This blog is no longer active as of October 31, 2011
Seen over at HotAir.com….
Content Warning! Not Safe for work, around small children or animals or bitchy wives…
This video exploits every Neo-Conservative Nuance.
It goes from side splitting hilarious to just down right sad.
If it is not clear, that this is not a good time to be a conservative or worse yet, a Republican, it should be very clear. after viewing this.
I’m sure Keith Olbermann would just love this.
It seems that Obama has finally spoken out against Rev. Wright.
Here is the Video:
Okay, I’ve watched the video and here is my official, right of center, political opinion about it.
First off, I do commend Senator Obama for coming out with the stern statement that he did, I think it shows that he doesn’t support this sort of mentality possessed by his Pastor.
However, personally, I could never look at Obama, the same way that I did before all this stuff came out about Rev. Wright. I could never trust him. I will not vote for him, should he get the party’s nomination. I will vote for a third party candidate, if there is one. If a libertarian is on the Michigan Ballot or a Constitutional Party candidate is on the ballot in Michigan, I will vote for that person, as I do not want the specter of knowing that I voted for a person that embraces Liberation Theology on my conscious.
I realize that he isn’t Rev. Wright, but I also know that he spent many years in that Church, and if he says that he didn’t hear that sort of stuff, he is either lying or did not pay attention.
I also believe that it speaks to the common sense of Senator Obama, he should have had the foresight to vet the sermons that his Pastor had made, even after he had left Chicago. He should have known, that even some of the more mild things that Rev. Wright has said would have been perceived as incinerary and radical by those who have not been exposed to the black culture and the black Church. His inability to do this, shows a lack of good common sense on his part. I do not wish this sort of a person to be my President.
I wish Senator Obama the best of luck in the remainder of this Primary, but as of this moment, I will no longer be someone who supports this man or his candidacy for President of the United States of America.
This is the last thing that I will ever publish on this Blog about this subject regarding Obama and his Pastor.
There are a growing number of Black people who are saying, "Whoa! Wait a Minute! That man doesn’t speak for me or my Church!"
Now that, I can understand. I will admit this, I grew up around blacks, When I lived in Detroit, I also went to School with them, I did go to Private Schools, but I did go to school with black people, and I never heard anything like, what Rev. Wright said at both of those speeches.
I guess what I am trying to make clear here is, that Liberation Theology is NOT a universally held doctrine amongst black Christians and in their Churches. Liberation Theology is a Liberal Christian doctrine, which has smatterings of Marxism in it. We all know that Marxism is the building blocks for Communism. It is also a known fact that the Democrat Party is the party of socialism, or at least embraces some of the tenants of a socialist agenda.
I also noticed something else rather alarming, Rev. Wright in what is known, as a believer in a very Liberal Christian Theological doctrine, called Universalism.
Universalism is basically a teaching that basically, "All Paths lead to God"… there’s only ONE little problem with that whole idea. That is this, and if I come off sounding preachy here, I apologize, this is supposed to be a Political Blog and not a Christian one, But I must speak out against falsehoods being taught on national TV. The problem is this right here….:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
Essentially, this scripture says, that Islam is a LIE, That buddhism is a LIE, that Roman Catholicism is a LIE, When it says that it is the "Mother Church". that ANY OTHER Religion out there, that doesn’t believe that JESUS CHRIST is the ONE and ONLY Messiah and that the Holy Bible, with it’s 66 Books is the Holy Scriptures , it is, for all intents and purposes, A LIE CRAFTED OUT THE PIT OF THE DEVIL’S HELL!
Let me be absolutely clear, I make absolutely no bones about it. I believe that there is ONLY ONE WAY to Eternal Salvation, and that is through Jesus Christ. Not by a Church, Not by good works, not by being a good ol’ boy. Only by Jesus Christ and by Accepting him as your personal Saviour.
As to Rev. Wrights weak defense to to that Doctrine, which was:
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16 KJV)
What that was referring to, were other converts that Christ had met along the way, in other cites and the like, not of other gods or anything of that Nature. That is one of the weakest defenses of the liberal universalist doctrine out there.
Okay, enough Bible study for one day…. I hope that I explained this where everyone can understand it.
Yes, He did speak.
Yes, I did listen to the WHOLE thing.
Yes, he did have some valid points.
Yes, there are people who do not like what he said, which is no surprise to me.
The only people who will just reject outright everything that he says, are racist bigots, who are haters. To that I say, they can, frankly, go to hell. They know who they are.
The reaction seems to be mixed, so far. Which is no surprise.
As someone who grew up in Southwest Detroit and grew up around Whites, Mexicans, and yes, Black people…. I can see where Wright is coming from.
Do I think his comments, that were made right after September 11, 2001, were okay??? No. I think that they were misguided, hateful and just plain wrong.
But the one’s made last night, were justified, and made a good deal of sense. At least to me, this is because I came from a multi-cultural background. Most people that will listen to this and take critical stance, are the pasty white people, who have never hung around anyone other than their own kind, and quite frankly, belong on the forums over at Stormfront.org.
That is all….
Update: I also listened to the second speech. I will make this absolutely clear. This man is a believer in "Black Liberation Theology", which is a derivative of "Liberation Theology". This doctrine is, in fact, a Marxist Theology. So, as far as I am concerned, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is nothing more, than a black communist. If Barack Obama agrees with ANY aspect of what this man says, Religious or Political, he is, in fact, a Marxist, and I will NOT be voting for him, should he secure the nomination of the Democrat Party. I do not want to be responsible for the election of a closet communist in our White House.
Update 2: Here’s the Video:
Yes, Obama went on FNC. (Transcript here)
The reaction amongst the right is quite dismissive. The left thinks he sold out and has lost his edge.
You can see the reactions Here.
How’s that shoe leather taste?
Ha! Good luck with that!
How do you twist a video of you saying the stuff he did? 
I am not quite sure what to make of this. It just strikes me is quite odd that the New York Times, who once endorsed Hillary Clinton, would turn right around and scold her.
After all, on January 25, 2008, the New York Times said this:
This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.
The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.
As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.
But now this same board of editors, because Hillary Clinton did not play by their expected narrative, they publish this:
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
Is there any clearer proof of bias at The New York Times? At the very least, it shows that the New York Times wants Hillary to follow a pre-written narrative. How childish can a newspaper be! The very idea, that a major newspaper would publish an endorsement and then, because that said candidate does not jump through said hoops that the Newspaper wishes her to, that paper puts out a Editorial blasting her.
I can clearly see now why the Conservatives as a whole are rejecting the New York Times as some Liberal rag, which does not have the Journalistic integrity that it once did. The shoddy work on the John McCain story was living proof of that this just confirms it totally.
Others on this:Washington Wire, protein wisdom, Swampland, Balloon Juice, Hot Air, MSNBC, Real Clear Politics, Buck Naked Politics, Guardian Unlimited, The American Conservative, CANNONFIRE, Salon, Comedy Central, The Huffington Post, Top of the Ticket, No More Mister Nice Blog, The Strata-Sphere, American Street, Connecting.the.Dots, TalkLeft, TPMCafe, Marc Ambinder, Hotline On Call, Daily Kos, Commentary, Philly.com and The Mahablog
MSNBC is reporting Hillary Clinton is winning.
Score so far, Clinton 52% Obama 47% with 7% reporting
Live Coverage VIA MSNBC:
(feed now down…removed player)
I will try to stay up till the full results are in.
Update: Final Results: Hillary Clinton 55% Barack Obama 45%
Undoubtedly, you already know what it is that I am referring. The statement by Hillary Clinton that she would obliterate Iran, that country attempted an attack on Israel with nuclear weapons.
Here is the snippet of the interview, that is coming up on Good Morning America.:
She did, however attempt to back off the statement on MSNBC:
My friends, this is nothing more than a page out the George W. Bush playbook. Was it not Hillary Clinton, when confronted by some facts about her policies, fly into a screeching premenstrual rage, about Barack Obama’s tactics being right out of the playbook of Karl Rove? Now, with the table’s turned and Hillary being under the gun, Hillary herself does the same exact thing, only notches up the rhetoric more. Yet, she gets a free pass, because she is trailing, because she is the underdog. Not from this writer she does not.
This Nation, for the last 6 years, has been in quagmire called Iraq. We were lead into this war, based upon intelligence that, in fact, was found to be false. Yet, this administration has continued to move the goal posts as to the reason we had to remain in Iraq. Yet our President in his stubbornness and blind allegiance to a totally flawed and poisonous political ideology has almost strained our Military to the point of almost breaking the back of those of whom we entrust our safety, our lives, our well being.
Now we have some so-called underdog Presidential candidate who is attempting to compare herself to Franklin D. Roosevelt, or John F. Kennedy, both paramount leaders in the annals of the history of America, all so she can attempt to appeal to those who think striking Iran might just be a good idea.
The tough reality is, that involving this country in another military escalation of this sort would do nothing more than further strain and possibly destroy what military we have left. This is outside of the scope of instituting a military draft. Not to mention, any sort of Military action, outside of the approval of the United Nations would result in further destabilization of that very region. Not to mention the United States relations with our allies in the region.
I am not sure exactly what Hillary Clinton is attempting to do, but it could spell the very end of her bid for the office of President of United States.
More Coverage At Memeorandum
The North Carolina Democrat Party has canceled their debate.
Hillary agreed to appear, Obama did not, and of course, Hillary calls Obama a coward.
In other news, The Financial Times makes a case for Obama, and basically endorses the guy.
Others on the story: Open Left, Show Tracker, Political Radar, The Trail, The Page, Boston Globe, Newshoggers.com, The Daily Dish, Tales from the Trail, Marc Ambinder, Hot Air, Althouse, and Redstate
No, this isn’t a joke. I saw this earlier today, but because I figured it would get yanked, I did not blog on it.
But it seems it is still there. Believe it or not, some idiot kid, has recorded a threat to President of the United States. Of course, he’s a black kid, and a Obama supporter.
Now I’m not a big fan of the President, at all, nor his Political Party, But threats?!?!? Yikes! 
That’s totally crazy!
Doesn’t anyone remember the young lady who posted a threatening picture of the President on her website, and got a visit for the Secret Service? I have to wonder aloud, will they pay this kid a visit? Or will they let him skate because he’s….do I dare say it? because he’s black?
It should be an interesting story to follow, I am surprised that Fox News and the other Media outlets haven’t reported on this one yet.
Others following the Story: Hot Air, Gates of Vienna, Fausta’s blog, NewsBusters.org, Macsmind, Gateway Pundit, Atlas Shrugs and Right Voices
Good grief, John McCain can’t even catch a break on Sunday. (Come to think of it, neither can I! 
)
Seems that The Washington Post has now put out another article on John McCain’s temper.
The McCain camp says it’s totally dishonest and misrepresents him.
In the Blogosphere, The left is breaking out the surrender hymnals and the defeatist scrolls and treating this piece as The Gospel According to St. WaPo. That is after offering their hourly prayers for the Obamassiah. You know, St. Magic Negro?
Even the Moderate Voice, which is supposed to be a moderate voice of reason in the Blogosphere, is accepting this article as gospel, maybe they should change their name to Liberal Voice, because any open minded Moderate would want to know the truth, before accepting something as Gospel.
The response on the right has been as expected, they’re crying "Foul!" and dismissing it as a liberal hit piece on John McCain. Which is to be expected.
My Take on it:
First off, I don’t know John McCain, So, I am not about to sit here and pronounce Judgement on someone, that I do not know. Second of all, I find it very disturbing that the Washington Post, which is a supposed to be a respectable news organization, would take an article like this, based upon half truths and gossip, and print them as fact. I would expect this from say, a DC Gossip Blog, like Wonkette, but from the Washington Post? Come on. They can do better than this. I feel that if the Washington Post wants to trash Senator McCain, trash him on his politics, trash him on his policy positions, but leave the gossip, the innuendo and the downright blatant stupidity to the National Enquirer, and other Magazines.
Others on this:Hot Air, The Corner, Roger L. Simon, THE LIBERAL JOURNAL, The Moderate Voice, The American Conservative, The Carpetbagger Report, DownWithTyranny!, The Caucus, AMERICAblog, Shakesville, Ed Driscoll.com, Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, The Seminal, TownHall Blog, Althouse, Redstate, Pam’s House Blend, The Swamp, Booman Tribune, JammieWearingFool, NewsBusters.org and Macsmind
…and all the while, people are defecting to John McCain. It’s sad. Very Sad indeed.
I think everyone needs to watch this:
It’s pretty scary, but all true.
If you enjoyed this video, please consider a donation to this Blog. Click here to listen to a message from me, about why I need the donations.
Whoa Boy….
Via the Huffington Post:
Quote:
At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party — and MoveOn.org in particular — for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.
"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] — which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
You have to go to HuffPo to listen to it. Because the ASSHATS didn’t enable sharing of the audio via embedding, they disabled it. Idiots. 
Anyhow, I got a feeling that is not going to endear her much to the more activist branch of the Democratic Party.
I’ll just say it, she’s done after Tuesday’s primary anyhow, Howard Dean has already put his foot down. So, I don’t look for Hillary to be around much longer. If the primary don’t kill her campaign, this will.
Others: protein wisdom, Booman Tribune, Pandagon, Don Surber, Obsidian Wings, Shakesville, Buck Naked Politics, Bang the Drum, The Moderate Voice, AlterNet.org, MyDD, TPM Election Central, American Power, Democrats.com, Liberal Values, American Street, Sweetness & Light, Marc Ambinder, Daily Kos, AMERICAblog, TPMCafe, Fox News, The Raw Story, Top of the Ticket, Swampland and The Page
Puttin’ the smack down…
via CNN Political Ticker:
An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”
“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”
After facing criticism for a mostly hands-off leadership style during much of the primary season, Dean has been steadily raising the rhetorical pressure on superdelegates. He said Thursday that roughly 65 percent of them have made their preference plain, but that more than 300 have yet to make up their minds.
The national party chair, who has remained neutral throughout the primary process, said again it’s his job to make sure both candidates feel they are treated fairly – but not to tell either of them when to end their run.
He’ll bully the super delegates, but won’t tell Hillary to drop out. What the heck kind of a leader is that?
……and He wanted to be President. President people!
Jack ass coward. 
I kind of agree, and I kind of don’t.
At some point amid the hailstorm of criticism that greeted ABC’s handling of yesterday’s Dem debate, moderator George Stephanopoulos received an email — one of the many, many missives about the debate he’s received — from an Obama adviser.
"Feel like a candidate today?" the adviser asked.
In an interview with me moments ago, Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on "gotcha" questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the "electability" that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.
"Overall, the questions were tough, fair, relevant, and appropriate," Stephanopoulos argued. And he rejected the claim by many Obama supporters that the debate had been stacked against him, saying Hillary had faced sharp questioning, too.
Today on the campaign trail Obama criticized ABC’s handling of the debate, characterizing it as "the roll out of the Republican campaign against me in November."
Asked to respond, Stephanopoulos said that getting criticized "comes with the territory."
"Our job is to ask the questions," he said. "His job is to go out and win votes."
I think that’s a fair defense myself. That’s not the reason people are ticked, They’re ticked because Hannity planted a question to Stephanopoulos, via his radio show. Which some feel was totally wrong.
Although, I think bringing up Obama’s connection to some 1960’s anti-war guy was a bit lame. If you ask me.
Others: The Moderate Voice, Too Sense, The Carpetbagger Report, TPMCafe, No More Mister Nice Blog, Hullabaloo, American Street, The New Republic, The Reaction, Show Tracker, Comments from Left Field, Booman Tribune, Jules Crittenden and TalkLeft
(via Huffington Post)
Video:
Quote:
At last, at long last. There will be a hard money lobby in Washington that represents progressives on Israel/Palestine issues, that lobbies for Israeli/Palestinian peace, that acts as a counterweight to AIPAC.
(Snip!)
Unlike the existing groups, this group will actually support candidates for office.
Right now, they are taking nominations for who they should support in the fall. Make the best case that your favored candidate will work to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace. That’s exactly the dynamic we need: candidates competing to do the most to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace, as opposed to competing to do the opposite.
There is no time like the present. This week, former President Carter is meeting with the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Syria. As Carter has said, "There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."
Of course, as the Washington Post notes, it will be the case for the foreseeable future that AIPAC will have more money and more people.
But that misses the fact that those with less money can have more influence when they are telling the truth, if they can just muscle their way to the microphone.
While I must agree with the content of this video, the rhetoric used by those on the far right, is not what the majority of the main stream America believes.
On the other hand, the idea that Jimmy Carter met with a convicted terrorist living in exile, totally burns my boots. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and anyone who meets with them, supports that mentality. Sorry Liberals, I don’t believe there is any way anyone, who claims to be Pro-American, could go and meet with someone, who is against the values that America stands for, and supports Islamic rule. Sorry, I don’t buy the diplomacy line.
For all we know, Hamas helped fund the Sept 11’th attacks in America.
(Via Instapundit) (H/T to Powerline)
Bridget Bardot has run afoul of Liberal free speech in Paris.
Powerline has more:
Bardot retired early from films and for the last thirty years or so, has been more or less reclusive. She has devoted her energies and fortune mostly to animal rights. The Bardot Foundation’s web site is here. Animal rights is not exactly our cause, but there is nothing wrong with it if not taken to an extreme. In recent years, BB has run afoul of liberal opinion, and, worse yet, the law, because she has been willing to speak out against the increasing Muslim domination of France, and against Muslim practices that she believes are inhumane, like the ritual slaughtering of sheep. As a result of her outspokenness, she has been criminally prosecuted and convicted, four times, for "inciting racial hatred."
Currently, Miss Bardot is on trial in Paris for "fanning discrimination and racial hatred against Muslims." It’s a little hard to tell from news accounts exactly what she did to merit another criminal prosecution. The "offensive" quote most commonly cited is, "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts." Which may or may not be controversial, in the present French context, but certainly is not criminal by any rational evaluation.
Like wow. Another Hollywood elitist? Hmmmm……
Maybe if she lived here in America, where free speech is a right, she would not be in the pickle she’s in.
Ha! I said the Word "Pickle" and Bridget Bardot in the same blog posting. *snort* 
