Some observations from recent headlines:
====================================Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House are still wasting time, showing us why they've achieved historically low approval levels. They're still trying to condemn Karl Rove for his 'sins' -- which have been completely disproven for years -- while working as Bush's adviser, and they're still apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow laws. She also has a twisted sense of 'values':
"San Francisco values to me means that every child in our city has health insurance until they are 25 years old. San Francisco values say we don't have a minimum wage, we have a living wage. In San Francisco we respect the dignity and worth of every person and respect is the order of the day there. Issues like protecting the environment aren't issues for us -- they are values and ethics."Michelle Malkin points out the following...
See what's missing?
Not a word about the San Francisco values that led to illegal alien Honduran crack dealers getting subsidized escort shuttle service back home to escape deportation and prosecution. Not a word about the San Francisco values that led to illegal alien drug lords getting sent down and dumped on San Bernardino group homes– only to walk out of them scot-free. Not a word about the San Francisco values that gave bloody sanctuary to the illegal alien killer of the Bologna family. Illegal alien sanctuary policies have been an inhumane curse on untold numbers of families in the Bay Area. Let's hear about those San Francisco values, Nan.
I think that if San Francisco 'values' became the norm across America, I'd move to Australia.
====================================
Barack Obama has answered the question of why he is uncomfortable wearing an American flag lapel pin: because he feels he's a citizen of the world, not America. It's too bad that reality intrudes on his prophetic vision:
====================================
Barack Obama has answered the question of why he is uncomfortable wearing an American flag lapel pin: because he feels he's a citizen of the world, not America. It's too bad that reality intrudes on his prophetic vision:
But "citizen of the world" is a utopian, unreal, angelic, inhuman term, an abstraction of the sort that leads to immense bloodshed as human irregularities are hacked off and angularity is loudly planed away. I agree with Pete Wehner's observation on Commentary's website that one can be a citizen of the United States, but not — in anything like the same sense — of the world. One can enjoy the natural rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, but will not find such rights protected globally, not even in France, as Byron York pointed out last month and again on Friday.
The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an "ideal" America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals.
The Berlin speech also explains why Obama is more likely to praise an "ideal" America than the real America. He is bewitched by abstractions and lofty ideals.
Do we really want to elect a President who feels a stronger connection to foreign nations -- which don't have the same rights and protections as we do, and many of whom are actively hostile toward us -- than to our own country?
====================================
Here's a great example of liberal Democrats at work. The DNC, to keep its environmentalist wacko base happy, is trying to keep their convention carbon neutral. To do that, they're buying carbon offsets in the form of sponsoring a wind turbine in in eastern Colorado for the energy used by the convention. The problem here is that the wind turbine isn't functional, and it is incapable of producing its intended output. They keep turning it on and off, though, to make it look like it's working.
====================================
Let us consider Barack the Obamessiah. He seems to be forgetting one teeny, tiny detail...we have these things called elections. He has to win that before assuming power. That hasn't stopped him from acting like the President already, though. He seems to have abandoned the hope of winning for the change of having a new president, but without the fuss of an actual election! Convenient, is it not?
On another note, is the Obamessiah bubble about to burst? He continues to give up ground in the polls. Also, the 200,000 people who attended his speech in Berlin may have actually been closer to 20,000. Eh, what's a decimal point when you're talking about the Obamessiah? After all, the Obamessiah is more noble than anyone else in the world, you know (never mind that his actual credentials pale in comparison with some of those lesser beings). The future for women under the Obamessiah is very bleak, but on the other hand, illegal aliens will get free health care and blacks and Hawaiians will get reparations. Truly, the Obamessiah is a symbol. In his own words, he has, "become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." There is a question of the context, but regardless, this statement brings us back to his universe-sized ego and excessive hubris.
Some observations for you to ponder...
There's my two cents.
6 comments:
***There is a question of the context, but regardless, this statement brings us back to his universe-sized ego and excessive hubris.***
At least now we don't have to guess whether fairness or truth matter to you.
Context be damned, if it's anti-Obama, I'm going to post it!!!!
Congratulations!
Oh, and by the way, your stuff about Obama ditching the troops cause he couldn't bring cameras has been pretty much proven to be ABSOLUTELY, 100% a lie...so, congrats on that, too.
Thanks for your comment!
Regarding context...did you follow the link to the article? It wasn't my conclusion that he shouldn't have made the statement. The article said:
"Let's be fair to Obama. What he said could be taken as simply acknowledging a fact. But even if it was meant that way -- and not a proud declaration -- he still shouldn't be the one saying it. The campaign needs to walk a fine line between maintaining the magic and enthusiasm of the primaries and degenerating into self-parody. Things like the faux presidential seal step into the latter, as can talking about oneself as a "symbol" of anything."
My summary was:
"There is a question of the context, but regardless, this statement brings us back to his universe-sized ego and excessive hubris."
I think my statement was a fair representation of this quote, and I stand by it.
As for the incident of Obama ditching the troops to work out being a lie, what's your source? I consulted a number of sources that all described the situation the same way as I did (that would be why I chose to describe it that way). If you have a source you'd like to post, by all means, do so. I'm happy to reconsider something I blog about if there's a good reason, so bring it on.
Don't accuse me of lying or misrepresenting something simply to knock on Obama without backing it up! In the first place, there are so many legitimate things to knock on Obama about that I certainly don't need to manufacture another one.
If you can't (or won't) back up your accusation, then I'd say you're an Obamessiah follower with skin as thin as his. The ball's in your court now.
FIRST SOURCE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902286.html
I especially like the following quotes:
Headline--"McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence"
Later--"For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers . . . despite no evidence that the charge is true."
Later--"In fact, there is no evidence that he [Obama] planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event."
Again--"Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds [a McCain advisor] provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital."
Further--"A reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Obama's decision not to visit Landstuhl, based on firsthand reporting from the trip, shows that his campaign never contemplated taking the media with him."
Finally--"Gibbs [an Obama advisor] was asked yesterday about the continuing allegations from McCain that the real reason was a desire to bring a media entourage to the hospital.
"That's completely untrue, and I think, honestly, they know it's untrue," Gibbs said."
SECOND SOURCE
I can't find the link off hand, but a news anchor on MSNBC [as an aside, I wasn't watching MSNBC, I just saw the link on somewhere else] said something to the effect of "that [the charge] is LITERALLY NOT TRUE . . . I WAS THERE . . . he [Obama] was NOT ever going to have cameras come with him."
Excellent, excellent! NOW we have something we can discuss! :)
I would point you to this link, where this specific Washington Post story is discussed. Included is a link to the actual transcript of the briefing in question.
Some key excerpts:
"The original plan was to take the entire Obama entourage to Ramstein and keep the press on the plane, a plan they were less than happy with."
"Q: Did it not occur to anybody that this might be viewed as a political stop?
Gibbs: We had taken some of that into consideration, but we believed that it could be done in a way that would not create, it would not be created or seen as a campaign stop."
NRO's suggestion, which I believe makes a heckuva lot of sense, is that Obama had every intention of making the visit, but when the press found out they would not be allowed to leave the plane, they refused to pay their way, and the accounting just became too problematic for the Obama campaign to deal with.
Also note that Gibbs himself admitted that they had entertained at least a 'pool reporter' along on the visit (I believe this is the person that would have made it a campaign visit), putting the lie to the WaPo's suggestion that "there is no evidence that he [Obama] planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser".
The Obama campaign lied, and the transcript proves it. Now they're trying to push the blame on the cancellation onto the Pentagon, which was simply following long-established rules for visits. The WaPo story is attempting to provide cover for them.
The bottom line is that Obama canceled. If the visit truly had been that important to him, he would have gone -- by himself, if necessary -- to spend time with these soldiers. He didn't do that. What other conclusion is there?
***NRO's suggestion, which I believe makes a heckuva lot of sense, is that Obama had every intention of making the visit, but when the press found out they would not be allowed to leave the plane, they refused to pay their way, and the accounting just became too problematic for the Obama campaign to deal with.***
If this is true, it still means McCain's (and your) insinuation that Obama cancelled because he couldn't get a "photo op" untrue. He intended to leave the press ON THE PLANE.
***Also note that Gibbs himself admitted that they had entertained at least a 'pool reporter' along on the visit (I believe this is the person that would have made it a campaign visit)***
A pool reporter was not the person who they were going to bring with. It was a member of Obama's campaign staff (a retired General or something). Since he wasn't on Obama's Senate staff, that would have made the visit political and the Pentagon at least suggested against it. ALSO, even if the campaign "entertained" a pool report, they obviously decided against it, even before the visit was cancelled.
***The WaPo story is attempting to provide cover for them.***
If that's true, then the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE BLOGGER you cite is just trying to tear Obama down with insinuation and innuendo. Notice that the only "evidence" in that piece regarding Obama's motives requires ASSUMPTIONS about the candidate (and I assure you, the NRO is not going to have favorable assumptions about Obama). When asked for hard evidence to back up their assumptions, McCain's camp (and by extension NRO and by further extension you) couldn't provide any.
***The bottom line is that Obama canceled. If the visit truly had been that important to him, he would have gone -- by himself, if necessary -- to spend time with these soldiers. He didn't do that. What other conclusion is there?***
Obama has visited troops (both wounded and healthy) before. In Kuwait, Iraq, Walter Reed, etc. One missed visit does not make him uncaring, unpatriotic, etc.
We're quibbling over very thin differences here, but I think they are important thin differences. He planned to leave most of the press corps on the plane, but not all. From my reading of the transcript, they wanted to have one reporter with him, and that reporter would have been posing as someone from his staff to make it look like they weren't doing anything wrong. It's questionable at best.
In my opinion, the NRO writer (and myself) are interpreting correctly from the transcript - I'm not looking at the assumptions, as you suggest, and I don't believe the NRO writer is, either.
Yes, he has visited troops before. The point is that he blew them off at this most visible time. He knew the entire world was watching him, and that his visit would be covered seven ways from Sunday. And, if a former doctor at that particular hospital has any credibility, his mistake was a biggie. At the very least, Obama should have known better than to make this decision at this particular point in time.
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment