White Working Americans With JOBS Obama’s Biggest Problem

If you don’t have a job, or if you are just pathologically predispositioned to look for a handout, then you likely support Obama with your hand held out.

But what happens if you actually HAVE a job?

In that case, you are likely to realize that if Obama puts money into someone else’s pocket, it’s probably the very same dollars minus the generous cut that end up going into his and his fellow Democrats’ campaign contributions – that he took out of YOUR pocket.

And you are an enemy of the state, as far as your Marxist-in-Chief is concerned.

AP-GfK Poll: Working-class whites move toward GOP
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer   – Wed Oct 6, 7:40 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Working-class whites are favoring Republicans in numbers that parallel the GOP tide of 1994 when the party grabbed control of the House after four decades.

The increased GOP tilt by these voters, a major hurdle for Democrats struggling to keep control of Congress in next month’s elections, reflects a mix of two factors, an Associated Press-GfK poll suggests: unhappiness with the Democrats’ stewardship of an ailing economy that has hit this group particularly hard, and a persistent discomfort with President Barack Obama.

“They’re pushing the country toward a larger government, toward too many social programs,” said Wayne Hollis, 38, of Villa Rica, Ga., who works at a home supply store.

The AP-GfK poll shows whites without four-year college degrees preferring GOP House contenders 58 percent to 36 percent. That 22-point bulge is double the edge these voters gave Republican congressional candidates in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats won House control and then padded their majority.

Ominously for Democrats, it resembles the Republicans’ 21-point advantage with working-class whites in 1994, when the GOP captured the House and Senate in a major rebuke to the Democrats and President Bill Clinton. The advantage is about the same as the 18-point margin this group gave Republicans in 2004, when President George W. Bush won re-election and helped give the GOP a modest number of additional House and Senate seats.

“Obama ran as a centrist, and clearly he’s not been that,” said GOP pollster David Winston. “People who have been part of our majority coalition are looking to come back to us.”

Working-class whites have long tilted Republican. Many were dubbed Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, when some in the North and Midwest who had previously preferred Democrats began supporting conservative Republicans.

The Democrats can hardly afford further erosion from a group that comprises about four in 10 voters nationally. […]

In addition, working-class whites are likelier than white college graduates in the poll to say their families are suffering financially and to have a relative who’s recently lost a job. They are less optimistic about the country’s economy and their own financial situations, gloomier about the nation’s overall direction and more critical of how Democrats are handling the economy.

“Democrats are more apt to mess with the middle class and take our money,” said Lawrence Ramsey, 56, a warehouse manager in Winston-Salem, N.C. […]

“The country hasn’t come up the way it should have under Obama,” said Barbara Schwickrath, 64, a clothing store employee from Brooksville, Fla.

Some points occur to me:

1) Of course the idiot mainstream media concludes that working-class whites are racist for abandoning Obama.  But if that is the case, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter clearly must be a black men, because the same working-class whites who are dumping Obama dumped Clinton and Carter in nearly the same numbers.

It could be that these working-class whites are dumping Obama because he is a failed president who is hurting the country with his terrible policies.  But that is something that the mainstream media could never bring themselves to consider.

2) It could be that working-class whites recognize that Obama – who got elected presenting himself as a “centrist” – has fundamentally deceived them.  The Senator who was “THE most liberal” – even to the left of Bernie Sauders, who ran as a SOCIALIST – has turned out to be the most liberal president of all time.  Surprise, surprise.

It just might be that working-class white Americans are angry that a man who got elected on the promise that he would transcend partisan and ideological politics instead became the most polarizing president in American history.

Thanks to Obama, more Americans of all groups have come to their senses and abandoned the liberalism that has clearly failed.  According to a very recent Gallup poll, 54% of Americans now label themselves “conservative,” versus only 18% who drink the Kim Jong Il KoolAid and call themselves “liberal.”

Think I’m going too far?  Consider that Democrat candidate for governor Jerry Brown is a man who illegally traveled to communist Cuba so he could hobnob with tyrant communist dictator Fidel Castro.  And a man identified as a “traitor” against the United States set up the meeting.

And this happened in 2000.  When Bill Clinton was in office refusing to do anything about it, and back before Castro realized that communism wasn’t working.

And, if Jerry Brown manages to get elected, we’ll get to put that thesis as to whether communism works or not to the test yet again.

3) But the real problem white working-class Americans have with Obama is simply because they’re WORKING.  And they know that Obama is an enemy of working people, because he is an enemy of the businesses that give them jobs.  In particular, it is the small businesses who employ most Americans that are Obama’s real enemy.

It’s a shame.  People with jobs should be seen as the greatest asset to a nation.  But to Obama, the people who fund government with their taxes are enemy number one and persona non grata.

Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

In other words, any reasonably intelligent person should have known that Obama’s core promise as candidate was in actuality a cynical deception from a fundamentally dishonest politician who was cravenly willing to pass off any deceit to get himself elected.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

It nearly immediately became obvious that Obama’s “transcending the ideological wars” was a cynical marketing gimmick offered by people who had no intention of living up to their campaign rhetoric.

Republicans reacted angrily to the president’s change in tone. Mr. Obama and the Democrats were talking eloquently about bipartisanship, they said, without letting the Republicans have any real influence.

“There is a disconnect between the tone of what I’ve been hearing, from the White House and the Democratic leadership, and the substance of what I’ve been hearing,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “We thought what [bipartisanship] meant is that the president would define an agenda and then we’d sit down together and put forth our best ideas.”

If Republicans such as Lamar Alexander actually thought that way, they were as gullible as the American people who swallowed Obama’s lies much the same way that fish in a pond gobble up obnoxious kids’ spit.  Like those disgusting snot-filled lougies, Obama’s core promise of transcending the partisanship was something that the American people were so hungry for that they rushed to thoughtlessly gobble up even the most disgusting substitute.

Here’s what Obama recently said to Democrats, again as reported by the New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

Note to world: Obama is talking about his own citizens.  And his hatred for them drips out like venom.

Not only is this caustic remark in no way close to anything even faintly resembling “bipartisanship,” but it is in fact diving to the bottom of the partisan, idelogical watters where the most loathsome bottom feeders reside.

Obama has demonized George Bush, demonized Wall Street (after having cynically taken more campaign contributions from Wall Street firms than anyone), demonized banks, demonized American citizens for exercising their rights at tea party events, demonized car manufacturers, demonized health insurance companies (whom he demagogued as “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads” even as HIS administration and party trotted out lie after lie against them), demonized doctors (whom he claimed amputated diabetics’ feet and yanked out childrens’ tonsils just to pad their fees), repeatedly demonized and attempted to undermine Fox News, demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and demonized anyone else who disagreed with his radical agenda.

George Bush never even came close to being such a demagogue.  I frankly don’t believe that even NIXON was such a demagogue.

I have never seen such constant demagogic and demonizing rhetoric – against American citizens and American businesses – from a U.S. president of either political party in my adult lifetime.

That divisive demagoguery, in spite of his many promises to heal the divide and restore bipartisanship, is Obama’s biggest failure.  And his biggest lie.

Obama Proves OWN Partisan Bias In Targeting Bush Officials

From Hotair:

Obama’s DNI reminds Obama that “enhanced interrogation” worked

posted at 8:44 am on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s top man in the intelligence community sent the President a memo defending the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, which the White House edited before releasing to the press de-emphasizing that defense.  Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, pointed out that most of what we know about al-Qaeda came from using those techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, countering leaks last week from the Obama administration that claimed the methods produced no data:

President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

The New York Times, which got a copy of the memo, also notices some odd redactions from the version released by the White House:

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

In other words, the Obama administration covered up the fact that even their own DNI acknowledges that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information.  When Dick Cheney demanded the release of the rest of the memos relating that information, he wasn’t just going on a fishing expedition.  Cheney filed a request to declassify those memos in March, and the CIA has yet to decide on his request, but we can no longer doubt that records exist showing the success of those interrogations.

Obama has occasionally suggested a truth-and-reconciliation approach to probing the use of torture by the Bush administration, but this establishes that Obama isn’t terribly interested in “truth”.  Withholding the truth that waterboarding produced information that saved hundreds of American lives, perhaps thousands, shows that Obama values public relations more than he does the truth.  He wants to argue that none of this was necessary to secure the nation against terrorist attacks.  In order to make that argument, he redacted Blair’s memo, including his defense of his predecessors, whom Blair acknowledges had to face some tough decisions to uncover plots against America.

Four former CIA directors opposed releasing the memos arguing that such a release would undermine national security.

WASHINGTON – Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.

Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.

Even Obama’s OWN CURRENT CIA director pulled back from releasing the memos, said administration needed to consider the possibility that the memos’ release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse, and urged more censorship.

Obama now has a proven track record of releasing – in the name of “openness and accountability” – only that information which harms his opposition, while refusing to release and even censoring any mitigating information.

Wow.  The most radically liberal Senator in Congress is breaking his promise to be bipartisan and above the political divide as a “new politician,” which was at the heart of his campaign.  He is turning out to be the most divisive president in modern history.  What can I say?  I’m speechless with shock – that there were enough fools in the country who thought he’d turn out any differently to get this leftwing ideologue elected.

And let’s be clear: the buck stops at Obama.  He’s the one responsible for this partisan witch hunt, this criminalizing of political differences.  If the radical left is driving the agenda, Barack Obama is still the man serving as their tool.

Update, April 27: Porter Goss – CIA director from September 2004 to May 2006, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 1997 to 2004 – described himself as being “slack-jawed” over the Democrats blatantly obvious lies and demagoguery over this issue.

An article from Atlas Shrugs entitled “Obama Crossed the Line” raises the legitimate anger that should result from Obama’s actions:

If Obama commits treason, is it legal? Obama was not brought up in the USA and lacks American DNA. The fact that he was raised in the largest Muslim country in the world and that his mother was a communist and his Kenyan father was no lover of America tells us a lot about where Obama’s sympathies lie. It tells me that for Obama, it’s payback time, and payback is a bitch.

The problem with starting a process of partisan witch hunting is that it won’t stop.  You can hunt conservatives down now, Obama; but just realize that you’ll be the witch next.

Obama Supporter Nadler Argues Obama Lacks Political Courage

This has always been my issue with Barack Obama, and it’s never even so much as been asked of the man by the mainstream media: how on earth could you have stayed in that church under that horrible Jeremiah Wright for 23 years?  How can you argue that you have the judgment and courage to be the President of the United States when you didn’t even have the judgment or courage to leave that church?

I don’t understand the ins and outs of running for President of the necessary dark sides of being a politician, but I DO know that there is no way in hell I would have remained in that Godforsaken church.

It’s time this line of thought finally came out of the mouth of a Democrat and Obama supporter.  As found on the Weekly Standard, Congressman Jerrod Nadler had this to say about Obama’s long time attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s racist, Afrocentric, anti-American church:

Nadler Questions Obama’s Courage

In another YouTube video captured by Pamela Geller, Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler says that Barack Obama lacked the “political courage” to walk out of Jeremiah Wright’s church.

We have this via ABC’s Jake Tapper:

Says Nadler: “I have no personal knowledge of what I’m about to say. What I’m about to say is my guess…”

Hoo boy.

“My guess,” Nadler said, “knowing how politics works, what I’m about to say is not particularly…”

He searches for the word. Rejects a couple suggestions.

“…not particularly complimentary towards Sen. Obama,” he says.

“Think of the history here,” says the six-term New York congressman. “You have a guy who’s half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago … to start a political career. Doesn’t know anybody.

“Gets involved with community organizing — why? Because that’s how your form a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. … Why did he join the church? … Because that’s how you get to know people.

“Now maybe it takes a couple years,” Nadler says, suggesting that soon Obama starts to think of Wright, “’Jesus, the guy’s a nut, the guy’s a lunatic.’ But you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district.”

Suggests a woman: “You don’t walk in though.”

“He didn’t know it when he walked in, presumably,” said Nadler.

And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: “He didn’t have the political courage to make the statement of walking out.

“Now, what does it tell me?” Nadler asked. “It tells me that he wasn’t terribly political courageous. Does it tell me that he agreed with the reverend in any way? No. It tells me he didn’t want to walk out of a church in his district.”

Contrary to Nadler’s assertion that Obama “didn’t know” about Wright’s racist anti-American ideology “when he walked in” to Trinity, Obama listened to Wright rant about “white folks’ greed” during the very first sermon he attended.

The claim that Obama lacks political courage has quite a bit of other evidence apart from Jeremiah Wright.  We can go back to his relationship with the Chicago political machinery to examine a man who – although surrounded by corruption – never once bucked the system.  Chicago Tribune writer John Kass explains the media’s utter refusal to look into Obama’s political dealings in Chicago thusly:

The national media have never wanted to understand, much less expose, political corruption here, or examine how Obama prospered under the Daley machine’s guidance. A trip down the Chicago Way would force them to re-examine their ridiculous narrative that sets Obama as a political reformer riding a white horse, or is that a winged unicorn?

Kass discusses Obama’s relationships with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Tony Rezko, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Barack Obama never displayed political courage in the US Senate either.  A man who votes with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 97% of the time isn’t exactly proving how brave he is.  And along the enlightened path along brown nosing his leadership in such a stellar manner, Obama managed to win the coveted title of “most liberal Senator” in the process.  And he most certainly didn’t earn that title by bucking the system, but by following it.

Just as he followed Jeremiah Wright for 23 years.

It occurs to me that an examination into Barack Obama’s life would likely reveal that John McCain displayed more courage in one typical day during his 5 1/2 years of hell in the Hanoi Hilton than Barack Obama displayed over his entire life.

Too bad if Obama wins tomorrow; given these difficult times the country is facing, our next President will likely need a great deal of courage to succeed, political and otherwise.

Democrats and Obama: Watch Deep Unease Turn To Despair

As the Politico reports, things aren’t happy in the People’s Socialist Republic of Obamaland:

“It’s more than an increased anxiety,” said Doug Schoen, who worked as one of Bill Clinton’s lead pollsters during his 1996 reelection and has worked for both Democrats and independents in recent years. “It’s a palpable frustration. Deep-seated unease in the sense that the message has gotten away from them.”

Hmm.  Democrats nominate THE most liberal member of the United States Senate – for the second time in a row – and then try to demonize a man who has always been regarded as a political moderate into some kind of card-carrying member of “the vast right wing conspiracy.”  And then wonder what went wrong?

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  What else would you call the modern Democratic Party?

Barack Obama, The Race-Card-Dealing Radical

Barack Obama had the following to say on July 31st:

“Since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.”

But let’s break that down.

“Since they don’t have any new ideas…” Well, stop and think about it: the demand by McCain and Republicans to drill for oil offshore is itself a VERY new idea, given that it hasn’t been contemplated by Democrats for decades. It’s Barack Obama’s psycho-environmentalist “let’s all inflate our tires instead” mantra that is the same old boring liberal nonsense.

“They’re going to say that I’m a risky guy.” You’re darn right that we’re saying he’s a risky guy:

He’s THE most liberal member of the entire United States Senate. If that fact alone doesn’t add up to “risky,” I don’t know what does.

His worldview is radical and Marxist, coming out of Jim Cone’s and Jeremiah Wright’s “black liberation theology” and the most radical church in the entire country.

His “economic justice” platform comes right out of Jeremiah Wright’s clearly Marxist economics. It is nothing more than a code word for massive social redistributionism.

He’s got so many radical, leftist, and even terrorist associations beginning in his youth (e.g., Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky) and continuing unabated to the present that it’s frankly frightening. His longstanding official association with the radical group ACORN is also beyond troubling.

“They’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills…”

It’s amazing that the man’s very name is somehow supposed to be off-limits. Regardless of what Barack Hussein Obama may think of himself, his name is NOT the sacred divine name which dare not be uttered. If this man is so arrogant and so hyper-sensitive that he can’t stand people saying his name, then he has no business in politics or anywhere else where he could come into contact with people.

It’s that “he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills” comment that gets to the radical heart of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is spouting the same racist garbage that his “spiritual mentor” for 23 years spouted. I’ve seen the “he’s not playing the race card” posts, and they have to engage in all kinds of semantics to avoid the clear meaning of the sentence. Ask yourself, “Why doesn’t Obama look like all the presidents?” The clear answer is, “Because he’s black.” It’s not because Obama doesn’t wear a funny wig (Washington) or because Obama doesn’t wear a funny beard (Lincoln). He’s clearly saying “They’re going to point out that I’m black.” Period. Exclamation point.

It offends me that Barack Obama would so casually attribute racism to others without evidence (name the Republicans who are using race!!!). It should offend every decent American. You want to know who’s really out there playing the race card? Obama’s own supporters, like Ludacris. It’s the left (think also of Jesse Jackson’s recent N-word fiasco) that is using race in a racist fashion, not the right.

Obama has denied he was referring to race, but his own chief strategist acknowledged that he WAS referring to race. Barack Obama, once again, is a documented liar. If you are going to accuse people like me of being a racist, Obama, you should at least have the moral courage and integrity to admit that you’re doing it.

As for Obama’s complaint, “and they’re going to send out nasty emails,” give me a break!  Liberals aren’t sending out anything nasty, are they?  Barack Obama complains that John McCain is attacking him in the very same conference that he not only attacks John McCain, but gets so low that he plays the race card without provocation.  This is first class serial whining and first class hypocrisy.  The Obama campaign’s “Audacity of Hope” has long-since abandoned “Hope” and relied upon “Audacity.”

Barack Obama’s statement – for all of it’s distortion of the truth – serves to remind us just how risky he truly is.

Even the leftist-oriented Rolling Stone acknowledges in its piece on Obama that:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Between a liberal-socialist media that openly wants Obama to be president, and between the fear over the charges of “racism” that await any meaningful exposition of Obama’s life and thought, Americans have been prevented from seeing who Barack Obama really is. It’s long-past time they found out.

Petraeus, Clinton, Obama, and All Democrats: Will The One With Credibility Please Stand Up?

As General David Petraeus returns to the US Senate to report on the war in Iraq, it is worth reminiscing on what occurred last time he appeared.

Yes, we had our front page ad “General Betray Us?” in that appeared in the New York Times with a sweetheart rate that violated the papers’ own standard of ethics.

But we also had that bastion of personal integrity – the junior Senator from New York – question the honesty and credibility of the general.

I cite a 12 Sep 2007 New York Sun story that appeared under the headline, “Clinton Spars With Petraeus on Credibility.” The first two paragraphs of that story by staff reporter Eli Lake read as follows:

“WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.””

Well, let’s reflect on that a bit. Hindsight being what it is and all.

We now know that Senator Clinton is a documented liar on numerous fronts (her story of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia has been refuted by video of the event; her story of playing a role in the Ireland peace talks has been refuted by a Nobel Prize winning participant in addition to other participants; her story of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was refuted by that stain on the blue dress, etc. etc.).

I saw a biography of General David Petraeus on Fox News after he was named to command the multinational forces in Iraq, and was frankly awed by the man’s history of character and integrity. His entire life is a study in character and honor. He took control over a situation that had been presented as hopeless and turned it around in a manner that can only be described as stunning. By the time he appeared before the Senate last year, he had come through for this nation in a way that merited the gratitude of every American, and in particular every parent who sent a son or daughter to Iraq under his command. And as a reward this true American hero was attacked by demagogues who will never even begin to understand the character and integrity that David Petraeus has demonstrated throughout his life.

Mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on vicious attacks against American heroes:

Jay Rockefeller, the Senator from West Virginia, launched an incredibly hateful statement against Senator John McCain in an interview with the Charleston Gazette. He said McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. According to the paper, Rockefeller said “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

Rockefeller later apologized for his comment, but you can’t just take back a statement like that, can you? It was inexcusable, and frankly unforgivable. Rockefeller not only attacked JohnMcCain; he attacked every American serviceman who ever fired a weapon against an enemy during time of war.

This Senator Jay Rockefeller, by the way, is the same Jay Rockefeller who has positioned himself as a major Barack Obama supporter, and who recently urged that – for the good of the country – Senator Clinton should drop out of the Democratic primary and support Barack Obama. You can thus add him to the list of associates of Barack Obama who have said and/or done terrible things against America (e.g. Obama’s pastor for twenty years’ [Jeremiah Wright] racist charge that America created the AIDS virus to kill black people; his wife Michelle Obama’s statement that “America in 2008 is a mean place” which itself followed a similar statement that she had never been proud of America in her adult life; Barack Obama’s friend (as acknowledged by Obama’s own strategist David Axelrod) and former Weatherman Terrorist Professor William Ayers – who openly acknowledged bombing attacks after 9/11 – and claimed to have no regrets over them).

[As to William Ayers, it is frankly amazing that this man – who has openly acknowledged bombing the New York Police Headquarters as well as the Capital building and other locations and said on 9/11 that his only regret is that he didn’t bomb enough – is now an honored member of the liberal education establishment and a significant member of his community in Chicago, Illinois. You begin to see more clearly the absolutely toxic political environment that Barack Obama has emerged from].

Now, that last paragraph will be immediately dismissed by those who argue that you can’thold one’s associations against someone. So it doesn’t matter that Barack Obama sat in a pew for twenty years under the teachings of a documented America-hating racist. But it certainly goes to his judgment and his integrity. Michelle Obama has clearly been influenced by her pastor’s teachings, and Barack Obama has whitewashed several of Reverend Wright’s sermons and teachings – by removing the anti-white rantings but holding on to the substance – for mass consumption. Wright railed against “white greed” in his “Audacity of Hope” message. Obama rephrases it to say, “The greatest problem in America is greed.” Obama leaves it up to you to recognize that he’s talking about “white” greed.

And also mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on telling self-serving lies or padding her resume.

A Snopes.com article details some of Barack’s lies and provides their refutations. While Hillary Clinton’s lie can be seen exposed in vivid, hillarious color, Barack Obama is an even bigger documented liar than she when it comes to rewriting history to fabricate his own story. Barack Obama massively fabricated his association with President Kennedy: his father did NOT come to the United States with Kennedy money. And his mother were NOT inspired to marry and have a child by the Selma march as Barack Obama claimed: the first of the marches did not occur until at least five years after Barack was born!

Furthermore, Obama has lied about numerous aspects of his past in an attempt to bolster his credentials. He claimed on numerous occasions that he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago: he was no such thing. He was a lecturer only. There is as gigantic a distinction between “professor” and “lecturer” as there is between “sniper fire”and “there had been reports of possible sniper fire in the area.”

Obama has also boasted of having passed legislation that in reality never even left committee. And fellow organizers have said that Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

An 8 April 2008 Time Magazine article by Mark Halperin details the above “misstatements” and many others. Basically, it chops Obama’s credibility down like a tree.

Another clear Obama lie has been his profound mischaricterization of John McCain as saying that McCain “wants the war to last for a hundred years.” Asked whether he would support U.S. troops staying in Iraq for fifty years, McCain said, ““Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” The non-partisan Factcheck.org says Obama’s claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a “twisted” and “serious distortion of what McCain actually said. So much for the candidate of hope and change, and so much for claiming to run and honest campaign.

Barack Obama’s biggest lie of all may well be the central promise of his entire campaign that – as the candidate of undefined “hope” and “change” – he can bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. In reality, Barack Obama – winner of the prestigious “Most Liberal Senator of 2007 Award” handed out by the National Journal as determine by voting record – has established himself as a radically left of center politician. He is currently having to distance himself from his own views. An Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat, presents extremely liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – positions that appear completely at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. Yet another lie, I believe. In running for president, Barack Obamama must literally run away from himself.

Thus the Democratic primary becomes a question of “Which liar told bigger lies?” And, “Which group cares more about which lie?”

Meanwhile, General David Petraeus’ character, honesty, and integrity stands out like the giant Gulliver must have stood out among the Lilliputians.

But let’s not be too harsh on Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. They are Democrats, after all. What do you really expect? They come from the Party of Bill Clinton, who sought to become our Commander in Chief in spite of his letter directly expressing his “loathing the military” (a direct quote completely accurate in context).

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator John Kerry, who said of American soldiers:

“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal andvery particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator Dick Durbin, who – on the floor of the U.S. Senate – compared American soldiers to Nazis, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility with Soviet Gulags. Durbin’s comment resonated in perfect pitch with actress Jane Fonda’s calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during her visit to North Vietnam in 1972. And I give as my source an al Jazeera article to demonstrate just how harmful to the United States – and how helpful to our vicious enemies – statements such as Durbin’s really are.

The Democratic Party is the party of Representative Jack Murtha, who went on record as the first on-the-record U.S. official regarding the events that took place with U.S. Marines in Haditha. Before any investigation – and certainly before any trial – Murtha said, “Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians.”

In another interview Murtha said, “There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell. ”

The aftermath should demonstrate just how despicable Murtha was in publicly convicting these young Marines without a trial. Charges have been repeatedly dropped. Others have been acquitted. One Marine – clearly believing the zealous prosecution line – agreed to testify against another Marine. Thus far, the Marines have been vindicated. The results of subsequent investigations have clearly exonerated the Marines. Again and again, the details provided by Marines confirmed their story; again and again, the details alleged by the Iraqi witnesses have been demonstrated to be false.

I have heard Murtha apologists claim that Murtha himself was a Marine and therefore his character should be beyond question. Well, so was Lee Harvey Oswald! Should we therefore not question his character?!?! As a further observation, I find a former Marine railroading fellow Marines to be even more contemptible than a non-Marine railroading Marines. It’s like finding out that the man who publicly and maliciously framed you was your own father; there’s just something profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of a man who does this kind of thing.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Representatives Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, who, back in 29 Sep 2002 appeared on This Week from the foreign (make that enemy) soil Baghdad and blasted U.S. foreign policy. Their clear point was that Americans should believe the documented torturer and murderer Saddam Hussein and distrust Republican President George Bush. During the course of this on-air fiasco, a clearly stunned George Will said of McCermott and Bonior’s vicious remarks, “”Why Saddam Hussein doesn’t pay commercial time for that advertisement for his policy, I do not know.”

Well, it turns out he did.

We now know that – in the opening words of a recent AP article – that “Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime.” See the full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

Even if these Democratic Congressmen didn’t know they were being used by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence, their actions were beneath all contempt. These elected American officials allowed themselves to be used as pawns by the intelligence agency of a ruthless tyrant.

The Democratic Party is the party of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” on 20 April 2007. Again, I offer as my source al Jazeera to show just how harmful such statements can be to us, and how they can and ARE being used to embolden our enemies.

Anyone who is capable of stepping back from political party partisanship for just a moment ought to have difficulty with a leader who so blithely claims defeat for his country in time of war. Winston Churchill famously said, “We will never give up! We will never surrender!” Henry Reid says, “This war is lost.” Thank God Churchill didn’t think that way, or we’d all be speaking German. As it is – if the terrorists and over a billion Muslims have their way – we might well all end up speaking Arabic.

And the Democratic Party is the party of House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn, who acknowledged in an inverview on 30 July 2007 before General Petraeus’ first report that good news inIraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.

As General David Petraeus wraps up his visit to the snake pit of Washington, don’t forget who the Democrats are. They are the Party that is invested in American failure, the Party that roots for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of opportunistic political advantage.

Christopher Hitchens has a piece in Slate.com titled, “Flirting With Disaster: The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It’s definitely worth reading.

I often wonder: had the Democrats continued to support the war that was authorized by a vote of 77-23 in the Senate (with 29 Democrats supporting [Senator Clinton among them] and only 21 opposed) and 296-133 in the House, and presented the world with a united front, how different could things have turned out? Would our enemies have remained emboldened in the face of steadfast American resolve? Would our allies have continued to refuse to help us had we presented a united face determined to prevail against the forces of international terrorism?

Imagine what would have happened in World War II had Republicans done everything they could have done to undermine, question, distort, and misrepresent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt? Imagine what would have happened had Republicans en masse called for a withdrawal from the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Had they characterized American fighting men as war criminals? Had they demanded that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur come to Senate and defend themselves against charges that they were dishonest and incompetent? Do you think it would have helped or hurt the war effort? [This amounts to an IQ test, Democrats: and you have failed horribly].

For the Democrats to turn against the President in time of war and work to undermine American efforts to attain victory out of political opportunism is both craven and cowardly.

If good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, then Americans should hope for nothing less than really, really bad news for Democrats this November.