Posts Tagged ‘flip flop’

Suddenly Everybody Who Is Anybody In America Says Gay Marriage Is The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread. That’s Because This Is God Damn America Now.

March 20, 2013

Hillary Clinton just came out in a slick video stating that homosexuals are “citizens” who therefore have the right to marry.  She of course used to say the exact opposite.

I completely agree with the actual facts in her statement.  As depraved and perverted as homosexuals are, the ones who were born here (remember, Obama is trying to open the immigration floodgates to as many homosexuals from other countries as he can) ARE in fact citizens.  And of COURSE U.S. citizens ought to have the right to marry.

Which is why I believe that a homosexual has the right to marry any legally competent adult of the opposite sex who is stupid enough to have them.

That’s because marriage is the union between one man and one woman – as Obama famously said not only in Rick Warren’s forum, but on the very eve of the 2008 election on November 3rd.  But it’s one thing to have “the right to marry” and quite another thing for homosexuals to have the “right” to pervert and degrade marriage to make what was formerly holy matrimony as depraved as they are.

Of course Obama is now celebrated by the left for baiting and switching, much the same way he’s celebrated for demonizing George Bush as being “unpatriotic” and “un-American” for his $4 trillion in debt over eight years before racking up $6 trillion more in debt in only four years.

Under liberalism, abject moral hypocrisy is a virtue.  That’s just the way these people are.

And that’s the way all RINOs are, too.  They are people who hold up their finger to the political winds and, standing for nothing, shift in whichever direction those winds blow.

Republicans ran a RINO against Barack Obama in 2008.  The RINO lost.  They ran a RINO against Obama in 2012.  And sure as shooting cow pies in place of skeet, the RINO lost.

Rob Portman is clearly hoping to be the RINO who gets to lose in 2016.

I love Portman’s reasoning.  His son is homosexual, so he’s for gay marriage.

I mean, if Portman’s kid was a rapist child molester, would Portman suddenly support rape and child molesting?  The answer, of course, is that he most certainly WOULD support rape and child molesting – if that’s what was popular.

That’s the thing about RINOs.  They are morally weak people who stand for nothing.

I think Americans have proven they will vote for somebody who is authentically evil over somebody who is inauthentically a puff of fart gas in the wind.

I am sick to my guts of RINOs.  I’ll never vote for a damn RINO again.  If Rob Portman is the GOP nominee, I’ll be penciling in Bugs Bunny – who at least always had the virtue of ending up as the winner in all the cartoons.

The gay rights movement used to feature a group called NAMBLA.  That’s the “Man/Boy Love Association.”

Here’s the skinny on that inconvenient truth:

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

Sodomizing young children used to be perfectly fine with the homosexual movement, and you can rest damn assured that it will be for it again – much the way Barack Obama was “for” gay marriage before he was “against” it before he was “for” it again.

Democrats would assure you that such a thing will never happened.  Other than the fact that these liberal turds have ALREADY BEEN FOR IT aside, of course.  But what happened with your Barack Obamas and your Bill and Hillary Clintons will happen with child molesters, too.  Just remember a few facts: 1) pedophiles were born that way as much as homosexuals were born queer; and who are we to legislate against “nature”???  2) Times have changed, and what was wrong when it was convenient for it to be wrong is now just as right as it used to be wrong.  3) If we allow young girls the choice to get legal and free abortions when their “old man” knocks them up, why shouldn’t we allow young boys the right to bend over for some older man???  And 4) when liberals do it it’s called “evolving” but when conservatives do it its called “flip flopping.”

So let me assure you that as part of Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” we’re soon going to have child molesters, practitioners of bestiality, and group marriages to be legal.  Because, after all, we’re “tolerant,” aren’t we?  And these people should all have the right to follow their hearts and marry whomever they wish.  And of course if a guy wants to marry his canary, or if a woman wants to marry her stallion so she can be mounted the way she’s always dreamed, then who the hell are YOU to judge, you intolerant prick???

Liberalism guarantees all of this wickedness along with crap that my mind isn’t diseased enough to even imagine.  Because that’s the essence of liberalism.

The great American pastor John MacArthur recently said that the Democrat Party’s platform is Romans chapter one.  And of course he’s right.

In Romans chapter one, a society continues to morally deteriorate until it sinks to the absolute lowest rock bottom level of moral sewage that sure enough the Democrat Party has sunk America to.

The United States of America used to call itself “one nation under God.”  We used to say, “In God we trust.”  We put our hands on Bibles when we took sacred oaths, as if we believed that the Book that called homosexuality an “abomination” actually meant something.

God blessed this nation as He has never blessed any other.  And when God takes that blessing away, it will amount to a curse such that this nation will fall like no other nation has EVER fallen before.  America’s fall will be cataclysmic and catastrophic simply by virtue of the dizzying heights from which we will fall.

When we voted for Barack Obama in 2008, we voted to inherit damnation such as no nation in all of human history has ever experienced.  And when we re-elected this wicked man, we confirmed that demand to be “God damn America” as Obama’s reverend and spiritual mentor for over twenty years once screeched from the pulpit of Obama’s church.

This country is going to get the hell it voted for.

The beast is coming.  The United States of America will be cheering when he arrives.  And nobody will be cheering more loudly than Democrats.

I write this to you as one who sits on the gate of America the way Lot sat on the gate of Sodom, waiting for the brimstone and the fire to start falling.

Obama Leeches Away The Once Most Sacred Institution Of Marriage In God Damn America

May 10, 2012

“Not God bless America.  No, no, no, God damn America!” – Rev Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual leader for more than 20 years before the “reverend” became politically inconvenient

Barack Obama in 2008:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix. (Applause.)

Obama just kicked God out of the mix and replaced Him with himself:

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

God damn America!  GOD DAMN AMERICA!

The line that Obama’s position on gay marriage is “evolving” is a lie.  Barack Obama supported gay marriage as early as 1996.  And then his campaign LIED about it.  It was NEVER that Obama’s views on marriage “evolved”; it was ALWAYS that Obama cynically and deceitfully lied to the American people in 2008 when he assured the American people he believed something that he did not in fact believe.

So much for “Obama, as a Christian.”  That “evolved” straight to the bottom level hell with everything else about this incredibly wicked man.

What does the Bible have to say about embracing homosexuality?

– “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” — Leviticus 18:22

– “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

– “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.”  — Romans 1:24-28

Well, I suppose you can read it either way.  Maybe God just adores homosexuality.  It’s just not clear.


But what do you expect from the party that gave America fifty-four million murdered babies while they call themselves “pro-child”???

Younger Americans support gay marriage by a wide marginYounger Americans are also the least likely of every generation of Americans to bother getting married at all.  Which is pretty much another way of saying that the people who most want to piss on marriage support pissing on marriage:

Marriage Obsolete?
Nov. 18, 2010

Not only are more marriages on the rocks these days, so is marriage itself, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.

A survey of 2,691 Americans done in association with Time magazine found that nearly four in 10 Americans think marriage is becoming obsolete. That’s an 11 percent spike since 1978, when Time asked the same question.

“Marriage is still very important in this country, but it doesn’t dominate family life like it used to,” Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at John Hopkins University, told the Associated Press.

Younger people are leading the way in redefining what marriage means. Forty-four percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 saw marriage as obsolete, compared to 32 percent of those 65 and older.

Other groups more likely to see marriage as a fading institution included blacks, at 44 percent, those with a high school diploma or less, at 44 percent, and people who made $30,000 or less a year, at 48 percent.

Young People Marrying Less and Less

Census data have shown that younger people are marrying less and less, and when they marry, they’re generally older. […]

Every group that most votes Democrat is the same group who most thinks marriage is obsolete and the same people who support gay marriage.  The same people who believe that marriage is obsolete are the same people who say that homosexuals should be able to do the thing they think is pointless.

If marriage is the sacred union ordained by God between one man and one woman, then marriage is vital and essential to the health of a society and culture; if marriage is an arbitrary thing that can be redefined to mean whatever a morally-velocitized culture thinks at any given time, then it truly is obsolete and why bother.

When you look at the countries that have the highest support for gay marriage and the lowest marriage rates, guess what?  They’re basically the same.

No civilization in recorded history has EVER embraced homosexual marriage, anecdotal stories aside.  The world today on the verge of the coming Antichrist and the mark of the beast and literal hell on earth has become more openly depraved than any civilization in the history of the world.

Here’s the bottom line. Homosexuals want what married couples have. It is fools’ gold; they can NEVER have it. Because the same God who blesses marriage and family hates homosexuality and literally calls it an “abomination.” Homosexuals CAN’T have the blessings of marriage; ALL THEY CAN DO IS FURTHER UNDERMINE AND DEGRADE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE THAT IS ALREADY COLLAPSING BECAUSE OF SO MANY OTHER VILE LIBERAL POLICIES.

Homosexuals, further, argue that they are being denied the human right to marry.  BULLCRAP!  A homosexual man can marry any woman who will have him, the same as me.  The fact that he finds loathsome what God ordained doesn’t mean that marriage should be radically redefined.

Homosexuality has been a plague on the condition of the world in so many different ways it is unreal.  It is a biologically FILTHY lifestyle.  Anybody who tries to argue that homosexuality is not a gay disease is simply either a liar or a fool or a lying fool.  Homosexuality is basically worse for life expectancy than cancer.

Not God bless America.  God Damn America.

A Tale Of Bad Judgment: Barack Obama Back On His Heels

September 10, 2008

Barack Obama has played enough basketball to understand three terms: defense, underdog, and losing.

In a rather dramatic turnaround from just a short time ago, his campaign is experiencing all three of them.

An Associated Press article titled, “Analysis: Obama is back on defense against McCain,” provides a sketch of Barack Obama’s problems.

The man who so often and so confidently proclaimed his superior judgment may well lose because of two very bad decisions: the decision not to seek Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and his decision to break his promise to accept public campaign financing. (more…)

Barack Obama Even Cuts and Runs From His Own Positions

July 20, 2008

In a HIGHLY favorable piece from a far-left liberal newspaper (just consider the title: “Obama stance on Iraq Shows Evolving View“!!!), Barack Obama is nevertheless revealed to have simply been all over the place regarding Iraq. A much tougher – and much more substantial – piece shows just how way, way, WAAAAY all over the place Obama has been regarding Iraq:

But perhaps a different kind of consistency is to be discerned in this maze. When Obama opposed the war in 2002, it was clearly in his political interest to do so; according to Dan Shomon, his campaign manager at the time, the key to Obama’s chances in the Democratic race for the Senate nomination lay in his ability to rally the Left to his side.4 Then, in 2004, when the war was still supported by most Americans, he associated himself with the Bush occupation strategy. In 2005, as Iraq was becoming increasingly unpopular, he temporized by joining those saying we had to reduce but not withdraw our troop presence. By 2006, with the war’s unpopularity deepening, he embraced a policy of full-scale withdrawal.

Is that what a president does? Does he waffle this way, then that, depending on the frequent shifts of the political breezes? Or is a president – and anyone who wants to become president – forced to carefully decide what needs to be done, and then commit himself (just as he commits his troops)?

Oh, things are going well, so I’m committed. Oh, we’re having a few setbacks, so I demand a withdrawal. Oh, things are better now, so I’ll “refine” my policy. Oh, my left-wing base is turning on me, so I’ll recommit myself to my previous withdrawal policy.”

Could a president send troops, change his mind and withdraw them, change his mind again and increase their number form when he withdrew them before, and then decide that he shouldn’t have sent them after all and withdrawn them again – all within the span of about 2 1/2 years?

Conservative critics have pounced all over Obama:

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

Mr. Obama said such criticism was misguided, saying: “My position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground.”

Well, if that’s true (and you’re not a rank, hypocritical liar without shame who plays politics even when men’s lives hang in the balance), then why did you announce your rigid commitment to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal BEFORE you went to Iraq and actually listened to those commanders?  The reality is, you’re not going to listen to them at all – just as you’ve NEVER listened to them.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that Obama would renege on his Iraq policy – which is exactly what he tried to do until his liberal base erupted in outrage over the reversal.

The man is a veritable bastion of courage and integrity.

Barack Obama has been in favor of a timetable for withdraw since late 2005. What would have happened to Iraq had Barack Obama been our president? If we had pulled out of the country when Obama said we should (depending, of course, on how Obama felt about the war that day), a too-weak and too-unstable Iraq would have almost certainly descended into chaos, become a terrorist stronghold, and forced us to invade for yet a third time.

In January of 2007, John McCain proposed a troop surge in Iraq, and Barack Obama opposed it:

(CBS) Sen. John McCain supports President George Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, while his fellow Senator, and likely opponent in the 2008 race for the White House, Barack Obama would rather see a “surge in diplomacy.”

A showdown between Congress and the president looms after President Bush said he would send 21,000 more American troops to Iraq. Meanwhile, a new poll indicates that the public is overwhelmingly against the plan.

Obama pursued a plan of action that would have done NOTHING as Iraq began to stumble into chaos. John McCain – as the article acknowledges – took an “overwhelmingly” unpopular stance and supported a policy that WORKED. [And note the pessimistic stance liberal CBS took on the idea of the troop surge].

American military commanders are close to declaring complete victory in Iraq.

Even Al Qaeda has openly admitted that they have lost in Iraq.

The result of this success is that Obama scrubbed his earlier positions regarding the surge from his website. That’s “change” for you: no major political candidate in American history has ever been so completely disingenuous regarding his positions.

As an Associate Press article by Nedra Pickler put it:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama’s aides have removed criticism of President Bush’s increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat’s written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

Debate over the impact of President Bush’s troop “surge” has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

By the time Obama staffers got through editing Obama’s previous positions:

Only one of his plan’s subheads remains unchanged, the first one — “Judgment You Can Trust.” That’s a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace.

That’s right: “judgment you can trust.” You can trust a man who takes every position under the sun depending on his political expediency, plays politics when soldiers’ lives are on the line, scrubs his own website of his previous erroneous positions, and then blithely pretends he’s had the same position all along.

As Barack Obama launches his foreign visit accompanied by the in-the-tank anchors from the in-the-tank networks and all the media fanfare they can produce, the narrative will be that Obama is right about the timetable for withdrawal.

But the only reason we can reasonably talk about a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq is because better and more courageous men were in charge – and Barack Obama was not.

As you listen to the in-the-tank media hype for Obama, don’t forget that.

Obama has repeatedly cut and run from his own positions: from dismissing the wearing of flag pins to wearing them constantly; from publicly vowing that he could never denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright any more than he could denounce his own grandmother to publicly denouncing Jeremiah Wright; from filling out questionnaires to denying that he filled out the answers on the questionnaires; from being an opponent of free trade to being a supporter of free trade; from telling a Jewish audience that he supported Jerusalem as the eternal capital of a Jewish state to telling a group of Palestinians that he was open to negotiating the status of Jerusalem; from claiming that Iran was not a serious threat to claiming that Iran represents a serious threat; from vowing to accept public financing to refusing to accept public financing; from supporting the Washington D.C. ban on handguns to supporting the Supreme Court decision overturning the Washington D.C. ban on handguns; from swearing he would filibuster any FISA bill that did not allow lawsuits against telecoms to voting for a FISA bill that didn’t include any provisions to punish telecoms; from vowing to end the Iraq war in 2009 to saying he would refine his position to listen to military commanders to saying he would end the war in Iraq irregardless of the commanders.

The liberal editorial board of the New York Times has recognized that Barack Obama seemed to lack a functioning moral compass. Last week New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Barack Obama has no moral compass whatsoever. He ended his piece by saying:

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Don’t forget that Barack Obama is a pandering, waffling, flip flopping liberal who doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions.

Increasingly even liberals are recognizing that Barack Obama is simply not fit to lead.

Clinton Campaign Predicted Pandering Obama Would “Renege” His Position On Iraq

July 9, 2008

Barack Obama has done quite a job in a very short time reversing the positions he claimed to hold while campaigning for the Democratic nomination. If you don’t believe me because I’m a conservative, just see for yourself what a lot of liberals are saying.

The New York Times recently ripped Obama on his character over all his dramatic reversals. The editors point out that,

“We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.”

And liberal blogs really tore Obama a new one over his announcement that he was now supporting the so-called “faith-based initiatives” that were first put into action by President Bush.

But none of Obama’s flip flops have been so significant as have been his reversals over Iraq. We are not just talking about theoretical campaign positions; we are talking about thousands of American lives, years of painstaking effort at high costs, and foreign policy that will define American prestige for decades to come.

When Obama announced that he would not use public financing, he broke his personal promise. But at least no one died trying to raise campaign contributions. A lot of Americans have dedicated their lives – and even laid their lives down – to secure freedom for Iraq. It is not just another issue over which “to play old political games” over.

Over and over again, Barack Obama has promised that he would bring the troops home in 2009. He pointedly did NOT emphasize when he made that promise at campaign event after campaign event that his pledge was dependent upon the situation in Iraq or upon the opinion of American military commanders. In point of fact, that was Hillary Clinton’s position – and Barack Obama won the liberal vote by positioning himself well to the left of her on Iraq.

A GOP press release titled “Obama’s Iraq Fact Check” clearly documents that Obama has massively reversed his position. Again and again, Obama has made crystal-clear statements such as the one he gave at the Democratic National Committee Annual Fall Meeting at Vienna, Virginia on 30 Nov 2007: “As president I will end this war in Iraq. We will have our troops home within 16 months.” They’ve got the sources, and even the YouTube videos of Obama making this vow.

The Clinton campaign pointed out in March that Barack Obama’s pledge to get out of Iraq was “an example of more empty words by Obama,” and that he had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do.

In other words, he was lying to the American people about his real intentions. He was using pandering, empty rhetoric to solidify his standing amongst the left-wing to beat his opponent. And he was using this deplorable tactic on an “issue” for which over 4,000 Americans have given their lives.

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS, Saturday, March 8th 2008

Even before the Harvard professor and Obama’s chief outside foreign policy adviser stepped down, the Clinton camp was gleefully circulating another interview where Power called Obama’s 16-month withdrawal plan “the best-case scenario.”

“[Obama] will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” Power told the BBC in what the Clinton campaign flagged as eyebrow-raising remarks.

“He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the President,” she said.

Aides to Hillary Clinton jumped all over those comments, charging in a hastily planned conference call that it was an example of more empty words by Obama.

“The impression that one thing is said for political purposes perhaps and another thing is what’s actually going to happen, is amateur hour on making foreign policy,” said Clinton foreign policy adviser Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman in the Clinton administration.

“On foreign affairs, in particular, words matter,” Rubin added. “He can’t seem to run a foreign policy team the way it’s supposed to run.”

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark added that Power’s Iraq comments were “quite disturbing.”

Bomb-lobbing spokesman Howard Wolfson, who a day earlier compared Obama to Clinton nemesis Ken Starr, contended Power’s remarks fit a troubling pattern: “Again we are seeing the difference between talk and action.”

Obama’s team charged Clinton’s aides were distorting what Power had said for political advantage.

Obama responded himself in Wyoming, blasting Clinton for hurling mud to divert attention from her vote backing the war.

“Sen. Clinton used this to try to imply that I wasn’t serious about bringing this war to an end….Don’t be confused,” Obama said.

“Sen. Clinton is not even willing to acknowledge that she voted for war,” he added. “So I don’t want to play politics on this issue because she doesn’t have standing to question my position on this issue.”

These new dustups come as Wyoming holds caucuses today with 15 delegates up for grabs. A Clinton source conceded Obama will likely win easily, padding his overall lead in delegates slightly.

A blogger on had this to say:

The AP and ABC are reporting that Barry is already fudging on bringing the troops home….

Obama says that he is “refining” his plan to bring the troops home. He will wait to see what he see on the ground and will consult with Military Commanders.

Wait a minute isn’t that what Clinton said???

He said that “I am going to do a thorough assessment…I’m sure I’ll have more information to refine my policy.”

Isn’t that what McCAin has been asking him to do???


But there is more to say about this politician who cynically deliberately misrepresented his position on a sacred policy issue that over 4,000 Americans died to implement.

He now says he will consult with military commanders.

Does he mean the ones in Iraq? The commanders he has not bothered to visit for going on 912 days now? Their opinions didn’t seem to matter very much when he was making all his earlier promises. Why should they now?

Does he mean General David Petraeus, the man who – as the architect of “the surge” strategy which Obama has repeatedly opposed – and who has used that strategy to accomplish the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq?

If you watch this, you may have noticed that Obama doesn’t ever bother to ask Gen. Petraeus a single question. Rather, he spends 10 minutes lecturing and pontificating.

Barack Obama didn’t seem to give a damn about consulting with Gen. Petraeus then. To make it even worse, Barack Obama could have arranged to meet privately with the General – as John McCain and other members of Congress did – but this pandering, demagoguing hypocrite couldn’t be bothered to do so while he was deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting his position on Iraq.

A Huffingtonpost blogger named JanetE – after watching the videos of the Petraeus hearing – observed this pathetic fact about Obama’s disregard for the General:

Senator Clinton and John McCain chose to sit and listen intently to the hearings with General Patreus today. I guess Obama is too fidgety for that. He’ll waltz in later. This does not forbode well for what might be his presidency. What’s the problem? Is he too good for this? Clinton, no matter how tired she was, sat there and did her duty as a concerned, patriotic citizen and asked thoughtful, intelligent, informed questions of the general. So maybe Obama went out for a smoke, maybe listened to what Clinton and McCain had to say, and then figured out how, nice and well-rested, he could out-do them. This should be interesting.

Personally, I don’t think that the quintessentially arrogant Barack Obama will give the opinions of military commanders one iota more respect than he’s already demonstrated.

I am not an eager supporter of John McCain (rather, I am an avid opponent of Barack Obama), but this country desperately needs the wisdom, courage, and steadfastness that this war hero has displayed both in his life and in his policy on Iraq.

John McCain – practically as a lone voice – went against his own party and criticized his own president’s strategy and called for more troops at a time when the war in Iraq was not going well. His view was wildly unpopular with Democrats, with the media, and even with many in his own party. But John McCain bravely called for what his experience told him the country needed – even if it was harmful to his career. Hindsight demonstrates how right he was. The surge has worked. Iraq has now met 15 of the 18 political “benchmarks” even as the Iraqi military has now become tough enough to take on al Qaeda and other insurgents on its own.

Had we listened to Barack Obama – who has consistently opposed the surge, and who even voted to cut off troop funding – we would have slunk away from Iraq in failure, leaving the struggling and vulnerable country exposed to sinking into bloody civil war and becoming a haven for terrorists which would have undoubtedly threatened the United States yet again.

Instead, we listened to John McCain, and now we we have an Iraq that is reaching the point where it will be capable of standing up on its own two feet. Rather than a meaningless war that resulted in empty defeat, we are on the verge of having what few dared to dream of – a democratic republic in the heart of the Arab world, and a valuable future ally of the United States. At great cost, we have achieved something great, and forged an ally from a former implacable enemy.

RNC Chairman Robert M. Duncan recently released the following statement:

“Barack Obama opposed the surge when it was proposed, neglected to witness
it first-hand, and refuses to acknowledge the progress now. Obama once
demanded a ‘surge in honesty’ in the debate about the Iraq war. A ‘surge in
honesty’ would require Obama to acknowledge the courage and success of our
troops in Iraq. Despite Obama’s attempts to cut off funding and prematurely
withdraw our forces, the surge has successfully put the terrorists in Iraq on
the run, making the country a more stable and safe place. Of course, much work
remains, which is precisely why we must continue to build on the gains made by
our troops and the Iraqi government, and reject calls for premature withdrawal
from the ill-informed. Senators Obama and McCain each made an important
decision about how to proceed in Iraq, and Obama chose to strongly oppose the
surge. Shouldn’t Barack Obama admit it was weak judgment?”

We have a choice between two candidates: one has demonstrated courage, integrity, and leadership; the other has demonstrated cynicism, political posturing, and opportunism.

The choice should be clear.

Obama’s Vile Claims that Republicans, McCain Are Anti-black, Anti-women Justify ANY Counterattack

June 28, 2008

After John McCain announced that he supported ending the federal ban on offshore drilling and allowing states to make their own determination, Barack Obama said:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This is yet another reversal by John McCain, in terms of his earlier positions. And I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

This was only one day before Barack Obama on June 19, 2008 announced his decision to go back on his earlier promise to support campaign reform by accepting – and publicly calling upon other candidates to accept – public financing.

Barack Obama has been all over the place on a whole host of isses: his all-over-the-place stance on gun control; his staffers telling Canada his official NAFTA position was merely “populist positioning”; his position on talking to rogue leaders such as Iran’s Ahmadinejab without preconditions which he has since hedged beyond recognition; his position on the status of Jerusalem which changes based on whether he’s talking to Jews or Arabs; his previous demand that telecommunications companies be unprotected from lawsuits for cooperating with the US government; his initial call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq; his reversal over the Cuba embargo; and on and on. John McCain has been the rock of consistency compared to Barack Obama – even in spite of the fact that Obama hasn’t had much of a career to actually have time to reverse positions. Most of McCain’s flips – in direct contrast to Obama’s – were announced prior to the primary elections so voters could consider the ramifications and vote accordingly. And his recent change of position over allowing states to decide whether to pursue offshore drilling is perfectly understandable given the new situation of $4.50/gallon gas. And yet here Barack Obama is, talking smack just like the self-righteous, self-aggrandizing hypocrite he is.

And consider Obama’s reasoning for breaking his promise to accept public funding:

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Liberal and Democratic 527s have ten freaking times the cash conservative and Republican causes have. Liberal money is all over the place. Obama is expected to raise shocking loads of money – $500 million dollars in just the final 2 months of the campaign alone – at a time when Democrats are out hysterically proclaiming that we’re in the second coming of the Great Depression. And liberals constantly talk about “swiftboating” (they’ve turned the noun into a verb), disregarding the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was made up of over 200 fellow members of John Kerry’s riverine unit in Vietnam – including a Rear Admiral and Kerry’s own direct superior – as well as most of Kerry’s former fellow boat skippers. They also conveniently forget the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans caught a number of Kerry “misstatements.” And let’s not also forget those forged documents allegedly proving President Bush sought and received preferential treatment as a National Guard flight officer that showed up on Dan Rather’s CBS newscast.

A recent Democratic attack ad campaign engaged in a clearly racist attack against a Republican candidate of Italian ancestry named Dino Rossi, playing the theme music from The Supranos as it attempted to unfarily tie him to the mob. Even a number of Democrats characterized the ad as “racist and beyond offensive.” Democrats are every bit as good at “gaming the broken system” as Republicans have ever been.

You remember the ad that ran at a substantially discounted rate in the New York Times that proclaimed, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Try reading MoveOn or the DailyKos for a little sampling of some of the nastiest bile ever vomited out of the mouth of the sleaziest creature that ever crawled.

Please don’t try to argue that Barack Obama somehow has to go to extraordinary lengths to clear his pure-as-the-driven-snow reputation from those dirty Republicans.

Having said all the above, allow me to introduce a particularly pathetic recent example of Obama launching despicable cheap-shot character attacks against John McCain:

“John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.”

Now, you see, I hear that kind of crap, and I have to ask: why NOT label “Barack Hussein Obama” as a covert Muslim who will introduce sharia law into the United States? All it would take would be one Supreme Court Justice appointment to do precisely that.

Let me tell you something: there’s a far better case that Barack Hussein Obama is a Manchurian-type Muslim candidate than there is that John McCain will roll back every gain that women have made in the last 50 years.” A FAR better case.

John McCain is somewhat against abortion, it is true. The anti-abortion position has been a significant plank on the Republican platform for a generation. Is this news to you? I have written at length that “a woman’s right to choose” is in fact the denial of any kind of right for men, who are forced to either sit by while women murder their children, or who are forced to provide nearly two decades of child support for a child they may not want to “choose.” And I have argued that nothingnothing – has been more destructive to fatherhood than 1) defining a child in the womb as a thing that deserves absolutely no dignity, status, or protection; and 2) taking away any element of right or privilege that ought to be accorded to fathers.

Why should fathers stick around? They did nothing more than contribute half the genetic materials that abortionists call “products of conception” when they burn a baby to death with acid or chop it into pieces and vacuum it out of the womb. Why shouldn’t fathers be resentful that they are forcibly required to pay support for the very same children that women could have legally butchered in their wombs?

That isn’t a right of women; it’s an abject denial of rights of children and fathers.

And “roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years“? Is Obama serious, or simply slanderous? This kind of language is just as loaded as saying that John McCain will roll back every gain blacks have made in the last 50 years.” It is absolutely vicious.

Oh, wait, Obama has already used that vicious, hateful, cheap-shot too:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him…

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

If this isn’t “playing the race card,” then there is simply no such thing as “playing the race card.” Obama doesn’t have a single piece of evidence to cite that Republicans have done any such thing. But a truly dishonorable man simply doesn’t need any evidence to slander his opponents.

No. There’s a much better case that secretly Muslim Barack Hussein Obama will seek to impose sharia law on the United States.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has quite a story in the Israel Insider titled, “Obama takes on the Great Global Blogosphere Conspiracy Against His Holiness.” She links to Obama’s official website, which carries a denial titled, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim.” It contains the statement, “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.” And Phillips points out that Obama has said, “I’ve always been a Christian,” and “I’ve never practiced Islam.”

However, as Phillips points out:

But none of this is true. As is explored in detail on Daniel Pipes‘s website, Obama was enrolled at his primary schools in Indonesia as a Muslim; he attended the mosque during that period; his friends from that time testify that he was a devout Muslim boy. A former teacher at one of these schools, Tine Hahiyary, remembers a young Obama who was quite religious and actively took part in “mengaji” classes which teach how to read the Koran in Arabic. The blogger from Indonesia who reported this commented:

“Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, “mengaji classes” are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to… The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet.

His father was a Muslim, as was his stepfather. His grandfather was a Muslim convert. His wider family appear to have been largely devout Muslims. Yes, we only know about Obama?s early years as a Muslim; and yes, twenty years ago he became a Christian. The issue, however, is why he has been less than candid about his early background and his family. Indeed, he appears to have actively deceived the public about it. That is why the blogosphere is so exercised about it.

There’s actually a whopping load of documentation proving that Barack Hussein Obama has been disengenuous to the extreme about his background – which is exactly what we would expect a Manchurian-style candidate to do.

Phillips also points out:

Now here’s another curious thing. Much has been made of his membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose former pastor and his long-standing mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama was forced finally to renounce on account of his obnoxious views (although he has signally failed unequivocally to denounce those views themselves and the no less obnoxious philosophy of the Trinity United black power church). But according to a passing reference in a profile in The New Republic last year, Pastor Wright was himself a Muslim convert to Christianity. He seems to have moved from being a Muslim black power fanatic to a Christian black power fanatic — which might go some way to explaining his close affinity to the Muslim black power ideologue Louis Farrakhan.

I went to the article she cited and – sure enough:

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.'”

And just Google “black liberation theology” and “Marxist” and see that the one is virtually identical to the other.

Now, I’ve written over 70 articles – many directed at Barack Obama – and never once used his “full” name until now. Nor have I ever attempted to link him to Islam until now.

I want to make it clear: I am directly responding to incredibly cheap shots by Barack Obama against an honorable man.

Barack Obama: don’t you dare whine and cry foul every time someone criticizes you, and then go out and unload these kinds of hateful and unsubstantiated charges on your opponent.