Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

And Milli Vanilli won a grammy in 1990.

Obama is now in the company of other undeserved NPP winners like Al Gore who won the award for his global warming alarmism fraud, the warmonger Henry Kissinger (1973), terrorists like Yassur Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin (1994) and Menachem Begin (1978), racist conspiracy theorists like Wangari Mathai (2004—she said HIV was invented by whites to eliminate blacks), Nazi sympathizers like Cordell Hull (1945—He threatened to withhold support from Roosevelt if he let a

ship full of 950 Jewish refugees into the US in 1939, the ship was forced to return to Germany and nearly all the passengers died in concentration camps.), frauds like Rigoberta Menchú (1992—whose autobiography is reportedly full of lies) and bumbling idiots like Jimmy Carter (2002).

These liars, hucksters and murderers have all won the NPP while truly deserving people like Mahatma Gandhi were refused the honor.

 Mr. President you are in appropriate company.

ACORN Threatens FOX News with Lawsuit

After O’Keefe and Giles exposed ACORN’s Baltimore and Washington offices for criminal conduct amounting to potentially assisting in child sex slavery and prostitution, the “community organizers” are threatening to sue Fox News and the two amateur journalists for trying to “smear” the organization.  That ought to go nowhere.  Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU tried to get a piece of that action.  I’m sure they could find a way to misinterpret the First Amendment to feel justified in that.
Then they can set a precedent and sue Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator.” ACORN can then actively become advocates for pedophilia.  Maybe they should change their name to APORN; the Association of Pedophile Organizers for Reform Now.  Maybe they can merge with NAMBLA.

ACORN, Sex Slavery and Jaycee Lee Dugard

ACORN, perhaps one of Barack Obama’s favorite corrupt organizations has been exposed again.  This time ACORN employees in Baltimore, MD have been exposed for knowingly counseling and assisting a prostitute and pimp (actually undercover amateur journalists) commit a whole list of potential crimes, including tax evasion and fraud.  But what is most amazing and disgusting is how the workers didn’t even bat an eye when the “pimp” informed her that they would be illegally bringing thirteen teenage girls from El Salvador to turn tricks in the house that ACORN would be helping them finance.  In fact all the ACORN tax specialist seemed concerned about was keeping the child molesting criminals out of trouble.

And this is all on the heels of the Jaycee Lee Dugard story.  An entire nation was appalled to hear how Phillip Garrido abducted the young girl and held her captive for eighteen years, and fathered one of two children with her when she was fourteen years of age.

And here, ACORN was more than happy to assist a pimp in his exploitation of THIRTEEN girls the same age!  Were the ACORN workers concerned that these thirteen girls may have been sold into slavery, or possibly abducted from their loving families and forced to turn tricks for syphilis infected Johns?  Nope.  All they were worried about was helping the possible kidnapping, child sex-slave driver get a tax break by claiming them as dependents.

Thank the Lord that these thirteen girls were fictional.  But they represent the thousands of young girls forced to work in the sex-slave ring throughout the world.  And ACORN workers are okay with this?  That’s compassion for the downtrodden and the oppressed!

I have to wonder if Phillip Garrido had wandered into ACORN eighteen years ago, would they have helped him figure out what sort of code they needed to come up with to disguise the real activities going on in his backyard tent city?  Don’t call it a prison camp … it’s low income housing!

How much lower can ACORN sink?

Who is Responsible for the Economic Crises? Democrats-Carter, Clinton and Obama!

I remember discussing in a political science class how the nation does not fully feel an American President’s effect on the country until a good decade and more after he is out of office.  Clinton claimed credit for the successful economy created during the Reagan era.  The economy we are experiencing now is a direct result of the Carter and Clinton administrations with help from democrats like Barack Obama.  Now the nation has to pay for it.

 

This is an excellent video that briefly exemplifies this truth while explaining the true origins of this economic crisis.

 

Palin; War with Russia and the “Bush Doctrine”

Since Charlie Gibson’s interview with Republican vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin on ABC, leftists have been spinning their heads trying to misrepresent the governor’s responses to Gibson’s loaded questions.  The two biggest talking points; that Palin is in favor of war with Russia over the Georgia crises and that she “does not understand the ‘Bush doctrine.’”

 

It really leaves a person feeling that perhaps leftists would do better to read something other than the democratic talking points.  In this case maybe, the North American Treaty  to which Palin was referring.

 

Palin did not come out “in favor of war with Russia over Georgia.”  She simply and correctly explained the facts that if Georgia was to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and they were attacked; “That is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”

 

Help could be any number of things, like the $1 Billion in aid that we have already sent.  It does not just mean war.  That is after all, in fact why NATO exists in the first place. 

 

From the North Atlantic Treaty;

“The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.”

 

Palin didn’t specify military action, but that option is not off the table and according to the North Atlantic Treaty it shouldn’t be.  NATO members are after all “resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence.”  Article 3 reads: “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

 

Article 5 reads “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area …”

 

So clearly the United States, as a member of NATO is legally expected to assist another member of NATO when their freedom and sovereignty is threatened.  If Palin had given a different answer it would have meant that she was in favor of violating our treaty obligations.  So, when Palin said; “That is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” it doesn’t mean she is in favor of war.  It simply shows that she understands the obligations of the United States under the North Atlantic Treaty.

 

As far as the “Bush doctrine” goes, it was Charlie Gibson who proved that he did not fully understand the term.  First of all “Bush doctrine” is not an official term used in the government.  It’s a journalistic term used by the media and it refers to many different Bush policies and stances, not a single specific policy.

 

Since Palin is not an ABC anchor I’d expect her to ask for further clarification regarding this ambiguous question.  And she did.  Palin asked “In what respect?”  To which Gibson lobbed out a half thought out and inadequate explanation, that doesn’t even represent today’s most common usage of the term.  He described the “Bush doctrine” as “we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

 

Palin explained “If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people we have every right to defend our country.” 

 

And she’s right.  We do.

 

Hurricane Ike Descends on Galveston; Non-evacuees Face “Certain Death”

Texas Governor Rick Perry has issued the warning to Galveston residents in the wake of Hurrican Ike; Evacuate or face “certain death.”  According to Fox News at 9:PM CT non-evacuees have also been asked to write their social security numbers on their arms.

We should all pray, pray, PRAY for all of the quarter-million people who decided to stay and ride out the storm. 

God bless!

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 11; Patriot’s Day

Remember the World Trade Center.

Remember the Pentagon.

Remember the 3000 innocent lives stolen from their families.

Remember who did it.

And pray that our next President has the knowledge and wisdom to combat the evils of Islamic Terrorism in the world and keep the United States safe.

God Bless America!

Sarah Palin in the Press; Where is She?

Since Sarah Palin’s nomination speech at the RNC she hasn’t been around to talk to the press.  Everyone is eager to hear from her.  They want to see her interviewed and hear her speak.  People on the left are saying “she’s hiding because she’s not ready for the job” (as if Barack Obama is).

 

But it’s only a week into the actual election and her son is leaving for an infantry position in Iraq on September 11.  I know this is something that may be hard for the unpatriotic left to relate to but seeing a relative off for a war is a hard time for the family.  When my brother left for Iraq we spent a good week with him too.

 

But the mainstream media is really upset.  They think they run the elections and a lot of their viewers think that too.  But they don’t run the elections; they’re just supposed to be objective outlets for information.  These outlets have been utilized by political campaigns to spread their message to the voters.  The press does not have the inherent right to interview anyone.  Of course a candidate for the second highest office in the nation should go on the air and be seen and heard by the nation.  We’ve come to expect that since the invention of television.  But it is entirely up to the campaign which shows and what networks they will appear on. 

 

Does a candidate have to appear on Oprah during the campaign?  Does she have to appear on Late Night with Conan O’Brien?  What about Jerry Springer?  Would you expect a candidate to even consider going on the Jerry Springer Show?  Of course not!  The Jerry Springer Show is designed to entertain the lowest uncommon denominator, it’s not worthy of a Presidential or VP candidate.

 

Well, when the mainstream media is going all a-frenzy acting like they’re the Jerry Springer show; with ridiculous “who’s da real baby momma?” stories, I’d say they are not worthy of a Presidential or VP candidate either.

 

The hosting of an interview with a presidential candidate, especially one with the status of “instant celebrity” is going to pull in a lot of ratings.  That equals millions of dollars of advertising time from sponsorship for the network and anchor that hosts the interview.  Why reward the tabloids for their attempted “white-trashing” of Sarah Palin when you can wait it out a week or two and see which networks and anchors managed to maintain their professionalism the best and let them bring in those ratings?  There’s still plenty of time for her to be seen and heard between now and November.  They can afford to kill a week.

 

Of course I think the McCain campaign knew full well that Palin was going to be an instant success and this was going to draw out the leftist sharks in the mainstream media.  It comes as no surprise that the biased voices in the media would put all their efforts into trying to destroy the ‘one who dares threaten their candidate.’  After all they helped create him. 

 

But the media had nothing to do with creating Palin.  And since they had nothing to do with creating her, they can’t destroy her.  But they can destroy themselves … and Obama.  And they’re doing a good job at that.

 

So many people have ruined their credibility in the past week.  Some never really had any to begin with.  MSNBC has removed Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from their positions as election anchors for amazingly biased coverage which caused the network to have the lowest ratings of all during the conventions. 

 

Let’s see agents of change … well a backlash against the obviously biased mouth pieces in the mainstream media are causing networks and media organizations to desperately try to regain credibility by becoming more unbiased.  It looks like the McCain ticket is already causing things to change from the business as usual and he’s not even in office yet. 

 

Meanwhile Barack Obama is talking about pigs in lipstick.

 

Catch Sarah Palin on ABC, Thursday, September 11 with Charlie Gibson.

Carol Fowler; Sarah Palin’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

The Obamanation sinks to a new low.  Wednesday South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin saying her “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”  

I used to be bothered by these kinds of smears but now I say “Thanks!”  These types of nasty remarks from the Obama left are what are contributing to his declining polls.  Shortly after governor Palin was named the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee I heard the first remark that has since been echoed across the Obamanation.  Palin was attacked for having five kids.  I immediately thought what has since been proven to be true about this attitude.  But I withheld my thoughts, knowing that a time would arise when the democrats said something stupid that really warranted my putting the words in print.  Now is that time.

Here are those words; 

Of course the left hates Sarah Palin.  Of course she’s ridiculed for having five children … that’s five chances that she could have had an abortion, but allowed her children to have LIFE!  The left can’t have that!

Hillary; Too Smart to Attack Sarah Palin

Hillary

Since 2008 republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was unveiled at the RNC this past week she has proven to be a wild card and a game changer.  In less than seven days the McCain campaign has managed to not only close the gap between McCain and Obama, but to overtake the democratic nominee by 5 or 6 points.  A lot of this had been credited to Palin’s attraction to Hillary supporters disaffected from the Democratic Party.

After Palin delivered her strong and somewhat provocative speech at the RNC, Obama supporters’ heads have been spinning.  “Wait ‘till Hillary speaks out about Palin, she’ll show her,” they have been saying with hope that the matriarch that they betrayed will now somehow come to their rescue.

When Hillary did speak to a crowd in Kissimmee, Florida she all but completely avoided the topic of Gov. Palin except to add her name to the applause line “No way, no how, no McCain, no Palin!”  Obama supporters were disappointed.  Why didn’t their matriarch jump in and attack the newly rising female republican star with the same savagery she attacked Obama during the primaries?  It has not happened yet, and I don’t think it will, at least not during the campaign.  This has been cause for certain Republicans to suggest that even Hillary is afraid of Palin’s experience, wit and keen intellect.  However, I believe there is more going on here than meets the eye.

There are a lot of things Republicans could say to characterize Sen. Clinton, most of which is none too flattering.  But aside from these personal sentiments, there is one undeniable fact about the character of Sen. Hillary Rodham-Clinton; she’s smart!  She’s smarter and more cunning than the average politician, she’s smarter than her husband and she is certainly smarter than Obama.  Hillary has been in this game far too long to get suckered into the frenzy of attacking Gov. Palin.

Presidential campaigns don’t usually get involved in attacking the Vice Presidential nominee.  VP nominees don’t usually waste much time attacking each other either; they focus on the Presidential nominee and his policies.  The fact that the Obama campaign has come out so strongly on the offensive against VP nominee Palin is a real sign of their weakness and desperation as well as the genuine threat the McCain ticket represents with her on it.

The sexist smears that have been circulating the left-wing media and the internet at this stage of the game, instead of hurting Palin have seemed to cause true Feminists (as opposed to left-wing radicals) to rally around her, boosting her approval ratings in a great backlash against the Obama media.  Yet Hillary stays away from targeting Palin directly.

People who pay attention realize that roughly half of Hillary’s female supporters back her simply because they want to see a woman in the oval office doing something aside from becoming closely acquainted with a presidential cigar and she seemed like the most likely candidate.  It’s probably true that those women have gravitated toward the McCain campaign.

After watching so much of the Obama media and so-called feminists destroy their credibility with sexist attacks against Palin for her personal choices and life rather than her policies, Hillary knows better than to jump into this cesspool and compromise her own integrity.  Hillary is not going to go down in history as the woman who attempted to destroy another qualified and successful woman’s potential bid for the White House without another woman immediately lined up to take her place.  Hillary knows that women are paying attention to her.  She’s also probably aware that conservative and swing voting women far outnumber her radical left-wing base.

I also don’t think that Hillary really wants Obama to win this election.  I don’t think she’ll actually cast her vote for McCain.  I imagine her writing herself in on the ballot this November.  This was supposed to be her time, her coronation!  But instead she watched her own party do to her what older professional females have had to endure under patriarchy since they entered the workforce; they passed her up for the job in favor of a younger, less experienced male applicant.  She was betrayed by her own friends and colleagues in the Democratic Party as the nation saw them ignore two whole states and suspend their own Party bylaws in order to knock her out of the race and nominate a half-term male Senator.  If they had nominated Hillary, there is a good chance that the Democrats could have walked away with this election.  But instead, now they have a struggle on their hands.

Hillary is still smarting after this cutthroat betrayal and if she weren’t so ambitious, she would probably leave the Democratic Party and go independent.  But she still wants to be President and leave a great feminist legacy for Chelsea to carry forward and so do a lot of her supporters.

 If Obama were to somehow win the election, his term would be a disaster.  His Marxist arrogance and inexperience would make for a presidency that would make Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan.  After his first term they’ll be handing the Presidency back to the Republicans on a silver platter.  Regardless of how good or bad Obama’s first term could be, he will be the incumbent.  Rare is the case where the incumbent does not win the party’s nomination.  Either way we are looking at a minimum of eight years before Hillary could have any hope of being a legitimate presidential nominee again.

However if McCain wins, the entire narrative of this election cycle will be much different than it is today.  Instead of just rattling off how “historic” the Obama nomination was, it’ll go down in history as one of the dumbest moves the Democratic Party has made in the past 100 years.  The disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan Democrats and the suspension of Party bylaws will be regarded as the first major downfall of this election cycle for the Democrats.  They will lament “If only we had run Hillary!”  The democrats will in effect spend the next four years priming Hillary to run against McCain-Palin or Palin-X in 2012.  In that case, I have no doubt that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination. 

Hillary turns 61 this year. She will continue to do the bare minimum to stump for Obama, keeping face with her party and the radical left while making sure to not lose her credibility with genuine feminists.  But what do you think sounds more appetizing to an ambitious and intelligent woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton—waiting four years to run or waiting eight years when she’s 69 and likely up against a 52 year old Sarah Palin?

These I present as my personal thoughts as to why Hillary will not take on Sarah Palin directly at this time.