“Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?”

Denise Conner's picture

From the London Times

“Obama: is America ready for this dangerous leftwinger?”

Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it [Michelle Obama’s “pride” comment] reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party [sic] that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. [Remember John Kerry?] They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

[Read the rest of the article and see if you agree that Obama's "dangerous."]


"Obama’s Big-Government Vision"

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion.

Obama would like voters to believe that he’s the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he’s looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. Shocked

Denise Conner's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 9:17pm.

Who is going to pony up the 800 billion?? Like I don't know.

Submitted by jackyldo on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 9:35am.

Liberals are 100 % for individual rights and equal opportunity.
They want to limit the power of government, guarantee free speech and expression FOR ALL citizens.

Historically liberals have rejected the divine rights of the King, in 1775 it was King George in 2008 it's King George Bush.

Barak Obama wants to make sure EVERYONE has health care.
The U.S. spends 15% of our GDP in 2006, than any other country in the world. We spend more per individual than any nation in the world, Yet 16 % of our population has NO health insurance. IN 2016 UNLESS CHECKED WE'LL SPEND NEARLY 20% OF OUR GDP ON HEALTH CARE.

The World Health Organization ranks the USA 1st in spending and responsiveness, 37th and overall performance and 72nd of 191 nations in overall health of our citizens.

Is this an interest of LIBERALS ONLY, or a national issue for ALL citizens.

Barak Obama wants a GI Bill for our returning soldiers, to treat them fairly and see they get COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE.

Is this a LIBERAL POLICY or something all American's should be clamoring for ?

If not in favor of treating the nearly 30,000 wounded from Iraq to good health care - Please take your yellow ribbons off your car.

This country has been divided too long on lines that conservatism is wonderful and liberalism is a dog to be kicked to the curb to die.

It's time all American's Republican and Democrat look to actually solve America's problems and serve the American people.

Vote for your candidate, but vote and make those you vote for do their jobs.

NUK_1's picture
Submitted by NUK_1 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 12:53pm.

As far as re-opening trade agreements, the USA needs to stop violating free trade agreements themselves like what has happened with the anti-gambling provisions snuck into the Safe Ports Act that banned online gambling and any gambling financial processing by banks/institutions in the USA or any other foreign banks that do business also in the US. In trade agreements made through GATS, what the US did is a clear violation and the World Trade Organization confirmed that. Now, countries like Antigua and Barbados are free to openly pirate US companies' intellectual property and sell it to others, up to a proposed 3billion dollars worth. Nice.

That's just one example. The steel industry got some protections from Bush that also violated free trade agreements as
As far as Obama wanting to re-open some of these agreements, I'm for it and maybe new agreements we won't openly violate can be crafted and maybe the US can do away with the ludicrous "unlawful internet gambling" provisions of Safe Ports in favor of meaningful regulations.

A person doesn't have to be "pro labor" to realize that some parts of NAFTA and GAIT need a second or third look. It's too simplistic to not dramatically update some of these treaties and agreements over time as things in the world change rapidly.

I'm not a fan at all of left-leaning Dems in general, but there are a couple of issues where they have the right idea and personal liberties is one of them. They at least have a lot less zeal in fighting the War on People(which is what it is, not "drugs")or getting super-uptight over "porn" and "gambling," moral issues the government needs to stay well away from.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 12:31pm.

Lord save us from the wild profligate spending of the Republicans. The very idea that Democrats are big spenders is completely false. The idea arose because Democrats spend money and try to pay for that spending instead of saddling our children and grand-children with the debt like the Republican Party is now almost totally fixated on doing. The Republican's only guiding principle now is whenever possible and however possible, steal from the future instead of paying for the policies they implement now.

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. For every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99

Between uncontrolled inflation and Ford’s conservative bend the debt increased 17% his first full year in office (1975), and 13% his second (1976).

President Carter tried to control government spending during inflationary times. The national debt increased an average of 9% per year while he was in office

The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year.

George Bush Sr. increased the debt on average 11.8% a year during his four years as President.

President Clinton managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office.

The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion.

Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year, twice Reagan’s spending.

Increasing the size of the Federal government is almost exclusively the actions of Republicans. We should hope that Obama spends like Carter whose entire term accounts for a little more than one-year of Bush’s spending.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:16pm.

You had to spend all day at the Carter Center for World fascism Studies to come up with this one.

Although your "facts" may be "factual" the context and omissions of many of your facts is mind boggling.

Mind you, I'm very, very disappointed in the Republican party. They had 6 years of power in charge of all three branches of government and did little to prove they deserved it.

But to suggest and/or imply that your father's administration's "record" was superior to all of the others by the "facts" you've tossed around is pretty funny. So either you are not as smart as I had you figured out for, or, you are doing a stand up routine a the local "Punchline" and you are just trying out a few new lines on us, to see if they work. Sorry, but your analysis is not funny at all, but very sad.

This is going to be one heck of a election year. An Old White Experienced Man with a plan who is without a Party, and an extremely angry young Black Messiah who has no plan.

If only we could impose a poll tax again. But not require money to vote, but a question or two that has to be answered correctly.

ex: Name your current Congressman, your current U.S. Senators, and your local state representatives, or list the top five songs on any given chart along with which jail Britney Spears or Paris Hilton is in today.

Those that only answer the latter portion of the question correctly, get to return to their jobs at the local fast food restaurant, while the ones that answered the former correctly, has their votes counted.

I'll even be fair and throw in a bonus question.

Answer as briefly as possible, how the Democratic Party, who supposedly champions the rights of the disenfranchised, of the poor, of the minorities-against the evil rich elite Republicans, can have the audacity to establish a system where by their Super Delegate elites can override the votes of the ignorant masses?

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:40pm.

Nah, it just took a peek into the database. Here is the source:

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

I leave town for just a week and y’all go crazy attacking the next President of the US. Since nothing anyone here has ever posted has changed anyone else’s mind that I can determine, I started just to let it pass. But the self-delusion and self-righteousness of the R’s claiming they are fiscally responsible when in reality they are just stealing from future generations and selling the country to the communist Chinese so that they can promote their greed by demanding government while refusing to pay for it was noteworthy. (I'm feeling better and better.)

As to the super delegates, come on and tell the truth Richard. If you were us and given the history of our choices for nominees, wouldn’t you want some mechanism to override our votes?

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:57pm.

I'm not self delusional about the Republican Party, thats what gets you so confused, or the fact that you forgot to take this morning's lithium.

The reason the Right is so upset right now, is exactly because the Republicans in Congress and in the White House, have acted exactly like the Democrats in their wild ass spending, in their immigration tactics, in their expansion of government, etc.

We are pissed at them for acting like Democrats.

So its not that we are delusional and are following around our designated candidate chosen by Super Delegates, who is all symbolism and no substance. Nope, we are angry that we haven't found a true leader to bring us back into fiscal responsibility, into real answers for our immigration problems.

The delusion is in your own answer. You seem to find it practical and unimaginable NOT to control the wishes of the voters by having an elite special class of democrat power brokers give their approval.

If your "symbolism over substance" candidate coupled with the elite power brokers control over who is your designee isn't hypocritical, then again, you are either testing your new material for the Punchline, or, I'm afraid that I was too stupid to realize how low your intelligence really was. Which is of course, my fault for thinking you were brighter than the average Democrat. Say it ain't so! Tell me you are not that blind to your own partisan bias that you can't see the ridiculousness of this year's election and the candidates that we are selecting for the highest office in the world.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 2:41pm.

And it is expressed so eloquently in your statement: “... Republicans in Congress and in the White House, have acted exactly like the Democrats in their wild ass spending, in their immigration tactics, in their expansion of government, etc.”

You are still in denial after all these years! Here is the truth:

“... Republicans in Congress and in the White House, have acted exactly like the Republicans in their wild ass spending, in their immigration tactics, in their expansion of government, etc.”

Republicans spend WAY more than Democrats! Huge, gigantic and stupendous amounts of money that would shame a Democrat. We balance budgets! We create surpluses! Then the Republicans come in and trash the economy again. Such is life. Expansion of government is almost an exclusively Republican position for the past quarter century or more.

And how you can even bring yourself to write comparing our immigration policies to the Republican amnesty policies of Reagan and McCain is beyond my comprehension. (I know the public façade your party speaks of when deluding its gullible members, I’m just referring here to the legislation it actually passes).

Ah, the virtues of the super delegates! (Guess who is related to one).

Hy•poc•ri•sy: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess.

Where is the hypocrisy? We nominated a bunch of unelectable nuts and changed the system. We were very up front about it, not professing beliefs (we were nominating leaders) that we did not really believe (we were nominating losers).

So I reject your charge of hypocrisy!

And my "symbolism over substance" candidate? Go to his web site and read his 64 page platform which you can download in .pdf format so that you can print it and carry it around with you. Check out all the other information on his web site. Which part can’t you understand? I’ll try to help you out.

As to your statement: “Tell me you are not that blind to your own partisan bias that you can't see the ridiculousness of this year's election and the candidates that we are selecting for the highest office in the world.”

I am NOT!!! It is the most ridiculous system in the world. Positively insane.

But entertaining.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 5:38pm.

I found this update on YouTube from Red State which explains the Superdelegates.

Red State Update Explains Superdelegates

If you are not familiar with Red State… uh… it’s not a kid’s site.

While you're on YouTube with Red State Update, check them out on their "Jane Fonda says" Update on the list at the right. (Warning, warning, warning). I don't care who you are, that's funny.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:13pm.

Thanks for sharing that video. Cracked me up. I think their explanation for the Super Delegates is more sensible than yours though.

I also appreciate your honesty in actually demonstrating your party's disdain for the ignorant and mindless masses that typically vote in your primaries. The way you can brag that your Father's opinion on the democratic candidate is somehow superior than the average votes is comical. Of course, the average voter did put your dad into the White House. . . didn't that thing used to have solar panels on it? hmmmm.

What I think is really comical is that you aren't hearing from the masses of how unfair the super delegates process is, no, what you are hearing is veiled threats that if they don't vote for the Black Messiah, that there will be bloodshed. Sort of like today when two of your people got into a knife fight over their candidates.


Nope, you're not hearing of how hypocritical it is to have these super delegates, but of how it will tear your party apart if they don't vote for Obama. Is this anyway to nominate a candidate for President?

I mean, hells bells, Oprah is more black than Obama, she's more of a woman than Hillary, and she's much more inspirational. Why the heck isn't she your nominee since experience is less important than the symbolism of the candidate.

I just have my fingers crossed that Hillary gets enough tomorrow night to make this thing go to the convention floor. Wow, it will make Chicago in 1968 look like a garden party.

As to video's I suppose you've seen the youtube of Obama by some fellow named wil.li.am. or some sort of name like that. Its really inspirational.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 10:23pm.

Where did I ever brag that dad’s vote is superior? It is merely equal. True it’s equal to about 200,000 average voters but still it’s just equal.

The super delegates have been around now for 25 years. Why you Republicans have suddenly decided that our party’s means for breaking a tie is somehow wrong or (horrors) undemocratic is beyond me. In case of a tie situation, we let the party people, most of whom are on the ballot with whomever we nominate, decide. This is not only perfectly legitimate but superior to the R’s winner take all rules. Frankly, I haven’t met a Republican yet who is happy with your outcome. You’re just hoping for a divisive convention which, because of our rules, just isn’t going to happen. It is going to be sweetness and light. Now if you were not so partisan, you would be forced to agree that given the mixture of the party, the rules, and the Clintons; any outcome resulting in sweetness and light has to have merit!

You are right about the solar panel thing. However, I will pass up the chance to point out how the Republicans conspired amongst themselves to remove the solar panels which led directly to the subjugation of the United States to terrorists Arab governments by pursuing an energy policy detrimental to our country so that the few people who control the Republican Party, like Dick Cheney, could make hundreds of millions of dollars while duping the vox populi (who don’t have the reasoning ability to connect their consumption of foreign oil with the fact that they are financing both sides in the war on terror because they were educated in public schools) who cheered them on. Frankly it’s embarrassing and since soon Barack will descend from the heavens and set all conceivable wrongs to right, why sweat the small stuff at this point?

Oprah? Are you serious? She can’t be the nominee because she didn’t run. Geesh, Richard. You act like we don’t have any rules at all!

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:11pm.

As a conservative let me make one thing clear. When I first came across the Red State Update I could not quit laughing. Seriously, that is one of the funniest sites I have ran across in a long time. Smiling If those guys don't get you to rolling in the floor, no one ever will. I only wish they were on my side.


"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs Cool

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 5:51pm.

You're spending way too much time on-line good buddy.
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 5:38pm.


Submitted by Spyglass on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 3:05pm.

to vote for the Dems.

That and the fact that they two candidates they are running are VERY liberal, even by Dem standards.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 3:21pm.

Some form of national health care is coming, spyglass. The only question remaining is whether it will be government administered or administered by the private sector. I suspect the latter.

You can rail on and on about what you don't like about the Democrats, and I can assure you, nobody's listening. You've been factored into the "angry white man" category, and no amount of discussion or debate will ever change your mind.

The Democrats know this, that you won't vote for them, and ignore you.

The Republicans know this, that you will vote for them, and ignore you.

In this election cycle, you're a known quantity....the only question is whether or not you'll muster up enough energy to show up to vote on election day.

Submitted by Spyglass on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 3:30pm.

Especially about the broad brush which you use describe my voting record. It is my opinion, that the two Dem candidates are TOO liberal for me to consider. I have voted for Dems in the past.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:27pm.

Excellent fact-free rebuttal from Richard Hobbs.

You'll note Hobbs lacks the intestinal fortitude to address the specifics of Jeff Carter's facts, so we have his typical windy belittling whiny diatribe, not unlike a pouty first grader crying "it's not FAIR!"

Hobbs is a credit to his party.

And that, my friends, speaks volumes as to why the Democrats will win in a landslide this fall.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:43pm.

"Yes We Can!


"This is the first time I've ever been proud as an adult to be an American!"

"I'll negotiate face to face, with any two bit dictator in the world, with no conditions!"

"Let me make this perfectly clear, I did not have oral relations with that Limo Driver, Mr. Sinclair."

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 1:54pm.

Jeffc was kind enough to point out how the Republicans were actually the party of "leave it for our grandchildren to pay". In your rebuttal, you spent considerable time and effort discussing what was wrong with the Democratic Party and its eventual candidate. When sniffles pointed out your omission of factual info in your rebuttal, you, claiming to unleash an onslaught of facts, instead unleashed an onslaught of unrelated quotations. We can only assume, from all this, that you have no factual rebuttal to Jeffc's comments and, therefore, the Republican party is nothing but a spendthrift group bent on saddling the future generations of Americans with crippling debt owed, ultimately, to (probably) the Chinese. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 2:09pm.

JeffC's copy and paste, can easily be diced, stirred and sprinkled with any assortment of interpretations.

Carter was the most incompetent micro-managing President we ever had. He happened to become President during a very eventual period in which even he got more bad press than he really deserved.

The same goes for Reagan. He took office and aggressively cut taxes. With a Democratic control of Congress, he had to dance around a bit with spending increases. Much of which he approved, especially in National Defense. Reagan's mistake was in not knowing how screwed up our military had gotten since Vietnam.

So he spent the heck out of our military budget, which, if you remember, Clinton took advantage of, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Do you not remember the "peace dividends" that they talked about in the 90's, where they were closing down bases and cutting the size of our military?

Or do you only remember that it was a Republican Congress under Clinton, that for a brief while, kept some control on spending under Clinton, who left office, with an economy that was in a recession.

Or the fact, that George W's biggest increases in spending, for which Jeffc decries, was in two major areas, entitlement programs, which I'm assuming he knows was fully backed by the democrats, i.e. prescription medicare, (which sealed Bush's re-election), and his increase in the spending, again for the military and the War in Iraq.

So, I can spin Jeff's facts with other facts, but as he mentioned in his earlier posts, we have all made up our own minds. I just prefer to ignore the spin and deal with the current news of how the Democrats and ignorant Republicans are going to manage this year's election.

Oh, I hung up this morning on the National Republican Party's fund raising call. I told them when they start governing like Republican's, I'll start supporting them.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 2:23pm.

That's all you got, Hobbs? "But...but...CARTER?"

How positively pathetic.

Likewise your Conneresque attempt at revisionism.

We have endured six years of Republican control of the Executive branch and both houses of Congress, with people like you making excuses for any and all shortcomings.

Now you come along and attempt to revise history to claim that, by golly, not only do you NOT support President Bush and his policies, you've NEVER supported President Bush and his policies.

YOU, Richard Hobbs, and your fellow travellers are the main reason that Barack Obama need not specify any policy specifics. YOU, Richard Hobbs, and your fellow travellers have ruined America's reputation to the extent that people will accept change....ANY sort of "change"...because they realize that NO MATTER WHAT, things cannot get any worse than they are now.

You're being held accountable for your feckless blind support of Bush's disasterous presidency. Time to put on your big boy pants and take your medicine.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 4:07am.

Didn't you once say, "Really Denise, if you read this and care to respond in the future, you should do your own homework and know or semi-know what you're for or against (and why) to the point of defending it beyond one post. Sometimes, using facts will help, especially if they are on your side. Study Richard Hobbs blogs."

"Conneresque"? You told me to model my posts after Sir Richard (who's never "feckless"), and now you're telling him that he's like me? Puzzled I'm flattered, but he's probably insulted. Eye-wink

Oh, wait. That was "Jeff." I get the two of you mixed up any more. Laughing out loud

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 2:39pm.

"...because they realize that NO MATTER WHAT, things cannot get any worse than they are now.



JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 5:21pm.

for reminding us.

I don't know about the atomic bomb explosion but let us not forget that 9/11 and the over extension of the military came under Bush's watch. These are the things we are hoping the future cannot be worse than.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 9:26am.

“Let us not forget” that Al-Qaeda terrorists affiliated with Osama bin Laden tried in 1993 to bring down the WTC, and that was under Bill Clinton's watch.

ON THIS DAY 26 Feb. 1993: "World Trade Center Bomb Terrorises New York"

"Iraqi Complicity in the World Trade Center Bombing and Beyond"
(See picture.)

"On February 26, 1993, [15 years ago on Tuesday] a massive bomb exploded in the parking garage of the north tower of the World Trade Center building in New York City, killing six people [injuring 1,042] and leaving a crater six stories deep in the building's basement floors [causing nearly $600 million in property damage]. The mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef [who had an Iraqi passport], later boasted that he had hoped to kill 250,000 people [and bring down both towers, which would have succeeded if the van had been parked closer to the poured concrete foundations]. Two years later, Yousef was involved in a plot to bomb a dozen US airplanes flying over the Pacific."

"Bill Clinton's Disastrous Record of Fighting Terror"

An Unheeded Warning: When al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Bill Clinton shrugged.

(Excellent excerpt from Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror)

And what was Clinton's response to the terrorist attack on the WTC? Not to assess the damage himself (he never visited the site once in 1993) but to spend his time promoting his economic package. Treat the attack as a criminal matter, not a threat to national security. Prevent the Counter-Terrorism Center from investigating. Urge the public not to "overreact." Gut and demoralize the military.

Clinton did order the launching of 23 Tomahawk missiles on Baghdad [Iraq] on June 26, 1993, and called Saddam Hussein "particularly loathsome and cowardly" for his plan to assassinate former President George Bush.

(See “U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush.”)

"On the day after the bombing, the minority whip of the House, Newt Gingrich, said that the president should be 'cautious' in cutting the defense budget, as Mr. Clinton planned to do. Citing the Twin Towers bombing, Mr. Gingrich said, 'There's a very real requirement for human intelligence and military strength. Every time we have any display of weakness, any display of timidity . . . here are people on the planet eager to take advantage of us.' These would prove to be prescient words -- words, unfortunately, that Mr. Clinton did not heed."

"Mr. Clinton's Army: The military has suffered through eight years of neglect."

"Clinton's Defense Budget Weakens Nation's Insurance Against Disaster"


"The over extension of the military"? Puzzled

"Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military"

"After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D."


You "don't know about the atomic bomb"? Puzzled

Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How President Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security
by Robert Patterson

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football" — the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. This responsibility meant that he spent a considerable amount of time next to the president, giving him a unique perspective on the Clinton administration.

Though he arrived at the job "filled with professional devotion and commitment to serve," he left believing that Clinton had "sown a whirlwind of destruction upon the integrity of our government, endangered our national security, and done enormous harm to the American military in which I served."

Dereliction of Duty is not a personal attack on President Clinton or a commentary on his various scandals; rather, it is a "frank indictment of his obvious — to an eyewitness — failure to lead our country with responsibility and honor."

Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location; how the President and the First Lady, and much of their staff, consistently treated members of the military with disrespect and disdain; and how Clinton groped a female Air Force enlisted member while aboard Air Force One, among other incidents large and small.

A considerable portion of this slim book is devoted to the myriad ways in which President Clinton undermined the military, and hence the security, of the nation. He seriously questions Clinton's decisions to send troops to Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia to accomplish non-military tasks without clear objectives. Having participated in each of these engagements, Lt. Col. Patterson personally "experienced the frustration of needlessly wasted lives, effort, and national prestige" as well as the alarmingly low morale that Clinton inspired.

This is certainly not the first anti-Clinton book, but it is different in that Patterson does not seem to have a political ax to grind. In fact, at times, he appears apologetic about having to write about his ex-commander in chief. Yet, in the end, this retired soldier felt his last act of service should be to share his experience with his country. -- Shawn Carkonen

Dereliction of Duty Book Review


“Clinton Aide Says 9/11 Film 'Correct'”

A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden says the producer of the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script.

“Hillary's Run for White House Blocking 'Path to 9/11' DVD?”

[2006] Program that Dems tried to cancel misses January, April release dates

[The DVD is still “currently unavailable” at Amazon.]


Yes, "these are the things we are hoping the future cannot be worse than."

That's why a vote for McCain, despite all of his problems, will almost certainly be much better than a vote for Hillary or Obama.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 11:33am.

You forgot to mention that the attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj and that in March 1994 Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh were convicted of carrying out the bombing and sentenced to life in prison. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric, was arrested on June 24, 1993, along with nine of his followers. On October 1, 1995, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and in 1996 was sentenced to life in prison.

This capture and very successful prosecution of the conspirators seems to compare favorably with the complete failure of the Bush administration to capture bin Laden or to prosecute the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 1:36pm.

You forgot to mention that Pres. Clinton didn't pursue Osama bin Laden and that his apprehension would have prevented 9/11.

"Osama bin Laden: Missed Opportunities"

"NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden [in the fall of 2000]." [Weeks later, bin Laden's attack on the USS Cole killed 17 sailors.]

Abdul Rahman Yasin grew up in Baghdad, Iraq, and was "the most direct connection possibly implicating the Saddam Hussein regime of Iraq to the 1993 attack in Manhattan, which occurred on the 2nd anniversary (February 26) of the retreat of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, thus ending the Gulf War."

"One of seven men indicted for 1993 WTC attack, with full knowledge and approval of US Attorneys involved in the case, Yasin was set free and encouraged to leave the US." He returned to Baghdad, Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's regime gave him money and housing. "Yasin is believed to still be in Iraq."

Ahmed Mohammad Ajaj was already in prison (but was released on March 1, 1993 - three days after after WTC bombing) when he conspired in the WTC bombing. He was rearrested on March 9, 1993.

Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman "was issued a tourist visa to visit the US [in 1990] despite his name being listed on a US State Department terrorist watch list."

"He traveled widely in the United States and Canada.... [He] was deeply anti-American and spoke out against it, safe in the knowledge that he was speaking Arabic and unmonitored by any law enforcement agency. He issued a fatwa in America that declared lawful the robbing of banks and killing of Jews in America. His sermons [at 3 mosques in the New York City area] condemned Americans as the 'descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists, and colonialists.' He called on Muslims to assail the West, 'cut the transportation of their countries, tear it apart, destroy their economy, burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air, or land.'"

"According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 26 al-Qaeda terrorist conspirators sought to enter the United States to carry out a suicide mission. In the end, the FBI reported that there were 19 hijackers in all: five on three of the flights [5 x 3 = 15], and four on the fourth." That's 19 DEAD terrorists.

Wasn't Zacarias Moussaoui (the 20th hijacker) convicted?

And the shoe bomber Richard Reid?

Mohamed al-Kahtani was captured in Afghanistan and imprisoned.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," according to the 9/11 Commission Report, was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder, and faces the death penalty if convicted.

"Six Face Charges in 9/11 Attacks"

"'The fear is that when there's a change at the White House [a new president] this whole show could be over. They could fold up the tents and call it quits.'"

Abu Dahdah was sentenced in Spain "to 27 years of imprisonment for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks and as part of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. At the same time, another 17 Al Qaeda members were sentenced to penalties of between 6 and 12 years."

Ramzi Binalshibh, the first to be publicly identified as the "20th hijacker," was captured in Pakistan.

Abu Turab al-Urduni is "a Jordanian who has been described by the United States government as one of five individuals who were completely aware of the operational details of the September 11th attacks.... CNN reports anonymous government sources as believing that Abu Turab Al-Urduni had been killed by U.S. forces during the first stages of the war in Afghanistan."

Mohammed Atef "was killed when a U.S. air-strike struck his home near Kabul during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan."

Islamabad: A top Taliban leader [Mullah Obaidullah Akhund] believed to be close to Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and part of the inner core of Mullah Omar's coterie has been arrested for the second time by Pakistani security agencies (2/25/08).

"U.S. forces last month [Jan.] killed Abu Laith al-Libi, one of 12 Taliban and al-Qaida operatives on Washington's Afghanistan 'wanted list,' in a targeted attack." (02/21/08)

I can use Wikipedia, too, but I looked at the links to get "the rest of the story." Eye-wink

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:07pm.

"You forgot to mention that Pres. Clinton didn't pursue Osama bin Laden and that his apprehension would have prevented 9/11."

So, Denise, the man for which you cheerlead daily could not/ would not commit the full might of the USA in order to catch OBL even after he had killed 3000+. Your vote in 2000 got us a president who ignored this daily bulletin: "Al Qaida determined to attack within the United States using aircraft." What does that say about GOP leadership? And why do you keep bringing this old news up when you don't have a leg to stand on?

Kevin "Hack" King

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:14pm.

Still suffering from Obama-mania?
Laughing out loud

"the man for which you cheerlead daily"

Just who might that be? (It's not you -- sorry!)

You're the one who's rah-rah-rahing Obama all of the time. I don't suffer from such delusions. Laughing out loud


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:40pm.

Keeping with the theme of the Trump card, I feel a message of rah rah I like my guy and here's why will trump the message of "your guy's worse than my guy" any day of the week. Voters are confirming this as fact state after state after state. Get on board girl! Put lipstick on that pig of yours and tell us all why we should vote for him!

Kevin "Hack" King

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:00pm.

Who's "my guy"? I told you that you can have McCain, FOB. Laughing out loud

"Put lipstick on that pig of yours." UGHHHHH!

Who are you calling a "pig"? Hopefully not the Muslim Sen. Obama. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Evil

Pres. Bush? You do need some juice. Eye-wink He can't run again.

Sen. McCain? You wouldn't call a veteran, especially a POW, such a thing, would you? Shocked

Is "pig" (even with lipstick) more or less offensive than "rat"? Puzzled Evil

Friends again? Smiling

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 9:07pm.

Is a figure of speech which I am borrowing from Git real as it relates to John McCain. I trust you will be voting, will you not? Please focus on my point of telling us who you will vote for and why rather than dodging the question and focusing on the analogy I used which is not the point of my post.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Never stopped

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 5:40pm.



Certainly 911 occurred while Bush was on duty. Whether he is culpable, I do not know or care.

My point is simply to highlight the emptiness of sniffles' "no matter what" comment. It is as empty as Obama's "change" rhetoric.

A president who is transformed into a pheasant is change. Heck, it would be a siginficantly different state of affairs were we to elect a transvestite or a transgendered person to the White House. That would be different.

To say, "Any change would be a change for the better" far more reflects a distaste for GWB than a grasp of reality.

Personally, I've gone through hell the last two years with deaths in the family, cancer diagnoses, and near-fatal illnesses. But it would be positively stupid for me to say, "Anything would be better than this." Change! Any change! Bring it on.

The house explodes, I develop Lou Gehrig's disease but, nevertheless, cannot hit a baseball as he did, my grandchildren come to abhor me, I lose my job, am emasculated on a barbed wire fence, and am audited by the IRS. Ah! But any change is for the better!

Submitted by sageadvice on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 7:33pm.

I understood perfectly what "any change is good," meant.

It obviously was that any other "Presidential candidate," selected legally and fairly, (understood) couldn't be worse.

If they were, surely this time we would impeach them much sooner than we did Clinton, and should have Bush. They are just people, leading with our permission.
Just like philosophers!

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 8:54pm.

of Cheney and "sticking a knife" in the entire concept of the unitary Presidency can ONLY be a step in the right direction. Keep the faith

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 9:03pm.

Just getting rid of Cheney...

Where is he anyway?
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 9:18pm.

like any good puppetmaster. Keep the faith,

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 8:36pm.

I'm glad someone understood my position, sage!

My opinion is that the Federal government is in worse shape now than at any time in my life, and that's saying something considering I've lived through Richard Nixon's criminal conduct and Ronald Reagan's irresponsible spending (and selling arms to Iran).

I can't think of a single redeeming quality of this administration, and I suspect a good number of people share my belief.

The next administration will have to be an improvement over this one.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 7:26pm.

The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it. To exist is to change; to change is to mature; to mature is to create oneself endlessly. But, it is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.

Submitted by skyspy on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 10:55pm.

We won't have to worry about survival for long if we elect a muslim who fails to outline any "plans" of how he is going to "change" everything.

The only good thing I like about husein-obama is that he likes UNIONS and supports them! Love that! American will be a great country with more unions.

Good gosh Jeff your dad had better plans and at least he was willing to spell out what his plans were. Even if people didn't like his plans at least your dad was able to articulate what his plans were.....this.....is crazy......no plan just empty "hope"...oh yeah...that is reassuring.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 11:27am.

Just asking but are you going to go through the rest of the campaign claiming Obama is a Muslim? Its OK if you do but it detracts from your arguments a little to constantly keep referring to things which can be so easily disproved.

If you wish to know more about Obama's positions, go to his website and download his 64 page position papers then look at all the other links on the site. The charge that Obama does not have plans is just silly. I can't believe that you are falling for the Clinton's propaganda about that. Let me know what major issue you cannot find his position on and I'll try to help you out.

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 7:21pm.

I have been doing a little reading. I'm only 30mins. into it so, this is all I have found so far.

First of all I know that obama has a pocketful of "ideas". I did not see any concrete blueprint as to how we will "get out of Iraq in a year". I saw the hope that we would. No clue as to how this little plan will work. Perhaps Harry Potter will swoop up all of our men and women in uniform and bring them home on his broom......apparently we haven't gotten to the planning stage.

He also has the idea that he would like to supply health care for everyone. Very noble gesture. I have not seen any plans as to how we will fund this little adventure....but it is his idea that he would like to see this happen.

I also found some startling information on World Net Daily.

It appears as though your "hero" is associated with a controversial arab group that "mourns the establishment of Israel". They feel it is in their words a "catastrophe". obama according to this article is associated with Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi's wife is associated with the "arab American action network. Khalidi himself according to this article has been supportive of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 2001, obama's non-profit "Wood Fund" group gave money to the arab American action network. (I'm sure it was for the soup kitchen) wink, wink.

Also obama is associated and served on the "Wood Fund" board with a William C. Ayers. Who this article states is associated with the "Weatherman Terrorist group". Ayers, according to this article has admitted to being involved with the bombing of U.S. gov. buildings in the 1970's. Ayers is a professor @ the University of Illinois @ Chicago.

I'll keep looking for the concrete plans as to how all of obama's "good ideas" will come to fruition.

If you have any links that could help please do share.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 9:27am.

In my humble opinion you are not going to find reliable information in WorldNetDaily. It’s kind of like a far-right National Enquirer full of the equivalent of two-headed dogs and UFO stories y’all can swap back and forth and scare each other with. (Ours is the DemocraticUnderground so I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou, just recognizing the sources for what they are.)

Obama’s relative youth and slim record doesn’t leave a whole lot to grab hold of and beat him up with as the Clinton’s found out. They tried the guilt by association tactic too and, at least so far, it doesn’t seem to have worked for them either. Obama knew someone who donated to some organization that said something about someone 30 years ago is a slim reed indeed but typical of WorldNetDaily.

The problem, as with the entertaining stuff I read on DemocraticUnderground sometimes, is that when you bring it back into the real world it seems to lose a lot of substance. For instance the article ties Obama to an Arab network which, as you say "mourns the establishment of Israel" and supports the PLO. If that was all you knew it would seem to be a big blow to Obama. On the other hand, if I were with the Obama campaign and wished to refute the story, I’d just reprint the recent editorials from Israel’s two largest newspapers, Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, and ask people who they thought knew better if Obama was a secret Arab terrorist sympathizer, the people at WorldNetDaily or the people in Israel?

Obama supports Israel

Obama is not bad for Israel

Having said that, I too would like a more definite plan for withdrawing from Iraq. Obama’s website says (in part): “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

The rest can be seen here:

Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

No question that it is kind of thin and needs to be filled out. The upside is that going up against McCain and with six months to go (shudder) until we even get to the conventions, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for both sided to explore the options in detail. One downside is that a lot of that time is going to be squandered by McCain explaining away his “stay in Iraq for a hundred years” comments.

It’s going to be a long campaign. Looks like Hillary is out after next week whether she likes it or not. I’ve gotta get some work done so I’m ending this on that positive note.

Oh… that was a W. Edwards Deming quote: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.” I thought muddle would like it.

Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 1:42pm.

Thank you for the information and links.

I hope both parties will concentrate on a viable plan to turn our country around.

This is still the best country in the world.

Have a good day.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 5:07pm.

Am I prescient or what? (Of course it was inevitable but even so…)

McCain Tries to Clarify 100 Year Remark

Maybe the campaigns should get together and agree Obama’s wife slipped with the “first time I’m proud of my country” and McCain slipped with the “100 years” and move on. I’m already tired of both comments and the analysis thereof.

How about if each campaign gets one mulligan per month?

Check this out over on Rightwingnuthouse (no, no, he’s one of yours). Just passing along something that I found interesting:


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:13pm.

It appears to me that conservatives are adopting the Rudy Giuliani campaigning strategy: Alienate everyone, fail to offer any positive message, and await their inevitable victory. I listened to Rush and Hannity today (had to drive the newish car out to Oklahoma). A conservative radio host actually is calling John McCain Juan Pablo McCain. Do you think that there may be a legal US citizen or two named Juan? Or Pablo? do you think they are going to rush to this "conservative" message of alienation all at once or over time?

Kevin "Hack" King

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 1:47pm.

I have heard Cunningham call McCain “Juan Pablo” too! He did a hysterically funny (completely unintentionally) routine where he, Cunningham, instead of being a right-wing blow-hard doofus with a radio show, was every David vs. Goliath figure in history or filmdom, standing up to the Man for truth, justice and the American way and he would never support Juan Pablo unless Juan came and begged him on one knee.

I ran across this: McCain apology angers conservative host

Cunningham was claiming to be in with McCain and McCain asking "Bill Who?" then conceding maybe he was one of the hundred thousand people McCain had met.

If the conservatives get their way, maybe they can force McCain to select a rabid anti-immigrant nut like Tancredo for his veep and deliver the Hispanics to the Dem’s for a generation or two.

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 2:24pm.

I have to say you have done your homework very good. Everything you say is correct- if I put up everything I have found it would take forever- Very Disturbing - and sad.

"Hope Changes Everything"

Submitted by Davids mom on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 8:08am.

Can we put that rhetoric to bed? Obama is a Christian, raised by a Christian mother and Christian grandparents (from Kansas no less). Intentional lying does not clarify an issue or win an argument. Debate and clarifying statements are healthy. Obama has been stating his plans at rallies, through the media, and during debates. Fine if you don't agree with him - but don't say he hasn't outlined them. The majority of Democrats and 'other’ citizens in more than eleven states recently have voted for his plans.

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 6:59pm.

Obama's mom was raised in Kansas. Obama was born in Hawaii 1961. Then he was moved by his mom and stepfather to Jakarta Indonesia, not to return to the U.S. until time for college.

Umm, no intentional lying here.

Check the World Net Dailey for the latest update on your "hero".

He is associated with Rashid Khalidi, a "harsh critic" of Israel, and Khalidi has made statments that are supportive of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

obama also served on the board of the "Wood Fund" along with William C. Ayers. Who is a member of the "Weatherman Terrorist group". According to this article Ayers admitted to being involved in the bombings of U.S. gov. buildings in the 1970s. Ayers is a professor @ the University of Illinois @ Chicago.

So yes, I don't care what obama says, I think he is anything but "christian". I doubt he is true to any religion.

I have also written a letter to the pastor of trinity christian church to see if he could explain to me what the intention of some of his sermon titiles have been. I'm most curious as to how he will explain "Death to White America". What was his intent? I also asked for permission to post his reply here, if he fact does reply. I doubt seriously that he will.

Cheers davids mom, the truth always comes out.

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 7:25pm.

Sadly it looks like we are going to have 4 years of all of the truth to come out-

There are some questions that we don't have the answers to and they are ignored- when they think someone is going to offer this BIG CHANGE, they only think what is it for me? Without thinking about the what if. What is the big change?

If people think this country is so bad, I say try going over to another one and see the difference. My husband has done that with his job - we live in the BEST country.

It will be interesting to see if Obama's pastor will respond to you- did they have a way to email them- I think I will check it out- God only knows and I am not his judge- but God knows.

Love has no color. I think I should email or write and let them know- God does not see color, He see our hearts. I am thankful for that.

Obama's church:

Click here

"Hope Changes Everything"

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 7:33pm.

I hope you had a good day.

Yes, I think change is coming for our great country. I think it will take the form of higher taxes to pay for all of the welfare programs obama has planned.

I tried getting the e-mail address for obama's "church", but they didn't want to give that out,......so, I got the street address and sent my request "snail mail" certified. I hope I don't get that poor church secretary fired when she signs for it.

I doubt he will answer. Cowards never respond, they like to run and hide.

This is the BEST country in the world, and anyone who isn't proud of it needs to move to a country they can be proud of.

Check e-mails.....

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 5:22pm.

I found this for you if you're still interested:

Go to their website and click “Contact Us” over on the left side of the screen.

Trinity United Church of Christ

Trinity United Church of Christ
400 West 95th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60628

Phone: (773) 962-5650

E-mail: info@tucc.org

Church Office Hours:
Monday - Friday: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Saturday: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Church Fax: 773-962-0164

Let us know if anything happens (like a response!).

Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 6:57pm.

I have the street address, just could not find the e-mail. Now that I do have an e-mail I still have a copy of my letter, lets see what happens.

Jeff can you think of any good reason a minister of any church would have a sermon about Death to White America? I can't think of a good reason. I'm trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, just like Michelle Obama's slip. So I thought why not go directly to the source? Time will tell, maybe he had a good reason....

I would really like to know what any minister is thinking when they come up with what I call thought provoking sermon titles like that. I really do want to know.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 10:45pm.

I can think of a good reason a minister of any church would have a sermon about Death to White America? They would be sermonizing and calling for the passing into a non-living state of existence the Caucasian population of the country. Seems perfectly clear to me.

Seriously, Obama has stated that he doesn’t support the church’s views but will not denounce the man who led him to Christ. OK by me. Nevertheless, at this level he and they have to expect the blindingly hot focus of the media and I will be very interested in any response you get (although I am not holding my breath). I am anticipating that you will be ignored. I am hoping that because of the attention they will have been forced to come up with a justification. Please keep us informed either way.

Submitted by sageadvice on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 7:36am.

How can anyone seriously think that even that preacher would be that dumb?
Obviously it is a "play on words."
I haven't read the sermon, but I'll bet you it is about us having one color (whatever you are) in this country.
It could just as well have said, death to black, or yellow,or brown America.
Their whole church is no different than the Masons thinking they can't function other than they do!

Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 11:02pm.

I hope you are right that Obama does not support the views of that particular minister.

No, I really don't expect a response. I'm not holding my breath either. I called the phone number for Trinity United and when I explained the reason for my call I was put on hold. Odd?

Anyway, on the one hand it will put this "minister" on notice that people are watching and listening. On the other hand they will just go underground and be more secretive about their "true" message.

The cynical side of me thinks they will be more careful.

Really this whole thing is sad for me, because since the early 90's I voted Democrat. This is the first year I really don't like what I see.

BPR's picture
Submitted by BPR on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 7:02pm.

I agree with what you are saying- give them a call- maybe a copy of the sermon.Smiling

"Hope Changes Everything"

Submitted by skyspy on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 7:24pm.

This was a great day. Clear sky, sunny and warm.

I am going to give them a call and see if they give me the run around.

I'll let you know.

Have a good night.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 8:49pm.

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Keep us posted. However, I doubt that terroristic hate preacher will bother responding to some middle class white Jewish guy.

Shalom my friend.


"I'm Pro Choice - On Light Bulbs Cool

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 9:26pm.

Glad you made it back safe.

I doubt I will hear from that "minister". I would love to know what in God's name he is thinking when he uses titles like that for sermons.

Check out World Net Daily: They had some new info on obama...not good.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 7:22pm.

Okay... He can't be ALL of these! You can only choose one, then go back to your corners:

1) He belongs to a "racist" Christian church
2) He is a covert Muslim
3) He is the Anti-Christ
4) or he could be the boogey-man

Submitted by skyspy on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 7:34pm.

Check World Net Daily, read it for yourself.

Cheers, the truth always comes out.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 8:03pm.


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 10:55pm.

I shamelessly quote Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, Heraclitus, and Henri Bergson and your response is “Whatever”?

I laughed so hard I had tears in my eyes.

Your response was perfect. Absolutely perfect!

You are the funniest most subtle person with the driest wit I have ever run across.

And that’s saying something.

Peace, muddle.

I’m still laughing.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 8:27pm.

that's not like you. Jeff's post was a philosophical one too. I was hoping for a political philosophy lesson tonight.


sdg's picture
Submitted by sdg on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 4:48pm.

Excellent post muddle. Those images should be at the forefront of our thinking.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 11:21am.

If I am correct, we are in the political primary season; the time when each political party chooses their nominee to run for the presidency. Each party WILL elect a nominee to compete for the presidency. That being said, one blogging against one candidate would logically be in support of the other. Problem is, the same anti-Obama bloggers were anti Hillary bloggers just two months ago.

Is the purpose of these ridiculous blogs to suggest democrats not pick a nominee?

Is this the symptom of a person with lots of time but no one to support?

Is this a new christiany way of bringing the grim reaper into the house of hope and a positive message?

All very comical to me, because I am quite comfortable that the two democratic senators; parents; Christians; these upstanding citizens can each make fine presidents of the strongest nation on the planet, no matter how many people throw plastic tupperware barriers in front of their locamotive campaigns.

Kevin "Hack" King

Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 6:07pm.

You must be spending too much time with Basmati. What's with the personal insults to me, your "favorite girl"?

Surely you realize that I, like almost every conservative, am "anti-Obama" as well as "anti-Hillary." Anti-Teddy K, too. Laughing out loud

Maybe you should go with Basmati to reading comprehension classes because nobody -- except may $ who's confused a lot of the time Laughing out loud -- has suggested that "democrats not pick a nominee." That conclusion is definitely the "epitome of confusion."

I have a suggestion: the Dems can pick McCain and save the GOP! Laughing out loud

"Is this the symptom of a person with lots of time but no one to support?"

Well, I do have "lots of time" today. SO WHAT? Is it really any of your business? What do Delta pilots work now, about 20 hours a week? (Remember I have several good friends who are Delta pilots.) Laughing out loud

You're sounding like Basmati with your "christiany" comments. Didn't you say that you go to Heritage? Really nice people there. Are they "christiany," too?

If your candidate can't take the heat, he needs to call the EMTs for a glass of water or juice. Wouldn't want him to faint! Laughing out loud

If you really have hope, no one can take it away from you, not even the "grim reaper." (I Cor. 15: 16-20, 50-58) Smiling

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:29pm.

christiany is using the word of God, the Bible, and the Christian faith only as it suits a political argument, and then shifting gears faster than a BMW M3 with SMGs in order to formulate factless political and personal attacks that don't mix so well with the WWJD bracelet. It is of course, Stephen Colbert's term, and he perceptively recognized this tactic.

Ann Coulter is the master (mistress?) of this. Wear your cross and tout family values while wishing death upon The New York Times, David Sutter, Muslims, etc. Or, let's say, you want to shift from your pro life stance with babies to defend wars of choice (Iraq) or the death penalty. With the latter, we have to erase the phrases like "life should be the soul providence of God." Why? Because we mean "some" lives should be the divine providence of God. Other lives should be strapped to an electric chair and turned into carbon emissions.

Or, let's take social programs. It's kind of hard to point out what Jesus did for the "least of these" as we are trying to paint recipients of social programs as leeches, warf rats, and sponges. It's hard to push the conservative "it's my money so hands off" message if you are faced with versus that tell us how difficult it is to get rich men into Heaven or camels through eyes of needles. That is one reason I never claim to be so righteous that I speak for God. I won't call democrats members of God's party. I think democrats and republicans are members of POLITICAL parties; each with flaws and weaknesses of the flesh. So, please understand why I borrow Mr. Colbert's "christiany" analogy often. I feel that shoe fits many a GOP voter. Especially the ones who have asked me "How can you vote democrat as a Christian?" That is always a very intriguing question to me which tells me more about the asker than they would ever freely admit.

Kevin "Hack" King

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 11:20am.

You cited parts of this message over in the dog abuse blog, but why no answer? Tell me how Steve Colbert and I have misconstrued the christiany message. Certainly I am misperceiving the selective message of christiany people, aren't I?

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by sageadvice on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 5:36am.

Your summation above is why the current organized religious organizations number about 103,642 different groups.

That way they never have to explain hypocrisy!

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 8:38pm.

Reverend Jim Marshall, a Methodist minister from Camden (I believe), ran for the First Congressional District seat in the 2006 election, when as that question {"How can you vote democrat as a Christian?"} answered forceably, "I vote democrat BECAUSE I'm a Christian!" Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 12:12pm.

that if the Democrats fail to nominate a candidate, then their chances of winning the Presidency will be better than they are now. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Submitted by thebeaver on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 11:35am.

"Is this a new christiany (??) way of bringing the grim reaper into the house of hope and a positive message?"

To suggest that Denise was implying that there be no Democrat nominee is the epitome of stupidity.

She was merely bringing up the many ways that Obama would destroy our country by taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots and put Socialst Health Care, which has been proven not to work, (see Great Britain and Canada) into place in the US.

Barack's "house of hope" is a dungeon of despair to hard working Americans and people that believe in individual responsibility and freedom. In the debate on Thursday, Barack actually said that people would be fined for not having health care. Yeah, I'd like to see the inept, incompetent U.S. government collect on that one. He'll never be able to collect on it and responsible taxpayers will be the ones left holding the bag.
Barack looked very weak in the debate with Shrillary, which is pretty hard to do with all of her Socialist, Communist policies that she wants to advance.

Barack Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, SUBSTANCE FREE EMPTY SUIT who excites GULLIBLE DIMWITS by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 12:30pm.

Obama said he might impose a penalty on people who cheat the system. Who is amazed that beav (even though he says at the end of every post that Obama excites him) misrepresented Obama’s position?

OBAMA: There are no excuses. If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible, under my plan. And those children don't have a choice. But I think that adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it, under my plan; they will get it, under my plan. And it is true that, if it turns out that some are gaming the system, then we can impose, potentially, some penalties on them for gaming the system.

Beav, can you rank the US, Great Britain and Canada by life expectancy? Maybe that could be an indicator of whether health care is working in those countries.

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke

Submitted by jackyldo on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 6:12am.

We all get old and die, but some of us get older than others. You might think the much-vaunted U.S. market-driven ((for profit))health care industry would result in a robust life expectancy, but Americans rank a pathetic 48th worldwide.

As bad as that is, of course, it could be much worse. You could be living in Swaziland. If you are actually living in Swaziland, you can expect to die around the age of 33.

It certainly comes a lot earlier in America for the 47 Million that don't have health insurance and don't get care until the late stages and then that cost is paid by you and me.

Look at Universal Health Care which the USA is the only rich nation in the world to NOT have, as an improvement in our society.

WWJD ? Can't afford it, just die and get to heaven early ?

TruthSleuth1958's picture
Submitted by TruthSleuth1958 on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 2:38pm.

You quote Obama as saying: "There are no excuses. If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible, under my plan. And those children don't have a choice. But I think that adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it, under my plan; they will get it, under my plan. And it is true that, if it turns out that some are gaming the system, then we can impose, potentially, some penalties on them for gaming the system."

My question is, what will he do to the parents that simply refuse to buy health care - like some do now - will he put them in jail? What will the penalties be? What if they buy a new Lincoln Navigator instead of health care? Is he going to imprison parents who refuse to buy his health care plan?

Sniffles05 The Plagiarizer in Chief
Sniffles05:Jeffc calls for your explanation and apology.

Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 4:28pm.

Fair question though. I hope someone asks him. I'll probably watch the debate tomorrow night. Maybe it'll come up. Realistically the only thing that matters is whether he is for or against national health care. Nuances such as the penalties (if any) will be determined in negotiation with Congress. That's why its hard for me to get excited about the tiny differences between his plan and HC's plan that Hillary thinks are so dramatic.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 10:08pm.

"To suggest that Denise was implying that there be no Democrat nominee is the epitome of stupidity."

It's official: Beaver and Desperate Ms. Conner support HILLARY CLINTON as the democratic nominee for president!

Kevin "Hack" King

Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:25am.

I have always voted conservative and will continue to vote conservative. You shouldn't go around spreading lies like the New York Times - "All the mud that's fit to sling"

Barack Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, substance-free empty suit who excites gullible dimwits by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:40am.

It sure seems to me like you have a crush on Hillary, beaver!

Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:59am.

It will be interesting to watch Shrillary try to steal the nomination from Barack by getting the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. Don't mis-underestimate the Clintonian machine.

She will also no doubt try to sway the votes of the Super-delegates.
It's gonna be real fun to watch all of the infighting with the Democrats.

Now, go blow your nose Sniffles.

Barack Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, substance-free empty suit who excites gullible dimwits by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

Submitted by thebeaver on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 8:24am.

Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praises

"In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better."

Wow, the "hope of the entire world"!!!

"A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Quite an endorsement!!

Submitted by jackyldo on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 5:52am.

Taxpayers in Congressional District 8 (Westmoreland) will pay $1.2 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
258,899 People with Health Care OR
938,245 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR
31,988 Public Safety Officers OR
21,064 Music and Arts Teachers OR
259,887 Scholarships for University Students OR
188 New Elementary Schools OR
9,952 Affordable Housing Units OR
575,921 Children with Health Care OR
168,242 Head Start Places for Children OR
21,101 Elementary School Teachers OR
17,409 Port Container Inspectors

The focus and the priorities on the war on TERROR are and have been all wrong.

RetiredArmyMAJ's picture
Submitted by RetiredArmyMAJ on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 6:56am.

While your laundry list of wonderful new society wealth redistribution is very impressive, it is very telling that one option was NOT to lower taxes instead of increaseing non-defense spending.

Healthcare: INDIVIDUAL responsibility, more could afford it with LOWER TAXES

Homes with renewable energy: personal reposnibility, I would look into it if the government confiscated less of my money

Public Safety officers: might not be needed if the border was sealed, just deporting illegals arrested for crimes would reduce the need for many public safety officers

Music and Art teachers should be added AFTER children can score high on tests and high school drop out rtaes drop SIGNIFICANTLY!

Scholarships wouldn't bee as needed with significant tax cuts

New elementary schools wouldn't be needed if the children of illegals were not attending, smaller class sizes too.

Affordablw housing, show me in the Constitution where that is a government responsibility.

Children with Health Care, see parental responsibility and avaiable government programs exist currently. How many unisured are illegal.

Head Start Places for Children: Lower need if illegal children are gone

Elementary School Teachers, same as above

17,409 Port Container Inspectors, believe it or not you finally have a good use of taxes!

Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

Submitted by sageadvice on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 7:52am.

Many sailors resent that from a dog-face.

Reagan abd Bush are the drunken politicians---overspent about 9 Trillion between them!

Submitted by jackyldo on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 7:51am.

The highest earners who have lots of gains on investments pay at 15 %

The average middle American earning under 100 K pays at 25-28 %

They talk lower taxes and then hit you for property tazes and user fees.

The fundamental difference between the progressive and radical conservative values is the central question of whether we're all in this together, or all in this alone.

Do you know that roughly 6 % of the containers entering the USA get an inspection ?

Instead of spending billions running around Iraq playing whack a mole, I'd rather put the money into port inspectors and border patrol.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.