!). Why would the government (in particular, the IRS) need this information, to impose NEW taxes!

The lone voice speaking out against this madness was Senator Coburn, of Oklahoma:

American Thinker: Coburn Stands Alone

The Housing Bailout is just another example of Washington's "rape and pillage mentality" against the American Taxpayer. It may be time for the American Taxpayer's to consider a "pitchfork rebellion," but Congress will probably figure out away to tax the pitchforks.

Barrack Obama: Global Poverty Is America's Problem

Senator Obama should gather today’s musically artist together and set Senate Bill 2433 (S. 2433) to music. He can call it “We Are The World Part II.”

Senator Barrack Obama’s Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act, would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of:

• Promoting the reduction of global poverty
  

• The elimination of extreme global poverty


• The achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day

Global Poverty Bill

Obama’s bill places the burden of the plan on the backs of the President and the American Tax Payer. This bill threatens the sovereignty of the United States by surrendering control of our economic prosperity to the UN. The Millennium Development Goal mandates key benchmarks of wealth distribution AWAY from American workers (you and me) in “favor” of “developing nations.”

The vagueness of what would be deemed the success or failure of the Global Poverty Act benefits the UN, not Americans. The act would hold Americans as economic hostages forever, and tie the hands of all future US Presidents.

This bill seemed dead back in 2007, when Obama first introduced it, and received very little notice in the early part of 2008. But with Obama ascension to the top of the Democratic heap, S. 2433 is alive and well, and stronger than ever. S. 2433 must be stopped!

Newsbusted: Franken, Obama World Tour, Illegals Flipping Burgers

Senator Ted Stevens: The King Of Pork Indicted

Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the finical architect of the “Bridge to nowhere,” has been indicted for corruption by the US Justice Department:

AP: Alaskan Senator Indicted

Just another example of corrupted power, and more fodder for Democrats (and rightly so). But is this just an indictment of one person, or really a condemnation of the practice of “pork barrel spending?”

Iran Blames America For The AIDS Virus

And the hits just keep on coming. Spewing more hatred and paranoia, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the United States for the AIDS virus:

Winnipeg Sun: Big powers are going down

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought I was reading a quote from Reverend Wright.

Is George Bush Batman?

Andrew Klavan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote an interesting piece entitled What Bush and Batman Have in Common.

Is the comparison between President Bush and Batman accurate? Does our interpretation of Batman’s actions depend on whether we Left leaning or Right leaning? Is the audiences’ veiled allegiance to Batman a silent understanding that in order for good to prevail it sometimes requires desperate measures?

Batman is a fictional character that has the comfort of a predetermined story. There is a beginning, a middle, and end that are all defined. Our leaders do not have that same luxury. The story unfolds before them, and there are no special effects, stuntmen, or rewrites helping the plot along. There are no super heroes, only ordinary men who do extraordinary things. How they are revered or vilified is left to the world, and depends less on the truth and more on the audiences’ point of view.

House Committee To Talk Bush Impeachment

The House Judicial Committee will “officially hear” testimony regarding what some are calling potentially impeachable offenses on the part of President Bush’s administration. The hearing, which is titled "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations," followed a vote that sent Representative Kucinich's impeachment resolution to the panel.

The hearing isn't explicitly about impeachment, and House members have been warned by Pelosi to temper impeachment talks; but rest assured a few House members, along with witnesses, will openly “express interest” in the possibility of impeachment.

It’s Summer time, and people are bored, so maybe we should just go forward and have an impeachment trial. It has been 10-years since the last one, so it might be a nice distraction from the high gas prices, the record foreclosures, and the growing nuclear threat in Iran. Yeah, I think “We The People…” could use some entertainment.

I decided that the best news report I could use to illustrate the recklessness of this action was from the Iranian “sponsored” news agency:

From Iran: George Bush is a war criminal

Iran's "Nonpaper:" Nuclear Standoff Continues

The International Herald Tribune reported that many diplomats attending the recent international talks concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions deemed Iran’s presentation “laughable:”

Dealing with Iran is no laughing matter

Just a samll suggestion to Iran. Maybe you should invest in Microsoft Word before trying to build The Bomb! Grammar and spell check might have helped; but of course that would mean that Iran would have to join the 21^st Century!

What is distressing is that this is the third major meeting, and the first to include a representative from the United States, held with Iran in the past year and half. Each meeting ends with most of the Western diplomats using the word “disappointing” to describe Iran’s substance and style.

Iran continues with its diplomatic charade, insisting that the burden to achieving a nuclear treaty should lie with the rest of the World. With its track record, does anybody really believe we can honestly negotiate with Iran?

Michael Addison: Judge Throws Out Cop Killers Confession

Officer Michael Briggs

Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire has thrown out the admission by cop killer Michael Addison, in the shooting death of Manchester, NH Police Officer Michael Briggs.

Judge McGuire ruled that the police violated Michael Addison’s rights by not immediately halting questioning when he said he wanted a lawyer.

Cop Killers Confession Thrown Out

Does this alleged police violation warrant throwing out the confession? Addison did not stop talking, nor was there any suggestion that Addison was coerced into a confession. In fact, Addison indicated he wanted to talk with the interviewing officers even after mentioning a lawyer. In light of these facts, did the police act inappropriately?

Majority Of Economists See McCain Better For Stocks

The US Stock Market would fare much better under McCain than Obama according to a recent survey of leading economist:

Economist Believe McCain Would be Better For The Economy

Newsbusted: Obama Saves The World, Gore Is A Hypocrite

Obama’s Tour Of Duty

Recently NBC News Anchor Lester Holt decided to open the evening newscast with the following statement:

HOLT: "Tour of Duty" as Obama visits the war zone: The fight over where to send combat troops next.

Obama is on a photo-op tour and nothing more. Any inference that this trip merits being labeled “tour of duty,” is ridiculous and insulting to those in the military ACTUALLY serving a "Tour of Duty."

Obamapolooza World Tour T-Shirts On Sale Now!

Hotair recently announced their “Obama World Tour ‘08’ t-shirt finalist. Here are the results:

Obama World Tour - Opening Act: ABC, CBS, NBC

Looks like the audience at Hotair were far kinder than the Liberals over at the New Yorker magazine.

New York Times To McCain: You Need To Sound More Like Obama

On July 14, the New York Times “featured” an unedited “op-ed” piece from Senator Obama regarding what “we” should do in Iraq. Senator McCain offered a counter “op-ed” piece in response to the Obama editorial. But you did not get to see it in the New York Times. Why you may ask? Because the New York Times refused to publish it:

New York Times: It Is Only Censorship When The US Government Does It

The New York Times brags that it is the newspaper of record for “the World.” What they really meant to say was their view of the World. And they wonder, along with MSNBC, why more and more people are tuning into Fox News.

What Is Obama Afraid Of?

CBS agreed to televise a “townhall” style event in front of military families on August 11. This townhall meeting is now in jeopardy because one of the candidates, Senator Barrack Obama, will not be attending due to “scheduling conflicts:”

Reuters: Obama throws CBS' town hall debate into doubt

Obama Rejects Military Town Hall Meeting

Just a few months ago Obama said that he would meet McCain “anyplace, anytime;” or were those “just words?” Obama’s reluctance to attend the event is understandable because there will no teleprompters to read from, and he will be required to answer unscripted questions. Obama’s unwillingness to engage the American people in a candid conversation is alarming, yet largely ignored by his supports and the media (which at times seems to be one in the same).

Obama appeared before the NAACP, put refused to answer questions, yet receives a standing ovation. McCain appears before the very same group, goes on to answer unscripted questions at the end of his speech, and then goes into the audience and engages in one-on-one conversations; but received only a “friendly welcome.” Yet, Obama's lack of interaction at the NAACP event, as well as many other events, goes largely unreported by the media.

We can learn a great deal about a person, not only by what they won’t do, but by what they will do. Obama won’t talk to the families of American soldiers, but will talk to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, against the wishes of an ally (Israel). McCain has held thousands of townhall style meetings, but chooses to forgo a conversation with Abbas during a trip to Israel out of respect to our ally. At least one Presidential Candidate seems to be setting the right priority.

Worse yet is that CBS has offered no criticism of Obama, and seems prepared to back away from the event. But CBS, along with ABC and NBC, has very little problem serving as Obama's PR machine during his trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe. If CBS truly believed in this event they would go forward with it and publicly challenge Obama to attend. Regardless, you know that McCain will be there even without the cameras or an opponent, because in the end McCain understands the meaning of commitment and respect.

The question that begs to be asked, and demands to be answered is simple: "Mr. Obama, what are afraid of?"

Obama: Who Do You Think You Are?

Washington Post commentator Charles Krauthammer recently wrote a piece regarding Obama’s request to speak in front Brandenburg Gate:

Houston Chronicle: Seriously now, just who does Obama think he is?

Looking at the sum total of the man, Obama is nowhere near earning the right to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate, and it is very unlikely he will ever really earn that right.

Who Can Use The Word Nigger?

Please Be Advised – This posting contains frank, and too many, offensive language.

The recent “hot mic” video, featuring Jesse Jackson uttering the word nigger, and the on-air discussion at “The View,” where Whoopi and Sherri Shepard tried to justify the words use, has a lot of people talking once again about the exploitation of the word. It is a conversation that is confusing and scary to many people, and is divided along racial lines.

I purposely did not use the “N-word” reference, which is often bandied about when people try to have a discussion regarding the word nigger. The "N-word" reference plays right into the debate of who can use the word nigger? Is it that no one can use the word, everyone can use the word, or just certain people can use the word? Contrary to the current argument (which is just an extension of the same old argument) words are not owned by any one person, or collection of people. The meaning of a word is determined by what the majority of society commonly assigns to that word. The word nigger has been rightly classified as one of those words that are so filled with hatred it does not belong in everyday language. That is not to say it shouldn’t be spoken, but it should only be used in a setting that respects the words negative connotation.

I detest the word nigger, like I despise most obscene language. But the word nigger is much more offensive, regardless of who is using it. The word nigger is so deeply rooted in human depravity and societal oppression it should only be used in the context of a historical understanding. The word nigger is directly connected to one of America’s greatest failures, slavery. The word nigger was meant to move an entire class of people to the category of “sub-human,” and regardless of how some people try to spin it, the word will always represent the subjugation of African-Americans. By believing that you can use the word to mean something different DOES NOT remove its roots in an evil institution, an institution which violates every principal that natural law stands for.

How ignorant is it for us to debate the vileness that the word nigger communicates? I place the word nigger right up there with cunt. Imaging if it became common place for women to refer to each other as cunts, but in their context, the significance was meant as a friendly greeting between women. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? But then add a rule that ONLY women can use the word cunt, and that if anyone else (meaning: non-woman) dared to use the word, it would be deemed offensive. Sounds even more ridiculous. Both words are hateful, and are meant to humiliate and cause pain. So why would we want these words to remain a part of our everyday language? The answer is simple, we wouldn’t.

We are doomed as a culture if we decide that it is alright to segregate language, but then expect equality everywhere else. If an entire segment of our society chooses to use the word nigger, then demands that the word has a different meaning when used by others, then it is an affirmation to the obscenity of the word. Try as you might, you will NEVER be able to separate the cruel history of the term nigger by trying to apply your own definition to the word. You will only allow the word to live on beyond its tainted uselessness.

The path to the orgin of the word nigger is simple to trace. The word nigger starts with a group of people being stolen from their homeland and shipped to a foreign land. The word nigger was used as those very same people where paraded around and sold like livestock. The word nigger was used when families were separated for the sake of an evil commerce. The word nigger was used while the slaves were whipped, beaten, raped and maimed because they were deemed as nothing more than a “piece of property. “ The word nigger was used to keep an entire race “in their place” after their “emancipation.” That is the history of the “N-word.” Not the Black history, not the White history, but the true history. No good can come from trying to attach a different meaning to the word. The word nigger is an ugly scab on America, and each time the word nigger is used we reopen that wound.

Governor Palin: Alaska Is Ready To Help America

Alaskan Governor Palin is showing the type of leadership that many in DC seem to have abandoned for the sake of political expediency.

Governor Palin, frustrated with the inaction by Congress to solve our energy and economic needs, took her case to the American people. Governor Palin posted a guest posting on Senator John Cornyn’s webpage:

Palin: Alaska Wants To Serve America

To Governor Palin’s point, any discussion of a broad base energy plan must include ANWR. Governor Palin is once again showing the type of leadership that would make her a perfect Vice Presidental pick for McCain.

John McCain Chats With The NAACP

Presidential nominee John McCain won points by appearing in-front of the NAACP, but it is unlikely those points will convert to votes:

Baltimore Sun: McCain and NAACP

There are many, both Republican and Democrats, which believe that all African-Americans are born Democrat, and any attempts to change that is lunacy. What a ridiculous assumption by both parties. What is needed is honest dialogue, not color-coded rhetoric. That dialogue can only happen if Republicans, in particular Conservatives, are willing to sit-down at the same table with our fellow Americans, regardless of color or ethnicity. But that conversation must be a two-way street. Sure, it may be tough at first, but each exchange will help to build a stronger relationship for all involved.

Kudos to John McCain, and the NAACP audience members, for showing their willingness to enter into a conversation. McCain didn’t shy away from answering question at the NAACP conference, devoting 12-minutes at the end of his speech to taking questions from the floor. He also spent some additional time at the end of the Q&A talking with audience members on the floor. It is unfortunates that many in the media chose to only talk about the school voucher elements of McCain’s speech.

There are many Conservative values that would be appealing to any neighborhood, including the African-American community. Our message is truly one of equality, but Conservatives have allowed the Democratic Party to hijack the discussion and define us as no inclusive. The integrity of this debate demands that it not be about votes, but about the two different ideologies that represent Conservatives and Liberals. Point for point, Conservatives values will win over Progressive values, but only if we entered into a dialogue with those in need of the message.

John McCain’s visit to the 2008 NAACP Conference proves that he believes in his principals, and is an indication of his readiness to represent ALL Americans.

Washington Post Editorial Eviscerates Progressives Regarding Iraq

The Washington Post expressed what they feel is an indifference that many Progressives represent, including Senator Obama, regarding the outcome of the Iraq War:

Washington Post: Liberals Wrong On Iraq

Newsbusted: Jesse Jackson, Iran, Iraq

Black Genocide: The Sad Truth About Abortion and The African-American Community

The term Black Genocide is an expression that a New Jersey Minister, the Rev. Clenard Childress, uses to describe the epidemic of abortions that is affecting the Black community. There is no truer way to describe this tragedy.

Statistics tell us that 1 in every 2 pregnancies of a Black woman will end in abortion. What is even sadder is the fact the NAACP has turned their backs to this heartbreaking situation:

Wall Street Journal: NAACP Ignores Their Own Members Regarding Abortion

The NAACP seems to want to ignore or forget the words of two of their most prominent members:

Martin Luther King, Jr.:

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE."

Rev. Jesse Jackson:

" That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'niggers'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified.”

Are these words any less true today then the day they were first spoken? What has changed in the minds of some African-American leaders that they would walkway from Rev. Jackson’s and Rev. King’s statements? Why would the NAACP turn their backs on a crisis that is responsible for killing 50% of their babies? Has a “deal with the devil” type of arrangement with the Democratic Party been needed to achieve other social endeavors?

As I have stated in the past abortion is a human rights issue. In comparison, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in America. That number is surpassed every three days with the aborting of African-American babies. A fact that many in the NAACP are aware of, yet apparently choose to ignore. I wonder if Martin Luther King, Jr. would have sold out his principles as easily?

The New Yorker Cover: What Exactly Is The Problem?

What the New Yorker Magazine did with their over the top Obama magazine cover (July 2008) was outrageous, but it achieved exactly what it was meant to do. A picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case millions of words (not to mention dollars), and man did this picture hit a hornets nest.

The Obama cartoon cover stirred up controversy, there-by providing oodles of free press, which in turn attracted readers (customers). Money is why the New Yorker exist, and with this issue they made a lot of it. But what about the content and message of the Obama article?

The New Yorker was trying to illustrate the “myths and rumors” that some on the Left feel “many Americans” have surrounding the Obama’s. Yet isn’t ironic that any expressed belief that these myths and rumors regarding Obama are held by a majority of non-Obama supporters (in particular Conservatives) are not only false, but really only reside in the imagination of liberals, as the New Yorker cover demonstrate so elegantly.

Now I am not saying that there aren’t people out there that don’t believe these rumors about Obama, but their numbers are so insignificant their not worth our attention. The New Yorker was trying to exaggerate a fallacy that perpetuates a real myth, that white America is really racist if you dig hard enough. But the controversies surrounding the New Yorker Magazine rest solely with Liberals.

Even funnier are the follow-up editorials and news reports (as collected by the LA Times…..consider the source):

Over at Top of the Ticket, Andrew Malcolm explains why the cover could be dangerous:

A lot of people won't get the joke. Or won't want to. And will use it for non-humorous purposes, which isn't the New Yorker's fault.

A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to-make-fun-of-them punchline.

At Pandagon, Jesse Taylor agrees that the cover doesn't work as satire, particularly because it has to be explained:

It’s not actually satirizing the phenomenon of right-wing e-mail forwards, it’s just creating the ultimate version thereof. To put it in a different context, it’s like holding a satirized Klan rally by holding a Klan rally...with a laser show that makes a three-story image of a burning cross. A bigger, badder, better version of the thing you’re attempting to mock doesn’t constitute mockery, it just constitutes a gaudier version of the thing you’re addressing.

The Plank also thinks it doesn't work, because of the magazine's elitist posture:

And that, of course, is precisely what's wrong with the cover: the image is satirical only because it appears on the cover of the New Yorker, which, we all know, is a right-thinking magazine read by right-thinking people who couldn't possibly be among the 10 percent of Americans who believe Obama's a Muslim. The New Yorker"Stop Snitching"National Review, or that t-shirt on a black person in a crime-infested neighborhood, and the message takes on a very different meaning. assumes everyone knows it's being ironic with its cover, sort of the way the white hipster in a gentrifying neighborhood assumes everyone knows he's being ironic when he wears a t-shirt. But put that image on the cover of

Times columnist Jonah Goldberg chimes in at The Corner:

What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. Roman Genn could do wonders with that concept. Of course, if we ran the exact same art, the consensus from the liberal establishment could be summarized in words like "Swiftboating!" and, duh, "racist."

Michelle Obama Watch too wonders about liberal racism:

Does anybody remember that loon from Daily Kos that thought it was a good idea to show Michelle Obama being lynched and tortured because he had a really good point to make?

Michelle Malkin is most concise in her take, and tells Obama to "grow a pair." Althouse, on that note, wonders why everyone is talking about nuts.

Salon's War Room blog, like Althouse, makes it past the cover:

In this case, though, there's a tangential relationship, as the magazine's Ryan Lizza has a really interesting profile of Obama, done by looking through the lens of his rise in Chicago. In fact, if I were Lizza, I'd be pretty upset at my editors today, as this controversy has ensured that his article is going ignored. Like so many articles in the magazine, it's long, complicated and detailed, and reporters and commentators who are discussing the cover are skipping over the article, presumably for reasons of time.... Lizza's article isn't a hit piece, but it paints a complicated and at times unflattering portrait of Obama, one that would have had some potential to be politically damaging to the presumptive Democratic nominee were it not for the attention the cover's getting instead.

See New Yorker editor David Remnick's defense here, the cartoonist's response here, and the article here.

The satire feel flat on its face (as an attempted “case in point” to a false problem), and only helped to create more insignificant banter amongst an already non-responsive media. The New Yorker article was not flattering of Obama, but the cover allows for the media to walk pass that little ditty, and create a dust storm about nothing. But I love how some Progressives have tried to lay the blame for this mess with non-Obama supporters. Hate to burst your bubble, but this one rest squarely with the New Yorker, the ADD media, and Progressive trying to divert attention away from the candidate.

Obama Deletes Surge Criticism From Website

I wonder which low level aide Obama will throw under the bus this time. The NY Daily News was the first to report that key criticisms by Obama regarding the surge in Iraq have been “removed” from his website:

NY Daily Post: Obama Removes Surge Criticism From Website

You can run, but you can’t hide Mr. Obama, and without a doubt, you can’t “delete” your way out of this one.

Poll Show That Most Americans Believe McCain Would Be a Stronger Commander In Chief

Two separate polls concerning American’s attitudes towards Iraq and Afghanistan were recently released. Both ABC News – Washington Post and Quinnipiac University Polling Institute conducted surveys that show support for the War on Terror is far greater than the mainstream media has been reporting:

Fox News: Americans Split On Military Action

The two interesting element of the ABC-Washing Post poll were that many American’s felt that John McCain has been clearer than Barack Obama on his intentions for withdrawal from Iraq, and that many considered McCain a stronger commander in chief by 72%, even capturing most Democrats’ support.

Obama was a one issue candidate when he entered the race. Obama and his supporters have spent the past months trying to convince the American people that Obama’s judgement regarding Iraq was better. It would appear that the American people aren’t buying what Team Obama is selling.

Obama: Americans Should Be Embarrassed

Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama appeared before another enthusiastic crowd in Powder Springs, Georgia, where he could be heard complaining about English-only policies. Obama told the audience that Americans should be “embarrassed” that most of us don’t speak a second language, in particular Spanish.

Sounding more like a contestant on “The Last Comic Standing,” he even mocked some American’s inability to speak French by stating “all we’s can say is “Merci beaucoup (in a flat, sarcastic tone):”

Obama" " Your kids should be learning Spanish."

This speech received NO major media attention, but when Phil Gramm stated that America has become a nation of whiners, it is the lead story with every major, Left leaning media outlet. But what does it matter, because like Obama has done so many times before, he needed to come out later to “clarify,” his comments:

Obama: What I meant....

First off Mr. Obama, what language is “we’s?” Secondly, American’s have nothing to be embarrassed about. What was embarrassing was watching the crowd you were talking down to in Powder Springs laugh and clap as you insulted them. This whole speech reeked of elitism, and you came off as very arrogant.

The truth is that when business people from around the world gather for a meeting, lets say in France, they are speaking English; I know, because I am in those meetings. The reality is that English is the business language of the WORLD. And until America freely surrenders it leadership in the world, English will continue to be the universal language for prosperity. The exception to that rule, large cities in the United States, such as Miami:

In Miami, Spanish is the primary language

A major city in the United States is now divided because of language, and to quote President Lincoln, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Language is a dividing factor of a culture; if we cannot communicate, we cannot be united. Want ads after want ads in Miami insist that the applicant must speak Spanish. If immigrants are learning our language Mr. Obama, please explain to us what is happening in Miami, as well as other major cities in America.

It is important to remember that not all Europeans speak a second language, in particular English, I know because I lived in Europe for five-years. There are many immigrants, mostly Hispanic, that are not assimilating into the American culture. Don’t believe me? Then why do I see Spanish signs everywhere I go, and I live in New Hampshire, where there is less than a 1% minority population. Or why do States such as California and Massachusetts have to spend millions to print most of their State forms in Spanish? And tell me why the number one radio station in LA is a Spanish speaking station.

English only laws help take immigrants out of the shadows, breaking down the barrier that is stopping many of them from succeeding in the United States, the inability to speak English. The answer has never been, nor should it ever be, for “Americans” to learn another language, but for immigrants to embrace their new home, and unite through one common language, English. Many immigrants (especially illegal) are not interjecting themselves into the American culture because we have failed to stay true to the promise of the American dream. The lack of wiliness not to learn the English language is supported by a subculture within the borders of our own country that encourages them to remain separate, a “house divided.”

Ultimately Mr. Obama, the question of how important it is that American’s speak a second language is an easy one to answer. On June 6, 1944, thousands of Americans soldiers landed on the shores of Normandy to fight for the emancipation of an entire continent. Over six thousand of those soldiers lost their lives on D-Day, and thousands more died fighting in Belgium, France, and Germany. At no time did anyone feel “embarrassed” that they spoke only English. Nor did those being set free care that their liberators spoke only English. There is one thing I can guarantee you Mr. Obama. The French people who were liberated by American soldiers in 1944 said “Merci beaucoup” with far more compassion and far less contempt than you did on July 8, and for that you should feel embarrassed.

How To Speak Democrat

Not sure how I missed this one, but fortunately my network of common-sense Conservatives is far reaching:

Ouch!

Is America A Nation Of Whiners'?

McCain Economic Adviser Calls US 'A Nation of Whiners'

Maybe former Senator Phil Gramm could have put it a little better than just calling Americans “whiners” outright. What Gramm should have said is that “some” Americans (strongly accentuated by the media) are “whiners,” which would have been a true statement:

Gramm: America A Nation Of Whiners

Sometimes the truth hurts, and to what Gramm was trying to convey, many American’s agree with him. Don’t believe me? Read the comments attached to the Washington Post story. The remarks are far more direct, but no less true. Better yet, just listen to the whining going on within the media about Gramm’s comments.
I found it interesting the difference on how the media covered this story and Barrack Obama’s Father’s Day speech a few weeks ago (Obama's Father's Day Speech). Gramm called us whiners, while Obama used language that laid the blamed for the breakdown of the family unit squarely with fathers, and only fathers. Really, no one else is to blame? Not the anti-father court system or family service organizations that keep fathers away from their kids? Not the entitlement programs that award poor life choices? Nope, it is all the fathers fault. Obama’s Father’s Day speech was filled with the same old male-bashing rhetoric that was responsible for driving a wedge between the father and his family in the first place. Society has devalued the father’s role in the family so much, how anyone could be surprised at the current state of family is beyond me.

But people are upset because Phil Gramm dared to say out loud what many of us believe, numerous American’s are cry-babies, choosing to believe the negativity that permeates the media, and live by the motto “ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for.” Gramm calls us “whiners,” while Obama tells fathers to stop acting like “boys,” and Gramm is the one criticized.

To Gramm’s point, and the opinion of many other economic experts, the economy is not nearly as bad as the media is playing it out to be. But if you yell recession often enough and loud enough, people start believing it. We should worry less about the language Gramm used, and focus more on the truth of his message.

Obama’s FISA “Problem”

Progressives are, in the words of Margaret Kimberley (BAR), feeling that Obama has made “chumps” of all of them. Their latest spilt with Obama concerns his recent shift regarding the FISA bill.

Black Agenda Report: So Long Sucker

When Obama was courting the Left, during the "primary politics season," he was not only adamant that FISA should not be passed if it included retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies, but threatened to lead a filibuster:

October 2007:

17^th - "It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."

24^th- (Campaign statement) "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

December 2007:

24^th – (Campaign statement) "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."

January 2008:

28^th – “I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless.” surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

But what a difference a few months, and the need to shift to the center, has made for Obama. The FISA bill that passed included retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, and what was Obama’s response:

June 2008:

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."

And with that statement, and his “YES” vote (one of the few times he has actually voted as a US Senator), Obama continues to make more enemies on the Left. Does this latest Obama shift, or flip-flop, call his integrity and leadership ability into question again?

It’s Official: The 110th Congress Sucks!

The reality is that for the past year the approval rating of the Congress has been lower than that of President Bush; yet all the media wants to focus on is President Bush’s numbers. Now for the first time in our country’s history, Congresses approval rating has slipped into single digits:

Rasmussen: Congressional performance at an all time low

This Congress has been an absolute failure, yet all you hear from the media is that the “Democratic Party” is primed for a major victory in November. Why!!!!!!????

And how do the Democrats respond, blame the Republicans of course. The Democratic Party is asking that we vote more of them into office, and that we elect Senator Barrack Obama as President.

Putting the Democrats in charge of the Executive and Legislative Branches will be like trying to control a seventeen-year old boy in the backseat of a car on prom night. There will be hands everywhere, and saying “no” won’t stop them!

Israel 'ready to act' over Iran

Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, declared his country’s wiliness to response to the growing Iranian threat:

BBC: Israel 'ready to act' over Iran

Diplomacy is wasted on this Iranian leadership. Short of a regime change, Iran is on a course that will require military intervention.

Obama: A President Reagan Wanna Be?

Obama’s team is always thinking about the next photo-op, and his upcoming trip to Europe is no exception. In an effort to hearken back to the great speeches made by President Reagan (President Reagan: Tear Down this Wall) and John F. Kennedy during their visits to Germany, Obama has asked permission to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate:

Merkel uneasy over Obama Brandenburg Gate address

Merkel is right. When President Reagan appeared before the gate, he gave a speech based on integrity. And when President Reagan uttered the words “tear down this wall (against the advice of his staff),” he meant it. The Democrats have a short memory regarding Reagan’s Brandenburg speech, because many of them criticized Reagan for his “tough tone,” referring to him as a “Cowboy.” Now, along comes the polar opposite of President Reagan, Obama, hoping to capitalize on a speech he most likely condemned while a student at Columbia.

Obama only needs to show up in Europe to receive an enthusiastic reception. Socialist can smell a fellow Socialist from across the ocean. In the crowd will be the usually Leftist holding their signs referring to President Bush as “Hitler,” and Obama will stand there smiling. Obama will explain how America under George Bush has failed the Europeans, and that when he is elected, Europeans will be equal partners with America. In doing so, Obama will ignore the fact that most European nations have been complaisant regarding the War on Terror, and that we are truly the only Super Power in the World at this point, something that infuriates the Europeans too no end.

Of course Obama is no President Reagan or Kennedy, but Obama will use “just words” to wow his audience. Expect to hear quotes from Reagan and JFK, to the thunderous applause of a pack audience of Progressive Europeans. And in the end, the Europeans will know no more about Senator Obama’s policies than we do.

Iran “Test Fires” A Missile Capable Of Reaching US Targets

From the BBC:

Iran missile test 'provocative'

And what was Obama’s response, “stronger sanctions:”

Obama, McCain split on Iran's missile tests

Obama - “Iran must suffer threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy opening up channels of communication so we avoid provocation, but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior."

Iraq's Yellow Cake Recipe Is The Envy Of Betty Crocker

Most reasonable Americans have no illusions where the media stands ideologically on the political spectrum. Whether it is a local newspaper or television station, or a larger international media conglomerate, such as the New York Times or MSNBC; it is only a matter time before the viewer is able to deduce that media’s bias in one direction or the other.

There is no better example of this than in a recent story published by the New York Times titled “U.S. Helps Remove Uranium From Iraq:”

New York Times: Uranium Removed From Iraq

550 metric tons of uranium (yellow cake), enough to make 100 nuclear weapons, existed in Iraq at the time of the invasion, a fact that most news agencies were aware of for over 5 years. The New York Times had other things on their mind though while conveying this story to the world:

“The yellow cake removed from Iraq — which was not the same yellow cake that President Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Mr. Hussein was trying to purchase in Africa — is used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

Who cares which yellow cake it was!? It was the necessary component needed to make a nuclear bomb, but thanks to military intervention from Israel and the United States, the World was spared. But the scary part is that many American were completely unaware of this story, due in large part to the Left leaning, media bias in America.

Randall Hoven, at the American Thinker, had a perfect response to this (non-) story:

American Thinker: 550 Tons of Yellowcake Is Dangerous

The media has been playing fast and loose with truth and facts as it pertains to the War on Terror, which is a dangerous game. Just as this story was under reported, ignored or downplayed by the US media (most in the Canadian media covered the story as the lead), so have been other reports of Saddam’s WMD initiatives:

Fox News: National Ground Intelligence Report

The fact is not whether the WMD’s existed prior to 1991 (and may not work), or that the yellow cake posed no harm at the time it was seized is insignificant. Does anyone in their right mind believe that Saddam was going to use any of these materials for peaceful means? Would anyone like a hostile nation such as a Iran or Syria getting hands on this "harmless" yellow cake? And if the WMDs, such as the mustard and sarin nerve gas (that Saddam was not suppose to possess!) were no big deal, why did they need to be destroyed? Why not just place them on display in the front foyer of the New York Times? Oh, that’s right….according to the New York Times, WMDs don’t exist!

Newsbusted: Rush, Barrack, and 24