B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy

A Moving Letter to the Editor from a Voice of Experience with “Young Charismatic Leaders”

Posted on November 3, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

This was published in the July 7, 2008 edition of Richmond TImes-Dispatch. It is an account of someone with experience.

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.


On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Beware: Obama is Still Making Promises

Posted on November 1, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

Obama is out saying that he, “will change the world” if elected. This is exactly what should be scaring every voter. Remember, Soviet Russia also changed the world.

The link below has more on this:


Also, while we’re on the Soviet Russia subject. Obama is also claiming that he will establish a “Civilian National Security Force.” If his campaign tactics of using common Americans in positions with the government or in the media to personally smear other common Americans, the last thing we want is an Obama-created “Civilian National Security Force.” It would be safe to say the KGB also used a “Civilian National Security Force” to encourage citizens to rat out there neighbors who were voicing discontent with the state. This campaign has shown that Obama has no tolerance for any disagreement with his “message.”

Watch Obama explain his plan here:

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why Obama Wants to Raise Taxes

Posted on November 1, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

This video should be reason enough to keep Obama out of the White House. It should at the very least show the company a voter would be keeping with a vote for Obama. After watching this, who is the selfish one in this election? Is it the taxpayers, as Obama claims because they don’t want to pay higher taxes? Or is it people like Ms. Joseph, who probably is one of the 40% currently not paying any taxes, who is voting for Obama because she is counting on receiving other Americans’ money? It is very obvious that Ms. Joseph is looking to Obama to alleviate her of any financial responsibilities. It’s also pretty apparent, that Obama’s promises of “sharing the wealth” will grow the welfare rolls exponentially. Why would people work when the government will take care of them for free?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

If Obama Thinks We’re Bitter Now, Wait Until November 4

Posted on October 30, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, Obama's Grand Plan for Change, Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

As Americans are getting closer to heading to the polls, they have every right to be mad as hell about the constant attempts to deceive them that have taken place for, at least, the past 18 months. As Election Day draws near, Barack Hussein Obama is going to be the first candidate in history who was completely able to dictate the narrative of his campaign in major media sources such as the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and the list could keep going on. Obama has been able to label any questions that he doesn’t feel like answering as attempts to stoke the flames of racism and hatred. Apparently, for the first time in history questions about illegal campaign contributions, associations with domestic and foreign terrorist organizations, and a tax policy where the income cut-off to receive tax cuts keeps sinking lower and lower are all considered off-limits for anyone to ask. Obama’s campaign has even used their surrogates in state and local governments to get personal information used to smear a common citizen whose only crime was asking Obama a policy question. Yes, voters have every reason to be mad as hell when heading to the polls. By voting Obama, Americans are only setting themselves up for plenty more reasons to be mad as hell for the next four years. However, if Obama’s actions throughout his political career show anything, Americans may not have the right to voice their anger under an Obama administration.

Obama holds the average Americans in contempt. He built his entire worldview on contempt for, what he sees, as a racist and inequitable nation resulting from the bigoted middle class. Perhaps this is why he is capable of flat-out lying to the electorate with absolutely no restraint. Even more disgraceful is that the media, who are most responsible for informing the voters, allow Obama to lie freely without any subject. In the case of the L.A. Times, it is now apparent that they even assisted with Obama’s lies by suppressing a video tape showing Obama at a party for a former Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) spokesman, Rashid Khalidi. The tape shows such anti-Israel activities such as a young Palestinian child reading a poem about the “Zionists” committing acts of terrorism. Mark Levin stated on his nightly radio show that credible source said that the tape shows that Obama made very shocking remarks to invigorate the crowd during his toast at the party. Supposedly, the comments stated that Israelis have no God-given right to be in Palestine and that Israel is responsible for genocide of Palestinians. If the tape truly does show Obama making these statements, then the voters do have a definite right to see it for themselves. The Khalidi comments become especially disturbing since the Associated Press has reported that Palestinians are currently cold-calling American voters from the Gaza Strip to ask for their support for Obama. The Obama campaign has also been forced to return over $30,000 to Palestinians in Gaza who bought t-shirts on Obama’s website in bulk in order to contribute to his campaign. Voters should also keep in mind that Jesse Jackson, who has referred to Obama as, “part of the family” was in France in October where he told the World Policy Forum that Obama’s Middle East policy would, put a stop to the “decades of putting Israel’s interests first.” No one can forget either that the political chief of Hamas, an organization labeled a terrorist organization by the US government, was on ABC radio in April of 2006 where he stated, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.” However, anyone who mentions all of these facts is immediately labeled as a right-wing extremist looking to personally smear Obama. Instead of criticizing voters who ask, the media should be demanding that Obama explain if he is as pro-Israel as he states he is, why is it that so many of Israel’s strongest opponents line up to support him? Anyone in the press who refuses to look for an answer to these questions beyond the Obama campaign’s talking points, has only proven that they have no business claiming to be objective sources of information.

So even though the media allows Obama to claim that there’s no politician more pro-Israel than himself without any further questions, they proceeded to dig up any negative piece of information they could about a man who merely stood in his own driveway and asked Barack Obama a question about tax policy. The man, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as “Joe the Plumber,” had the unfortunate experience of having Barack Obama walk up to Wurzelbacher’s driveway while going door-to-door to drum up support. Wurzelbacher took the opportunity to voice his concerns to Obama about Obama’s tax proposals. Wurzelbacher stated that he was looking to buy the plumbing business he works for and Obama’s tax rate increase on anyone making over $250,000 (or whatever the threshold was that day) would severely limit his ability to hire more workers and expand the business. This is when Obama made his, now infamous, statement that, “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.” With one short answer, Obama made a mistake and let the cat out of the bag to his true priorities when deciding tax and economic policies. Instead of economic growth, Obama is more concerned with finding policies that focus on social justice, thus the redistribution of income from those he considers well off to those not as successful. Even though it was Obama’s mistake, who took the fall for his bad answer? Wurzelbacher is who took the fall. Almost immediately after making the comments, the media had drug out all sorts of negative news about Wurzelbacher such as he did not have a current plumbers license, he owed back taxes, and even went so far as to imply that he is not even registered to vote. How would any of this information make Obama’s answer about his true tax policy goals any less relevant? Both Obama and Biden went on the warpath against the average American who asked a question of Obama when he showed up, unannounced, in Wurzelbacher’s driveway. Biden told Jay Leno on the Tonight Show that he wasn’t aware of any plumbers who make a quarter-million dollars a year. At a rally, Obama mocked John McCain for fighting for a guy who’s a plumber. News came out on October 29 that Julie McConnell, a clerk for the Toledo Police Department, is being brought up on charges of gross misconduct because she accessed Wurzelbacher’s official records after the third debate. The Toledo Police Department has also stated that Wurzelbacher’s records were illegally accessed a total of four times. So far, one search has been accounted for, now who made the other three searches and to who in the Obama campaign did they send the information?

The blog, Flopping Aces makes a very good point about the uproar when it was discovered that State Department officials ran searches on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. After the reports came out, it was front page news for the next few weeks. The Clinton and Obama searches ended up in a widely publicized investigation and people ended up losing their jobs for the actions. When is the press going to feel outraged over government officials using their positions to assault a common citizen whose only mistake was to trust Obama when approached in his own driveway? Wurzelbacher made the mistake of crossing Barack Obama and this is how Obama’s cronies in the government punished him for Obama’s mistake of speaking about his true policy goals. How will Obama and his supporters use their governmental powers to suppress questions if Obama gets into the Oval Office? Americans can count on an assault on both their freedom to question their government and their freedom to prosper.

Obama’s true feelings about average Americans were perfectly summed up last April at a San Francisco fundraiser where only the wealthiest of the liberal elites were present. During his speech, which he thought would never be heard by anyone outside of the room, Obama said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” These were Obama’s comments when he was among his closest of allies. These comments came when Obama thought the cameras and tape recorders were off and he was finally able to drop the campaign act and speak from his heart. This is the same Obama who claims that John McCain is completely out of touch with the middle-class. This is the same Obama who said in a radio interview in 2001 that he was disappointed with the Constitution for not allowing the government to do more to the people. He also said that he wished the Supreme Court would have pursued policies that were more distributive of wealth during the Civil Rights Movement. It doesn’t take a right-wing extremist to understand that the redistribution of wealth was the number one main priority in Marx’s vision of socialism. However, when a news anchor asked a very rare and uncharacteristically hard question of Joe Biden if Obama’s policies were socialist, Biden smirked and asked her if it was a real question. After the interview, the Obama campaign told the station that they were cancelling the already-scheduled interview with Biden’s wife and they were also cutting them out of any future interview opportunities. Not long after the Obama campaign made their announcements, the Obama-infatuated media then proceeded to report relentlessly about the anchorwoman’s husband in an effort to ruin her professional reputation. All of this was because someone on the Obama campaign was actually asked a non-softball question. Once again, the Obama campaign went into attack mode on an average American because she didn’t blindly buy into Obama’s policies and talking points.

This is the same Obama who also told his followers at a rally outside of Las Vegas to argue with their neighbors and friends and “get in their face” to tell them that Obama “supports the Second Amendment.” This is the first presidential campaign in a very long time where the candidates will not have been asked in a widely publicized event, such as a presidential debate, about their views of the Second Amendment. Perhaps the question has been avoided because Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the most anti-gun ticket to ever run for president. Throughout Obama’s political career he has never found a gun control bill that he would not vote for. He has publically stated that he believes all handguns should be banned. Obama even served on the board of the Joyce Foundation which gives substantial funding to many groups who advocate gun control and outright banning of private ownership of firearms. During an interview, Obama also stated that he has always opposed concealed carry permits and he always will work to prohibit the practice. The same politician who believes abortion in all forms should be legalized and is protected as a fundamental freedom despite the fact that no voter has ever been allowed to express their support or opposition to the issue wants to create a federal law to abolish all state conceal carry laws which the voters in each state approved. After the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, Obama falsely stated that the bill was not just a ban a single form of abortion. (And the most barbaric and savage form at that.) He said, “Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure…That presumption is also wrong.” Yet Obama doesn’t consider banning handguns an infringement on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Obama will fight to protect abortion at all costs, even though there is no explicit Constitutional right granted, rather the Supreme Court created the right. But he will stop at nothing to abolish the explicit right granted in the Second Amendment which states “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against absolving homeowners of criminal charges who protect themselves and their families from a home invader by using a handgun, despite living in a community where they are banned. He voted against the bill and, despite his vote, the bill passed. Obama then voted against it again when he was one of a handful of senators who voted against overriding the governor’s veto. Luckily for Illinois residents, there was a majority in the state senate to override the veto. If Obama takes office with a supermajority in both houses of Congress, nothing will be able to stop him from rubberstamping any anti-gun legislation. Gun owners should be appalled. From his history, Obama has supported raising taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500%, raising the legal age to own a firearm to 21, and even to ban most calibers of ammunition used for hunting. Despite his horrible record of working to destroy gun owners’ rights, Obama has still not been questioned in the media when he claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment. If the media has their way, no one will even consider it an issue when they go to the ballot boxes on November 4.

Obama writes in his memoirs about his grandmother’s racism when she once came home afraid because a beggar, who was black, was acting aggressively to her as she went to the bus stop. (It should be noted that his “racist” grandmother rode the bus to work because she and Obama’s grandfather sacrificed heavily to send Obama to the most prestigious private school in Hawaii.) Obama labeled her racist during the campaign when it surfaced that he had been a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s hate-based church for the past 20 years. When the media started showing clips of Rev. Wright yelling during his sermons, phrases such as, “No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America,” and referring to the US as the “United States KKK of A,” Obama claimed that Wright was just like the old uncle in everyone’s family who says things that shock people. He then went on to claim that he could no more disassociate with Wright, than he could with his own grandmother who was racially prejudiced as he related the story about his grandmother and the beggar. Throughout his autobiographies, Obama discusses how he formed his view of the world through extremists like Malcom X, the communist poet Frank Marshal Davis, and how he relied on spiritual leaders such as Rev. Wright and extremist priest Father Pfleger who once threatened to “snuff out” a Chicago gun shop owner where Pfleger was protesting. With this background, Obama’s comments about rural Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion starts to give voters a glimpse into Obama’s true views of the United States. It becomes more difficult to dismiss his wife Michelle Obama’s quote that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life while she was campaigning for her husband. All commentators want to claim that Obama is a true patriot and his past quotes and associations do not take away from his love of his country. This is unbelievable when looking at Obama’s history as a whole. In fact, the only conclusion that someone could reasonably draw is that Obama is a bitter member of society, clinging to his cynicism and racial divide which creates animosity to those not like him.

On November 4, voters need to let Obama know just how bitterl they are from Obama’s insults by voting for McCain. Personally, I am not a large supporter of McCain and I never really have been. But when faced with the prospect of McCain running the country or Obama taking control with a sympathetic Congress and the possibility of appointing up to three Supreme Court justices, the choice becomes crystal clear. Obama will pursue policies of social justice and economic equality that will tear apart the capitalist system that has helped America become the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization. The US and global economies will take decades to recover from the socialist policies Obama promises to pursue. No American will receive a tax cut. Obama’s new spending programs costs, at least, four times as much as his projected tax revenues even after his tax rate hikes. Every American will no longer be working for their own prosperity, instead they will be working twice as hard because they will be forced to not only cover their own needs, and even harder to cover their tax liability. Voters should be mad as hell that Obama and his surrogates in the media have done everything possible to send them into the voting booth without making Obama answer for his lies and contradictions. Voters should let their bitterness help them retire Obama back to the Senate where he can become a footnote of history as the socialist who came closest to being president of the United States of America.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Attacks a Common American Who Dared to Question Him

Posted on October 17, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obama's real record as a "reformer", B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Obama's Grand Plan for Change |

Obama and Biden took to the campaign trail to personally smear a common American. Their target is the man who asked about Obama’s tax policies and received Obama’s comment, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” It has turned out that Joe Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, does not have a squeaky-clean background. Among his woes are owed back taxes, no current plumbers license, and some liens levied against him. However, despite Joe’s problems, what makes the concern he brought up any less valid? Also, how does it justify Obama and Biden to take to the campaign trail to personally attack this man? Perhaps the most infuriating part of the whole situation is that Joe the Plumber did not go to an Obama rally or seek Obama out in any way to ask a “gotcha” question. Obama actually came to Joe the Plumber’s neighborhood in Obama’s effort to knock on doors to solicit votes. When Obama came across Joe the Plumber in his own driveway, Joe posed the question to Obama which has now caused the Obama machine to diligently work to trash the average American’s reputation.

Biden went on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and declared that he doesn’t know of any plumbers making a quarter million dollars a year. As if the idea of a small plumbing business owner clearing the $250,000 income level is unbelievable and, worse yet, undeserved. This is the most elitist attitude that should offend every American who works every day only to have politicians like Biden and Obama wanting to take more of their paychecks to pay for their own salaries and government give-away programs. Biden won’t mention this on the campaign trail but his tax return showed his income over $2 million, yet his charitable donations came in less than $4,000. Seems like he’s all for giving away money, as long as it isn’t his own.

Obama was even worse, mocking McCain by saying, “The guy he’s fighting for is a plumber!” This comment was met with laughter from his audience. This only further shows Obama’s contempt for working Americans. If McCain is not out fighting for the plumbers and working people in this country, Obama and Biden have proven that no one else will. Obama needs to realize that the country has plenty more plumbers in it than elitist, arrogant liberal politicians who feel they should be able to manage everyone’s life and finances due to their belief that common people aren’t smart enough to take care of themselves. When considering Obama’s statement mocking McCain for caring about a plumber, also consider this comment he made to his fellow elitist arrogant liberals during an exclusive fundraiser in San Francisco during the primaries. In this event, Obama said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

It’s time for the American people to stand up and tell Obama and his elitist followers that they will not be talked down to about their abilities to run their own lives. The best thing that could happen for America would be to retire Obama to the footnotes of history as a subpar, useless US Senator. Obama has never earned money that wasn’t somehow tied to the taxpayers. For most of his career, he could have considered increased tax rates as a pay raise for himself. However, American values have never included the idea that a couple of politicians can determine what is a fair or unfair income for a plumber or any other working person. Obama and Biden look at average Americans with contempt. Voters need to look at them the same way on November 4.

For more thoughts related to this topic, be sure to read my Tuesday article on the STL Politics section of www.insidestl.com.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

This is Coverage Without an Agenda?

Posted on September 11, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Elsewhere in liberal politics., News on Obama's Competition |

The headline says it all, “Palin tries to defend qualifications in interview.” Sarah Palin’s experience is being subjected to a level of scrutiny that Obama could never live up to. In fact, they question Palin like this but this article was posted Thursday night after the first part of Sarah Palin’s ABC World News Tonight interview with Charles Gibson. How can any part of this article be considered unbiased? This is from the Associated Press, which is supposed to be a legitimate news source. The article is also listed under news articles, not opinions, so a reader is supposed to believe they are being given the facts about the interview. Instead readers that expect a news story get the opinions of the reporter, both about Sarah Palin and her performance in the interview.


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Another Recent Issue Where Obama Doesn’t Keep his Word

Posted on September 8, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy, Examination of Obama's past and present associations with questionable characters, News on Obama's Competition |

 Obama himself came out and publically stated that none of his staff was responsible for the political low-blows being thrown at Sarah Palin about her parenting skills when many started attacking Palin as a bad mother. He further went on to say that he has informed his staff that if they are out talking about Sarah Palin’s family that they will be fired. Well, it’s time for Obama to live up to his word.

Laura Ingraham had Howard Gutman, one of Barack Obama’s advisors, on her show Friday where Gutman criticized Palin as a bad mother for her candidacy. The conversation is transcribed below. The last anyone has heard, Gutman is still one of Obama’s advisors, another case of Barack Obama not keeping his word on an issue that he, supposedly, took a stand on.

Howard Gutman: “If my daughter had just come at 17 years old and said, “Mom, Dad, I’m pregnant, we have a family problem,” I wouldn’t say, “You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to take this private family problem and some people in the town will know it, but we’re going to work through as a family. And you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to go on the international stage and broadcast it to the world, and we’ll deal with this…”

Laura Ingraham: “That’s not your choice.”

Howard Gutman: “…We’ll deal with this in December.”

Laura Ingraham: “That’s not your choice, though.”

Howard Gutman: “Well, what I’m saying is, this wasn’t a working mother issue. This was a parent issue.”

(As transcribed from Fox News report on 9/7/2008.)

So what was the Obama campaign’s response? Fox News reports that the Obama Campaign claims Gutman does not speak for the campaign and his views are not Obama’s views. There are two major problems with this response. First, when Gutman went on the Laura Ingraham Show as an advisor to Barack Obama, then yes he does speak for the Obama campaign. Otherwise, why would the Obama campaign send him to do the interview? None of the appearances on news shows and political forums happen without precise planning of who is going to appear on that show and what their message will bring. It is obvious that Gutman is doing the dirty work of the Obama campaign, even though Obama is acting as if he is throwing Gutman under the bus for his remarks. This is a method for Obama to drive home the accusations of Palin being a bad mother without having to take responsibility for the attacks. If Obama really felt strongly that Palin’s family was off limits and he meant it then he would be sticking to his word now. Instead though, he’s just showing his true colors.

The second major problem with Obama’s response is that he is the candidate who claims that his 20-year membership in an anti-American church has no basis in this campaign, along with his long-time relationship with William Ayers who happens to be an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist. He claims bringing up these associations are dirty politics that no voter should consider about him. Obama also was livid when his wife became a campaign issue when she claimed she had never been proud of her country until now. Even though she made these comments while campaigning for Obama, Obama claimed they had nothing to do with his campaign. Obama claims that all of these are hateful smears and attacks when anyone brings them up, yet one of his advisors goes on a national talk radio show and attacks Sarah Palin’s parenting skills and Obama does nothing to the guilty advisor. By not firing Gutman, Obama is only helping to convince voters that he is low enough to attack a successful mother’s parenting skills. Could anyone image what might happen if Michelle Obama was asked how she could possibly be a good mother while keeping a successful career with two daughters at home and a husband always out campaigning?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

New York Times’ “Unbiased” Review of O’Reilly’s Obama Interview

Posted on September 6, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy |

Below is a link to the article appearing in the Politics section of The New York Time’s website under the TV Watch. From reading the columnist’s utter disdain for O’Reilly’s nerve at questioning Obama it becomes more and more clear that the Time’s is not a newspaper but rather a 12-month ad forum for Democratic candidates that is not covered by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act. The column also answers an important question about the Obama media coverage. That question is, will the major news outlets ever get around to seriously investigating Obama’s relationship with William Ayers? The answer the column provides is a definite ‘no’ as they give the impression that O’Reilly is beating a dead horse by discussing Obama’s out of bounds topics of WIlliam Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Remember though, discussing Obama’s long-time association an with admitted, unrepentant domestic terrorists and his 20-year membership in a church based in black liberation theology whose minister gave sermons on such patriotic topics as accusing the US government of developing the HIV virus to kill all of the minorities, these topics are considered smears by the reporters at The New York Times. But running three front-page stories in one day about Sarah Palin and her pregnant teenage daughter is just, “asking the questions American voters have the right to know.”


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

If You Can’t Beat Them, Shut Them up Before They Can Speak

Posted on August 18, 2008. Filed under: B. Hussein Obamaniacs and the Quasi-Religious Approach to Candidacy |

Before we can discuss Barack Hussein Obama’s weaknesses, the straw man set up by his most loyal supporters must be addressed. Obama has taken on a rock star image with his hard-core followers. The media tells us how his public appearances most often result in several fainting and most in the audience fighting tears throughout his speeches. Rather than supporting a candidate, his followers have more accurately turned Obama appearances into quasi-religious experiences. His supporters more resemble Elvis fans rather than political supporters. (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )


    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?


    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...