A Quick Recap of the "Obamamercial"

A Recap of the "Obamamercial" shows it flopped by any measurable Critics or Ratings Standard.

When one program dominates its time slot by simulcasting on five different networks, the producers obviously intend on making it must-see TV. Barack Obama’s infomercial fell far short. Despite its multiple platforms, it could only garner 21.7% of the households in the US. The debates drew far more:

The combined overall household rating for Senator Barack Obama’s Wednesday night infomercial, in the top 56 local television markets where Nielsen maintains electronic TV meters, was 21.7.

Obama’s simulcast is the first to be aired by a presidential candidate since Ross Perot ran a political telecast on the eve of Election Day in 1996. That program was watched by 16.8% of all households nationwide. …

In comparison, the final debate between the two presidential candidates received a 38.3 household rating in the top 56 local TV markets. The candidates’ first debate on September 26 received a 34.7 household rating in the top 55 markets; their second debate, on October 7, received a 42.0 household rating in those markets.

The Ross Perot comparison is interesting. Perot made his famously policy-driven case, complete with pie charts, to 16.8% of the nation. On Election Day, he won 8.6% of the popular vote. Obama will win more than 22% of the popular vote, but one can take a lesson from this: the entire nation is not enthralled with The One. As I predicted before the Obamamercial, only the true believers bothered to watch it.

And they needed Prozac by the time it ended. The New York Post had infomercial experts rate the presentation, and they gave it a big thumbs down. Apparently, it was Mourning in America:

Two leading infomercial stars agree: Barack Obama’s half-hour self-promotion was a flop.

“I don’t see enough smiling. Doom and gloom totally,” said Anthony Sullivan, one of the biggest names in infomercial history.

“I feel depressed right now,” added Sullivan, an Englishman famous for his infomercials touting the Swivel Sweeper and Smart Chopper. The only thing saving Obama, Sullivan said, was when the candidate appeared live at the end speaking at a rally in Florida. …

He and AJ Khubani, who has produced infomercials for 25 years, said Obama also fell short of offering solutions to the dire problems he laid out.

“I didn’t see a payoff. Classic infomercial is you show the before and you show the after. I didn’t see the music or the crashing waves of the Pacific,” Sullivan said.

Khubani told the Post that infomercials should spend more time on the solution and less on the problem. In other words, don’t talk about belly flab for 25 minutes and then talk about the Tummy Stretcher for 5. The Obamamercial gave viewers tons of gloom and doom, with people talking about the tough economy (from their own houses and driving their own cars) to such an extent that the solution — Obama — hardly seems appropriate to the task involved.

The ratings will be what depresses Team Obama, though. Despite having a near-monopoly on broadcast television and no particularly compelling competition, only one-fifth of the nation bothered to watch. That doesn’t exactly scream enthusiasm, and the crashing waves of a landslide may just be imaginary.

Update: A couple of points from the comments. First, Perot scored only a little over 8% in 1996; I originally used his 1992 popular-vote percentage of 19%, which I’ve changed. Second, several commenters have insisted that 21% is a good ratings share, which would be true of a show aired on one broadcast network — not five. It’s also true of a competition with dozens of entrants, not of an essentially two-horse race.

Like I said, the only people who would be inclined to watch a 30-minute infomercial on Obama would be the Obamanauts, and a 21% rating bears that out. Almost 80% of television viewers took a pass on Obama, even for 30 minutes. Those are not good numbers, especially for prime time.

(Originally posted 11/3/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Obama's Ten-Point Plan to "Change" The 2nd Amendment

Another simple list of reasons to avoid total chaos in our Country... Obama would Proudly:

1. Ban use of firearms for home defense.

2. Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.

3. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

4. Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.

5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

6. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 Percent.

7. Restore voting rights for Five Million Criminals, Including those who have been Convicted of Using a Gun to commit a Violent Crime.

8. Expand the Clinton semi-auto Ban to Include millions more firearms.

9. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

10. Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.


Vote at your Own Risk... But VOTE! For the Love of GOD, Vote. Keep this man, who wouldn't qualify for a Background Check with most government agencies or companies, out of the Highest Office in the Land!!

(Originally posted 11/3/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Economics a Whole New Problem for Obama

"Middle Class" is just a "Buzz Word" for Democrats; Class Warfare is simply part of a "strategy" for Senator Obama and his Democrat Constituents... Dive into the Nuance that is passed off in the hope you won't see through it...

It seems this is the final nail in the coffin, by the Great Ed Morrissey:

527 ads: “Part of the Problem”, “Middle Class”

My friend Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson directed me to the Let Freedom Ring website Never Find Out, which has a number of 527 ads hosted along with their transcripts. I haven’t seen these ads before now and I’m not sure whether they’re seeing any ad time, but they’re interesting and rather effective. Each are 60 seconds long and stylistically identical.

The latest two ads attack Barack Obama on economics. The first, “Part of the Problem”, note that Obama didn’t do anything to stop the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse, even while John McCain tried to change the regulatory structure to prevent it. Why?

WOMAN: Senator Obama, the papers say that you are benefiting politically from the financial crisis.

MAN: But if America knew the facts, I don’t know how they could vote for you.

WOMAN: John McCain tried to blow the whistle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over two years ago. In 2006, he told the Senate, “For years, I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…. The GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”

MAN: No wonder he didn’t get their political contributions. And who opposed the reforms John McCain was calling for? Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and John Kerry.

WOMAN: Wait, it gets better. Guess who received campaign contributions from the people who drove Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into the ground? Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd and John Kerry.

MAN: John McCain saw this coming. You, Senator Obama, have been part of the problem.

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a Senator who’s part of the biggest financial crisis in U.S. history? Please, America, let’s never find out.

The second, “Middle Class”, attacks Obama’s assertions that his tax policy will help the working people of America while attacking the companies that employ them:

MAN 1: Senator Obama, why are you lying to us?

MAN 2: To help the middle class, you have promised to drastically increase the taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.

WOMAN 1: This makes us think that the middle class will be better off, right?

MAN 1: Now let’s talk about reality.

MAN 3: What does your tax increase really do for America?

MAN 4: History has shown us that when big companies pay more taxes, they cut costs, they cut jobs, and they cut salaries.

WOMAN 2: Cut salaries for who?

MAN 2: The middle class that works for those big companies.

WOMAN 3: Which means that the middle class now has less money, not more.

MAN 5: Which leads us to a few questions:

WOMAN 4: Why are you misleading the middle class into thinking that your tax plan will help us?

MAN 3: How will we feel if you become President and we find out that we’ve been lied to?

MAN 4: And lastly, you’re running for President, not us.

MAN 2: Why do we need to explain this to you?

ANNOUNCER: What happens when we elect a President who lies to the middle class? Please, America, let’s never find out.

This, I think, is the kind of argument that makes a lot of sense and simultaneously is almost impossible to make effectively. For some reason, many voters simply cannot make the connection that higher taxes on employers will eventually be borne by its employees and its customers. Prices will rise and companies will cut costs, as the ad mentions. Cutting costs means either reducing salaries or staff, which will cut into the economy of the middle class much more than any tax refundables will correct.

Nevertheless, it’s an argument that needs to be made, and this at least gets the conversation started. Check out the rest of the ads on the site after watching these.

(Originally posted 11/3/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Obama Attacks, Mocks Those Who Seek to "Keep Their Own Money"

So just what is Obama trying to hide?

Sensing his luck is about to turn, as the polls begin to tighten across America, the Obama Camp has made the Final Stretch into an all-out-assault-on George Bush... and tying the rope of his "Legacy" around John McCain's neck.

It's nothing new; just the same old rhetoric that we're used to over the past 20 months or so: "Four more years of the same? We can't afford Four More Years of the same! Four more years of the same?"....

It tends to get old after awhile.

As pundits like myself, and any other Conservative voices stand up to challenge Obama on his actual voting record or positions exposed (a la "Joe the Plumber"); We're attacked and besmirched for daring to "dirty" their "Articulate Guru"... as Democrats go on the attack (what Obama's entire campaign has been about); the "Messiah" continues to pound his message of Class Warfare, pitting "us" against "the Rich", and continuing to "Play a Moderate", Lying Outright about his Tax Plan to Re-Distribute wealth and make us ALL "Middle Class"... Why else would the government (Under an Obama Administration) believe they know better about How to spend your own, hard-earned money than You Do?

The really sad thing is; Obama (and his Liberal cohort, the "Gaffe-Machine" Biden), honestly believe that paying taxes is Patriotic... I wish I could understand How that's true. They're even willing to take it a step further, and call YOU Selfish if you don't willingly give more of your hard-earned dollars to them. Here's more of the story excerpted from HotAir.com:

Barack Obama gave John McCain another pre-Election Day gift this morning in remarks made to a Sarasota, Florida audience. After telling Joe the Plumber in Ohio that he wants government to “spread the wealth,” Obama told Floridians that opposition to such policies amounted to “selfishness”:

“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

Jake Tapper thinks this is a nod to Ayn Rand’s book, The Virtue of Selfishness. He’s unimpressed:

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand’s work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as “selfish.”

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left - that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds. Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly. Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity — which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy.

Those who earn the money want to direct it in the manner they see fit, in the most efficient manner possible. That’s not selfish, it’s just common sense. Only someone in love with government power could see it as anything else.

(Originally posted 11/1/09 on NationsPatriot.com)

Liberal Ignorance At Its Best

On occasion, there's a particular "friend" I have that wants nothing more than to argue his deranged, Liberal talking-points and brainwashed delusions with me. Most of the time it involves a bottle of Jameson Scotch (at least he has good taste; one thing going for him)... and an Antagonistic, Passive-Aggressive mentality that only 47 years or so of Ignorance and Indoctrination can do to someone who's an avid viewer of MSNBC and follower of the Far-Left Fringe. What is it with Liberals? It seems all they can do is question, CHANGE the subject and point fingers.

After he'd read Ann Coulter's column on Liberalism and Media Bias... wait; that was a little redundant, wasn't it?...

Anyway, he (somehow, I think) read the column I forwarded him titled "Red Hoax Blue Hoax" (in my usual foolishness of hope)... and he couldn't see beyond his own Ignorance to comprehend what the gist of the column was... that there's a double-standard from Democrats when it comes to issues of greed, bias, or general corruption. (You really should click on the above link and read it for yourself, unless of course you're a visiting Liberal, in which case, look at all the pretty pictures!)

The article demonstrates the Media and Democrats' idiosyncratic obsession with slandering Republicans involved in a scandal, but faking disdain and never delving into what doesn't fit their own, pre-conceived, narrow-minded, Liberally-ideological principles.

Taking a recent report involving a disgraceful Republican, Ashley Todd, who accused a Black Male of attacking and beating her over a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on her car... Todd added that "the attacker carved the letter 'B' on her cheek to punish her for not supporting Obama".
This type of Hoax is not only unacceptable, it has no place in a sane society... This woman should be locked in a straight-jacket and stuck in a foam-padded-white room to think about her actions. This kind of race-baiting is exactly the type of thing that fuels the Left with ammunition to blame everything on "Republicans"; and, as a result, has produced cases where Both Parties have sent a "Mole" into the opponent's circle of trust and deliberately drawn the ire of the other Party; a devious and malevolent political tactic of the worst kind.

The article contrasts Ms. Todd's insanity with that of Crystal Mangum, a black stripper called to a house party in 2006, who gained notorious fame by falsely accusing several white members of the now infamous Duke Lacrosse Team of despicable, sexual acts (HotAir article here)... who were later completely cleared and exonerated of all charges, while Democrats (the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and the Duke case's District Attorney, Mike Nifong himself) hurled charge after charge of guilt without a shred of proof at the three, upstanding students, whose lives are forever marred and reputations ruined as a result of a Racist ploy gone bad... On a side note, the vile and shameless Mangum has just written a book, exploiting her own version of "justice". It seems that when out to get Conservatives, there are no rules involving Morals or selfish acts that can be acknowledged by Liberals.

At any rate, here's a photo of the unrepentant author-to-be found floating around the internet:



To conclude, Ann beautifully sums it up: "As is now well-known, the alleged gang rape of a black stripper by white lacrosse players never happened. At least Ashley Todd's hoax didn't almost ruin an actual person's life."

Bringing my Liberal pal back into this; who's biggest achievement thus far is to constantly harass Conservatives and try, on his own accord, to re-write the Liberal Playbook to win some hallucinated kind of Merit Badge, had this to say in response to reading Ann's article:

"check again your losing just like i told you,back in march, your party talks racial hatred, instead of the issues, wake up and stop the partisan hatred, you listen to the right wing fanatics, 6 years republicans have destroyed this country, anyone who did a job as bad as they did would of been fired, you back them like their related too you, ann coulter is a hater and a hypocrite, this conversation is just stupid, if you cant see how f***** (Edited by ME) up we our because of the republican party, what can i say, it, like always will take a Democratic president too clean it up like before, and check the polls America has had enough, and you as well as me know if obahma was white hed be far ahead so save the racist s*** (Edited by ME) for you side its only thing your party can talk about,your ideology has failed, and your party cant own up too it, you had your chance. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, republicans still see a chicken."

And this, my fellow readers, is why you should finish (at least High) school... and, reading a book or two wouldn't hurt, either. To simply spew vitriol of this level of ignorance is dangerous at worst and deadly at best....

...

Here's yet another wonderful quality about Liberals... This one's actually a thinker, but loves to attack with non-sequiturs... For the sake of fun, we'll call him "Slippy".
Here's what HE had to say about this website's stance against Obama:

"Who is Obama running against? Is there another horse in this race? I think that this is one of the reasons that Mccain is going to lose. Look at this web site. There is so much Anti Obama stuff, and not enough.... if any Pro Mccain stuff. All I am being told is why Obama is bad. I am not hearing why Mccain is good. All I am hearing is why I shouldn't vote for Obama, but I am not hearing why I should vote for Mccain. If you really wanted Obama to lose, I would think you would give people a reason for voting for Mccain. Something that Mccain has to offer America. However, you did not do that. You chose to take the route that Mccain and Palin went. You decided to go on the attack.

Like I promised way back when on this site, once Obama is President, you are going to see a huge shift from the Mainstream Goofy Left Wing Bush haters to the Mainstream Goofy Right Wing Obama haters. So, the past week and a half or so on this site is what we will see a lot more of in the next 4 years....... Of course this all depends on the polls being correct and Obama winning this thing."

Apparently, using Negative advertising as a useful, working tool to discredit a candidate (a.k.a. "to Win") is a concept that just doesn't jive with this one...

We "debate", if you can call it that (I never get Topical, Factual Objections in response to the questions I ask); and it's just another exercise in futility... I also try to submit my best, persuasive argument to not only answer what I'm asked, but to get my point across in the most convincing way I can to hopefully get them to see what I'm saying.
Problem is: they see it, but have yet to acknowledge or admit it. Both use examples of "Misdirection" that want to focus the discussion's discourse away from Facts they Fear and into an opportunity to Bash, Stall, or otherwise Whine about what they don't want to hear mentioned.

Now, like I've told him personally before, McCain wasn't my first choice for President. His history is a compelling argument for the Presidency, but my efforts to mar his opposition are every much as supportive of his candidacy as writing articles to "Go out and Vote for McCain"... And this is where my point comes Full-Circle:

I'm chastised for "not promoting" McCain enough; which would undoubtedly draw his (and many others') fire and allow shots to be taken at the man who's campaign I DO endorse; exactly what "Slippy" wants. The more I post in support of McCain, the more open he is to the vicious smears that Liberals (like these two) will resort to... causing me to be on DEFENSE; what they'd both like very, very much.

Now remember, I'm a Conservative First, Republican Second; so my Principles take priority over any particular candidate... At the very least, you'd think he'd understand that my Integrity is not being compromised, and he'd appreciate that. However, his only concern, like all Liberals, is to attack first and make excuses after.
It seems "the high road" is already taken, so if you're a Republican; sorry, you just don't qualify to act in that fashion... it turns out it's already Reserved for the Far-Left.

I could throw up multiple, previous e-mails to prove my point that all of our "debates" run the same course, resulting in a final "change of the subject" by my Liberal friends, or their Favorite response of all: NONE.
It seems denial isn't enough; if you're losing a debate, just quit and don't respond... Later, throw up the same charges and hope they stick next time.

Trust me: My Liberal friends and I have been at this for quite some time. You can't imagine how many times the same "issues" come up where I've had to explain the same thing, again and again; only to have the conversation cut short with the equivalent of a child having "confiscated the ball and taken it home"...

So here's my response, "Slippy":
ALL Democrats are currently using the same attack platform as Obama right now. They feel the buzzword "Change" is sufficient enough to NOT explain their own records or tout their achievements, so attacking their opponent with smear ads is the best plan of attack.

Like it or not, it works... Yet I haven't heard a word from you denouncing them doing it any more than Obama does. For you, the double-standard's the same as in the first example above: Your credo is: "We can do it, but you can't."

Part of my rationale has already been laid out (here). No, Obama isn't running against anyone else... You know that, but play the Sarcastic Tone as you always do in an attempt to be a wise-a$$. You say that "All I Do is Attack"... As is said, "The best offense is a good defense", so exposing Obama for his Lies, Deceptions, Associations and all other Weaknesses is exactly what I'll continue to do...

As for your Last paragraph: Congratulations, you figured out the obvious... "If" this, "then" that... "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" doesn't cut it.
ANYONE with a brain who can read knows the "other side" will be critiqued and criticized... even outright scorned; by everyone on the opposite side of the aisle... Where you couldn't be more wrong is in assuming that any media source (other than FOXNews, Non-Partisan groups, Talk Radio [if it still exists once Liberals pass the "Fairness Doctrine], and Conservative Bloggers)... will be fair and objective, no matter WHO wins.

If McCain takes it, everything remains the same: the Left plays the "Third-Bush-Term" Association ("but don't you Conservatives dare use it on Obama!")... how laughable. The MSM just continues until 2012 when "CHANGE" is called for Again. Hopefully, the Democrats in Congress that covered up and caused our current housing and resulting financial crisis, will be out of those seats... I don't care if other Dems fill them; just so long as they're not corrupt.

If Obama takes it, everything as you know it will "Change". War with other countries will emerge within months. Corruption on a scale like you've never seen will be run amok with Free Reign, as the SuperMajority will Tax and Spend this country into Big Brother like you've only read about... Freedom as you know it will disappear...
Mark MY Words. For these reasons, I'm supporting McCain and Exposing Obama. They're one and the same purpose. Surely a person of your intellect can see past the rhetoric and lies ("I never heard anything bad from Rev. Wright in the TWENTY YEARS I attended his church." ... "I didn't know he felt that way." ... "I only attended TWICE A MONTH."...) (That's still 25 times a year for 20 years; do the math. Over 500 visits, and not ONE bad thing?)

I won't apologize for my positions... I despise Socialism in all its forms; and that's what Obama is and represents.

Is that reason enough for me to spend the Final Two Weeks exposing the man I Don't want elected rather than open my site to "McCain and Bush-Bashing" just to make Liberals happy? If that's what you want, either find a site that allows you to spew the type of venom in the 1st example where I'm called the "Hater", or start your own.

(Originally posted 10/31/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Obama Rolls Up Sleeves, Smears Palin, Clinton Supporters Irate Over Sexism

After all the hoopla surrounding Obama's "McCain only runs Negative Attack ads", "100% of them", and vowing to not stoop to that level, but rather "Speak directly to the Middle Class and address their Real concerns"; we can start to see the snake-skin beginning to shed its coat.

Of course, the Democrat Agenda has always been to cater to, and even Promote and Create "The Middle Class"; as their position to Champion "CHANGE" for the people a "better future" (by literally Robbing those whose desire, perseverance and honorable diligence in entrepreneurship). It's all about Class Warfare!

Think about how many times you've heard the words "Middle Class" from the Democrat ticket... They'll have you believe that the Republicans only care about the "Rich"; giving them the "tax cuts". As put forth in a previous article, you can clearly see, with an open mind, that the "Rich" get more tax breaks because they represent anywhere from 70%-90% of the entire taxes paid into our economy; whereas the "Middle Class" makes up (pays) about 3% of it...

The Strategy is to pit anger by the "majority" of citizens against the "Rich" (who the Dems seem to attack and want to destroy more than terror organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas); making people "mad enough" to "Vote for Change"... like it's somehow going to make them successful.

It never ceases to amaze me the level that some Liberals will stoop to in accusing others of the very acts they, themselves commit and are guilty of. They manufacture issues, claims and outright lies simply to distract the American public from what their REAL agenda is: to TAX you as much as possible, create MORE government to Monitor and Control you, and make you more Dependent on the system (as they corruptly line their pockets), FORCING you into a Nanny-State of "getting a free ride"... But there IS, NO, "FREE RIDE."

Answer this honestly: What percent of "The Middle Class" is voting Democrat? The "Lower" class, or Poor?
I'll tell you honestly right now: It's an overwhelming majority, simply because Liberals make promises to give you breaks (in the form of Tax-and-Spend Government) just to keep you in their "base" as a constituent!

And on RACE: it's clear the Republicans have no use for the matter; it was Barack Obama himself who said: "They're gonna tell you, HE doesn't look like the guys on the dollar bill", and "Oh; did I mention he's BLACK?!"...
The only other person to engage in Racial Politics at this level (in this current election; Sharpton and J. Jackson don't count) is former President Bill Clinton himself!

Of course, now... Now we have General Colin Powell (whom I HAD the utmost respect for) coming out just weeks before the Election, conveniently when Obama's got a Very, Commanding Lead... to jump on his side, claiming to have been personally "vetting" all the candidates before coming to the conclusion he's going to support the Democrats, er, Black Guy...

Now, before you start branding me a Racist or Bigot; know that a majority of friends in my life are Black, so that just ain't gonna stick. I know by making those last two statements, the "Hardcore, Liberal Loons" will be decrying MY "racism" in making such a point. But it's the Truth: I'm a staunch supporter of Individual's Rights, which is why I oppose Affirmative Action ideals. They're against M.L.K.'s philosophy; and grant a person something he may not deserve not by the content of their character, but solely based on the color of their skin. But back to the point...

General Powell could've endorsed Obama MONTHS ago; he hasn't learned anything (we haven't) new about him in recent reports... There haven't BEEN ANY, unless you factor in FOXNews or Conservatives like myself on the Blogosphere... but the Mainstream Media and Liberal websites; well, they're just AWOL on reporting what many know to be true about this one.

So; Obama hides behind race; pointing the finger (and setting up a wonderful [but racist] justification in the event he Loses the Election) that McCain, Republicans [and Whites] in general are Racists themselves; but omits the fact that across the board studies have proven that an overwhelming majority, (97%), of Black Americans are voting for Obama simply due to Race Relations... Can you imagine the outcry the Dems would have if such a report came out that Whites were supporting McCain for the same reason? He'd be painted like the Grand Wizard at a KKK rally!

Here's a Video that goes to show that the Liberal Attack Machine is in Full Force; pulling no punches. They're into Character Assasination, (much different than people Objectively asking Obama to release information he's stonewalling about in his past; so voters can't make an informed decision about who our "other" choice is we might elect), and Democrats fully support this idea that it's okay to destroy someone's credibilty; just don't do it to THEIR guy.

This by David Eberhart:

Hillary Clinton supporters, and Women for McCain leadership, are slamming Barack Obama’s new ad titled, “His Choice,” as sexist and demeaning to women for its depiction of GOP running mate Sarah Palin.

The ad features a McCain quote, about relying on his vice president for economic advice — and then shows an unrelated clip of Palin winking mischievously at the camera.

The implication: She’s less than a person to be taken seriously.

“It’s a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object — a wink — and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she’s not allowed to be heard,” says Stephanie Bressler, a Hillary Clinton supporter and women and politics professor at the University of Scranton.

Bressler is not alone in her umbrage over the ad.

Christine Toretti, co-chair of Pennsylvania Women for McCain, said, “God forbid a leader is not only competent, but beautiful and wears a skirt!”

And Judy Singleton, co-chair of Indiana Women for McCain, said: “To imply that Governor Palin doesn’t understand economics because she’s pretty and winks is ridiculous.”

Such objections are echoing throughout the country, so much so that the McCain-Palin campaign released the following statements Friday from former Clinton supporters and Women for McCain leaders reacting to the ad:

Click HERE to see the State-by-State Testimonials of Clinton Supporters showing their outrage for this type of misogynistic behavior...

(Originally posted 10/31/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

One Presidential Debate Was Plenty

So after Three separate, Liberal Democrat "journalists" M.C.ing (Emceeing) the Presidential Debates, what have we learned?

I'll sum it up for you: that they'll let the Candidates dance, dance, dance.
They let them spin the SAME answers for every question, regardless of who asked it, or what it was...

They were all "Softballs", and the American People were cheated and hardly learned anything new about the men running.

As I've said before, that doesn't bother the Media... Advocating Obama, they see his comfortable lead as a way to "run out the clock" and relent from diving into their backgrounds or asking about specifics; NEW Specifics that they haven't already run in Negative Ads saying "Look at me now; I'm a 'Moderate' in disguise"...

Click "MORE" to VIEW the Video and FULL article...

Exit Question: Why haven't they even bothered to bring up Obama's shaky character? After all the questions about his Associations (which aren't even mentioned in the humorous Video Montage), did they actually believe we wouldn't find out? That they American People, the Voters, are more interested in "Joe the Plumber" than WHO we're Electing?

Sadly, the answers are a resounding "YES."... They believe people are SO enamored with Obama's "Pastor-esque Speeches"; they'll be completely mesmerized and overlook the man behind the curtain...
And it's working... PROOF that the 23rd Psalm may be more than just an analogy: We MUST be sheep.
Obama obviously believes what Oprah, Axelrod, and the Drive-By Media have been calling him: "The Messiah."

And as a result, we're about to follow that Pied Piper all the way to the slaughterhouse; unless people wake up in the next 3 days.

(Originally posted 10/31/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

A Random Blog's List of Posts on Obama's Muslim Upbringing

Note: None of the comments produced in this post are originally from this site. While researching information on McCain and Obama's backgrounds, I come across a vast number of resources. Many of them, to uncover new concerns or validate the extent of certain claims, take me to other parts of the Blogosphere.

This was a discussion between at least a dozen people, yet only those First few are used here topically. I'd stumbled across the conversation and found it interestingly appealing; though I've already read the subject material in "Dreams From My Father", by Barack Obama; "The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso; and "The ObamaNation", by Dr. Jerome Corsi (the latter two I own).

Some of the information contained in the following posts are hyperbole, but the responding commenters appear to clear up the scurrilous numbers and percentages that come into question. Be sure to read in its entirety by clicking "MORE" below for the FULL Story; as this (and in most of my articles) is merely an Excerpt of the full content and context.

Note: Some of the posts mentioned I edited to remove unnecessary links, post numbers, seriously inflammatory rhetoric, or the obsessive use of Obama's middle name, Hussein, etc.. Though the site's address is not posted, the ideas in the original poster's comments are cause for concern, and will be followed up in a separate article.

The Muslim Side of Mr. Obama

Posted on 10/17/2008 2:43:01 PM PDT by Former Farmer

Pressures to be politically correct prohibit considering Barack Obama's Muslim side, or even mentioning his middle name. How Muslim is he? Consider these issues.

1. Born a Muslim. The man who sired the candidate was an African Muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who named his son his own African-Muslim name. The name "Hussein" is Arabic for "good," and is normally (predominantly) given only to Muslims.

2. A Muslim by Law. Muslim law assigns the faith according to the religion of the father. Since his father was Muslim, by Muslim law (and in the eyes of the Muslim world) Barack Hussein Obama was and is a Muslim.

3. Raised a Muslim. After his biological father abandoned the family (B.H.O. Jr. was just 2), his mother married another Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, who moved the family to Indonesia. Little Hussein was was first enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, then enrolled as a Muslim in a government school. This was not a fanatical madrassa, as has been falsely reported. However, Muslim students were required to study Islam, read the Koran (Qu'ran) and learn Muslim prayers. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (hereinafter referred to by first and last name only; unless otherwise noted as "Sr. or "Senior", to indicate his father of the same name) himself confirms his Muslim roots, stating in one of his autobiographies, "Dreams of My Father", that he got in trouble for "cutting up" in Koran class. Only Muslims were allowed in Koran class.

4. A Muslim by Profession. Barack Obama, in an interview with George Stephanopolous, said, "You're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." While this may be an unconscious revelation, or Freudian slip, it also might have been a mere gaffe. A man's tongue may slip, but will not slip into fluent Arabic unless he knows Arabic. Barack Obama recited Muslim; the Muslim shahada, in perfect Arabic to New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristoff. The shahada is the First Pillar of Islam, the most basic Muslim confession of faith, stating "there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet." This is comparable to the Christian confession of faith, "Jesus is Lord." Very few Christians can, and even fewer would, pray the shahada in perfect Arabic. Obama then called the shahada “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”

5. A Mystery Month in Muslim Culture. As a young man, Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan; How long he stayed is uncertain: his campaign says three weeks; other sources, several months. According to Insight Magazine, whose in-depth coverage included an investigation launched by none other that Hillary Clinton during the Democrat Presidential Primaries, finds evidence that Obama spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia. In two best-selling autobiographies—"The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" - Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."

Barack Obama deliberately skewed the timeline of his life and education to shroud the Truth of his real background. What he ultimately learned or decided, during this immersion, remains unknown.

6. Mystery Money for Elite Education. After returning from his immersion in that Muslim country, Barack Obama proceeded to an elite, Ivy League education: an undergraduate degree from Columbia, and a law degree from Harvard. The Obama campaign admits that he received no scholarship money from Harvard, but claims he self-funded his education through loans. Obama himself barred Harvard from releasing any financial records. Why would he ban access to records if they would verify his claim?

Further, there are scores of documents regarding his background that would open what some call "Pandora's Box" for his Presidential Bid... which is why he, along with his Campaign Advisors, have kept them tightly sealed and under wraps; far away from public consumption or media dissimination. (One such Supressed Document is forthcoming in my next post. I would list it here, but there is already too much to digest.)

7. Endorsed by Foreign America-Haters. Obama has been endorsed by such World-Leaders as: Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Muammar Qaddafi. Muslim terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah openly endorse Barack Obama. Hamas and Hezbollah both are heavily funded by Iran. Obama has offered to meet, without preconditions, with Iran's Achmedinajad, who denies the Holocaust and pledges to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Barack Obama has described Iran as a small nation that is no threat to Israel. So, he's either extremely naive, or willing to gamble with the lives of our promised allies, the Israelis; which would undoubtedly provoke a Worldwide War.

8. Surrounded by Domestic America-Haters. The inner circle around Barack Obama includes the man he said he consulted before making any major decisions, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The worldview of Jeremiah Wright sounds like an ominous echo of Osama bin Laden. Osama said the massive terrorist attack on 9/11 was just America getting back what it had done to others; Jeremiah called it America's chickens coming home to roost. Osama calls America the Great Satan which must be destroyed; Jeremiah calls for God to damn America. How can Barack Obama repudiate the worldview of one of these soulmates, while he has sat for twenty years under the teaching of one of the other soulmates?

Who else do we find close to Barack Obama? Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers hates America so much he bombed our Capitol. (In fairness to Ayers, we must note that he praised America on one occasion. After being acquited on a technicality, Ayers gushed: "Guilty as Hell, free as a bird. Is this a great country, or what?" ) The only regret Ayers has expressed about his terrorism is that they didn't plant more bombs.

Black Muslim potentate Louis Farrakhan has condemned America so often and so severely he needs no citations. Probably the closest to Barack Obama is his wife Michele, who has called America a mean place and stated she has never been proud of America before her husband's run for the Presidency. Her scowling face shows a hate that one cannot even imagine on the face of a Cindy McCain or a Sarah Palin.

9. Serving 57 states. In another slip of the tongue that could reveal hidden beliefs, or could just be a really stupid statement, Barack Obama stated that he had campaigned in 57 states. In the fatigue of a long campaign, mistakes are expected and overlooked. A Harvard graduate is probably smarter than a fifth grader, and a fifth grader knows we have 50 states. The intrigue comes from the number 57. Why not 51 or 54 or 72? The number 57 makes sense in one context: all the Muslim nations belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference - all 57 of them.

10. Campaigning in Kenya. While a U.S. Senator, Hussein Obama traveled to Kenya and campaigned for a presidential candidate named Railo Odingo. It was widely reported that Odinga had committed (in writing) to impose Muslim law, Sharia, and re-write the constitution within six months to conform to the Koran. Whether or not this is true, why was Barack Obama interfering in the internal politics of a foreign nation? If John McCain campaigned for a partisan candidate in Scotland on the grounds that his ancestors came from there, everyone would see it as almost insane. Some of Barack Obama's mistakes may be simple goofs (I'll bomb Pakistan) or at worst meaningful slips (my Muslim faith). It requires a conscious, deliberate decision to travel to another continent (on the taxpayer's dime) and interfere in the internal politics of another nation. Either Obama was supporting a hidden (Muslim) agenda, or he was showing appallingly bad judgment. Neither belongs in the Oval Office.

All these facts are in the public record. Why can they not be considered when asked? Why must the Far-Left denounce us for asking them? Why do we have to... when/because the Media won't?
___________

I hate the guy as much as anybody, but he ain’t a Muslim. I can see his wife’s head, which would be a disgrace and an embarrassment if he were one. - 10/17/2008 2:46:34 PM PDT by wolfpat

___________

Absolutely jaw-dropping-stupifying!
About to elect a Muslim to the White House when we’re at war with Islam.

ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THIS INSANITY WITHOUT A FIGHT?

McCain’s anemic attempts to fight Obama back is losing this election.
Flood McCain out with emails. DEMAND he fight back HARD - name names!

Please go to http://www.protestthemedia.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7 and pick up all the email addresses to the McCain camp and HUNDREDS of emails of MSM.

CAN THEY IGNORE A MILLION EMAILS? - 10/17/2008 2:48:11 PM PDT by patriot08

___________

He was never a Muzzie Wuzzie. His mommy and baby-daddy were atheists, 3rd World Marxists who had little use for religion. B. Hussein only started going to church because the Chicago preachers said that was the only way he could get anything out of them. - 10/17/2008 2:55:20 PM PDT by HammerOfTheDogs

___________

Because it’s just not fair. He claims to be black and you are not supposed to say anything about that. Truth is he is about 67% Arab. But you aren’t supposed to say that either. I don’t have a problem with a black President......but not this one. - 10/17/2008 2:58:25 PM PDT by RC2

___________

No Muslim who intends to go on breathing will EVER make the mistake of identifying himself/herself as a Christian, and certainly not nationally, let alone world-wide. Obama identifies himself as a Christian, so really, we have to make this Muslim thing a non-issue. It ain’t happening. - 10/17/2008 2:58:36 PM PDT by Max7

___________

maybe not a Mohammedan, but this is the guy who thinks “The Prettiest Sound On Earth At Sunset Is The Muslim Call To Prayer” - 10/17/2008 3:04:11 PM PDT by stylin19a ( Real Men don't declare unplayable lies)

___________

Truth is he is about 67% Arab.

No, only 37.5% arab. 50% white, 12.5% black. - 10/17/2008 3:10:59 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney

(My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)

___________

Actually, he’s half ethnic Luo, not Arab. Though considering that Kenya used to be Arab stomping grounds, it’s certainly possible, IMO, that his Luo dad may well have some Arab ancestry as well. - 10/17/2008 3:54:14 PM PDT by Jacob Kell (There is no pravda in Pravda.)
___________

I understand hes' only 7% black. Government says a person must be 12% black to be "considered" black. So now they will change the numbers to draw in the black vote. I am beginning to see even black voters turning against him now. Some are beginning to see through his lies. - 10/17/2008 3:58:47 PM PDT by RC2

___________

Who says he considers her his real wife? - 10/17/2008 4:16:52 PM PDT by donna

___________

Some of the 9/11 terrorists had visited strip clubs. Islamic terrorists make their own rules. - 10/17/2008 4:25:25 PM PDT by donna

___________

Good point. I never considered that. - 10/17/2008 5:15:40 PM PDT by wolfpat

___________

"I understand he is only 7% black." - Where did you hear that?

I’ve heard that the “Obama is an Arab” notion originated with a guy by the name of Kenneth Lamb. Supposedly, he didn’t give any evidence to support his allegation. A better source for criticism about Obama is the book “The case against Barack Obama”, by David Freddoso, where he makes a rather good point indicating that all the hearsay about Obama - being a Muslim; that he’s an Arab - may actually be doing our cause more harm than good, in that it makes people ignore legitimate criticism of the Obamessiah. - 10/18/2008 2:43:13 PM PDT by Jacob Kell

___________

Maybe so; but either way we're looking at "Distraction Politics", a favorite game of the Democrat Party. Hopefully, we can cut through the tall stuff here and start asking some questions...

- NationsPatriot

(Originally posted 10/30/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Tax Structure Example, The Democrat Agenda

Taxes explained: The Democrats Agenda.

A brilliant explanation of our tax system using actual percentages, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that even Obama should be able to understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve...

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33... But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" yelled the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him...
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important:

They didn't have enough money, between all of them, for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. Click HERE for what you're looking at. (Go ahead, follow the link).
For those who do not, or will not, understand, no explanation is possible.

(Originally posted 10/29/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

You Have to Seriously Ask Yourself: Why OBAMA?

This soliloquy started as an exercise in futility with a close friend; one whom I admire and completely disagree with (on these issues). I'm posting it as a Case-In-Point that a) the Media IS endorsing Obama's candidacy, and b) Democrats refuse to play by the same rules they want to force onto others. Consider:

When was the last time you mentioned or talked about Ayers, Wright or Acorn to anyone? A Republican?
Heard about it more than once (if at all from the Drive-By Media)?

My point, which continues to be ignored, either proves the willingness to continue a charade of dumbfoundedness while jousting another subject into the fray, or that Democrats are far too simple-minded to grasp the point...

I'm called "Unreasonable". With another "misdirection" in bringing up Ayers, Wright or Acorn at this time (the subject change Dems "claim" to have no problem with; but give the media [and especially Obama] a pass for), it's suggested that others (three, to be exact) didn't bring it up so THEY AREN'T crazy; but that I AM for doing so.

Those "Crazies": Hannity has brought this up. Gibson did a piece on his "Johnny Dollar" Radio Show. Malkin's own "HotAir.com" had numerous mentions (and hundreds of hits) on the subject less than a week ago alone...
Here's a link where HotAir writers tirelessly cede it as a "pointless matter", a result of not wanting to Deal With It any longer; though they Clearly hold reservations over its Genuine Authenticity. But, as they say, "Why bother? It isn't enough to convince those that don't want to be; won't serve as Proof enough for those wanting to believe it, and is a dead-end issue with better, more persuasive arguments against Obama's legitimate candidacy to dispute."

I agree completely; but feel strongly that, since this IS a matter of our Constitutional Guidelines, it should be an issue if an issue at all... Now, regardless whatever "Right-Wing" source that (might have; I honestly don't know) first addressed it, as (even the weary HotAir staff agrees,) a story that made its way to a U.S. Courtroom, it certainly merits coverage and mentioning. Again, as noted HERE, HotAir indicates this whole matter wouldn't be an issue AT ALL if his Campaign had simply produced the Document for the Media from the Start...

Of course they're not going to "Scream it from the rooftops" regularly, due to the Liberal, Mainstream Media's complicity (which Liberals either ignore or are intellectually refusing to acknowledge); Each and every time THEY (or FOXNews) bring it up and No Other Source Does, FOX (or anyone else) is painted with a negative perception as a "Conservative Channel"... What does the Media do THEN; Accuse them of being Pro-Obama? Anti-McCain? Never; not Once.

Of course not. It feeds into the nasty, hate-filled vacuum that is the frenzied Leftist Loon Fringe of the Party that's convinced that FOX is openly trying to destroy Obama and assist McCain... It's a catch-22. No win for them either way; the story doesn't get told; or they look "unreasonable" or "crazy"... or attacked with other names... all while refusing to address the original point that Obama defied a Court Order...

If McCain had been in this mess, it would be plastered all over the news and on every front page today. If the "(Palin Hanging) Effigy of Art" in Florida (as the despicable creator of the "Halloween display" described it; a mannequin hanging from a noose dressed as Sarah Palin with a bun-hair wig, rimless glasses and notable red-overcoat) were Obama, there would be RIOTS and City Hall meetings that would charge those homeowners with a Federal HATE CRIME...

Democrats cry "FOUL" at every mention of the words "Hussein" or "Muslim"; and like the AP and NYTimes writers, it's said that if Obama loses, it's Proof that we live in a Racist Country. Why?!

When over 97% of the Black Population (which makes up approx. 13% of our total overall population) say they're Voting for Barack just because he's "Black alone"... doesn't THAT scream of Racism? What if 97% of whites surveyed said they were voting for McCain "just because he's White"? Would that get any news traction?
HE'D BE KICKED OFF THE NATIONAL TICKET IN LESS THAN A DAY!
Where's the outcry from the Left and "Transparent, Journalistic-Integrity-Demanding Intellectuals" (if there IS such a thing)?

Democrats constantly advocate Obama's shady past being kept what's been called "The Darkest Political Secrecy" in our country's history; they're okay with never asking him tough questions and his OPEN policy of playing Robin Hood with Citizen's hard-earned money and RE-DISTRIBUTING WEALTH... an obvious tenet of Socialism...
And before you think, "We have Social-Security; so we already accept the concept"; realize that, while necessary to an arguable extent, it was created by Democrats during the Hoover Administration.

If Blacks today only realized this country's Partisan history of the key people involved in "Righting the Wrongs of Injustice" that finally gave them what they already deserved, they'd Vote Republican rather than Democrat.
It was "the Religious Right", Republicans, who fought and shed blood FOR them that the Dem's love to take credit for. (The Micro look of this is due; but at another time to stay on topic of the Media and Obama).

Biden says our country WILL BE TESTED, ONLY IF OBAMA'S ELECTED, yet the coverage (if any) is only done in the form of "Damage Control"... Come on, if people were honest with themselves, they'd see that this election is being rigged and stolen by Big Money and Special Interests... $600,000,000 (SIX-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS in Campaign funds while in the midst of an economic crisis where money's tight and people are losing everything from their cars to houses to careers? And money just KEEPS ON FLOWIN' IN?! Where's it all coming from?!
Oh; that's right... Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys are "avid Obama supporters". How silly of me to forget.

First advocating McCain, Biden then "Guarantees within SIX MONTHS of his taking office; our Country WILL face a serious, manufactured crisis. Where's the in-depth coverage? What about during the Democrat National Debates,
when Biden "Stood by" his comments that Obama ISN'T READY TO LEAD, as the Presidency "DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING"? Where's the coverage? Still fauning over his Lawyer-esque speeches?

Obama's already broken his first promise to the American People: "I will not accept campaign funds from Private Citizens"... (Link to "the Hill" on his hypocritical Flip-Flop-Flip).

Grass-roots "Community Organizing" ACORN (who the Media refused to acknowledge until the Internet Blogosphere continued to "break" and hammer it) advocates Fraud of Registering Illegal Voters (Democrats Only), to which many (especially the Media) ALSO give a pass. Now they have a new ad out, accusing John McCain of bigotry... You gotta love these people; they get caught in over a dozen states committing Election Fraud, then turn around and point the finger at Republicans... I believe that's on the bottom of Page 1 of the Far-Left's Playbook.

Then there's Barney Frank running an Ad that "The Republicans" are to blame for his own Illegalities and Corruption (in his ads running for re-election); no "Mainstream" source even holds him accountable in the laughable fashion his ridiculous ad really is... View it here:

Frank, along with numerous Democrats in Congress who are actually responsible for the economic collapse of our Housing System and subsequent Wall Street nightmare, dare to point fingers at the Bush Administration, or even John McCain, for "not doing enough" to oversee the problem. They use the term "De-Regulation" as a buzzword to tie McCain as fault for our current plight, despite McCain calling for these hearings:

... A recently dug up radio ad (withheld by the L.A. Times) has Obama's own voice talking to the unrepentant friend and colleague William Ayers, as well as Dr. Khalidi, a leading Spokesperson for the P.L.O., a well-known and documented Palestinian terrorist organization. Obama's even on the record calling the tape "Manufactured", hiding behind the L.A. Times' cooperation in withholding the tape from other Media sources for general consumption.

“Apparently this is a tape with a dinner that Mr. Ayers, the former, and now still, unrepentant terrorist, who was at, and also with, one of the leading spokespersons for the PLO. Now, why that should not be made public is beyond me,” McCain told La Kalle radio host...
The “reward” for the tape is up to $150,000 while the RNC has already elevated Khalidi to all-star F.O.B. status.



... Rev. Wright has been in hiding to keep his "True Colors" away from the cameras and out of Voter's minds (as he surely would cost Obama votes since that story was never fully vetted and the "average" person would object that Obama "Never heard anything negative" from this "close friend, mentor and advisor"...) Why did the media give up so quickly?

Instead, they run Front-Page stories on Palin's wardrobe, ignoring Real issues about Biden's Out-Of-Touch mentality... but allow McCain the perception of a "crotchety old man" while parking Satellite Trucks outside the home of his best (and well-known) surrogate, Joe Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) for days, attempting to use and manipulate his own words against him and "Run out the Clock" for Obama as Election Day nears...

Of course, the only "Issues" that now matter to the Democrat Party are that of the Economy, a suspect-laden "underground conspiracy" among "internet bloggers" that's believed to be Manufactured by the Democrat Congress and co-opted with the Media just in time for the Election... an issue fed to the people in doses of daily Fear (which undoubtedly led to more Fear) which, coincidentally, tend to favor the Challenger and seriously damage the credibility of the Incumbent Party and all constituents, especially the newly-nominated Candidate...
Then, simply run ad after ad "Associating the Two" and, voila!... Instant ratings.
"But don't DARE pull the same Tricks WE Democrats use with Associations... What do THEY matter"?

Funny enough; the New Democrats today act as if "Anything Goes" and "Pull No Punches" when it comes to the Republican Party; but if someone or something dares to challenge Discrediting the Ultra-Liberal "SuperMajority" our country's about to face; well, then you'll just have to be Crucified... We won't have any of that "Hate-Bashing" crap unless it's about "Bush or his Cronies." "Do as I say, not as I do" has been the Liberal credo for so long that it's actually ingrained in some people's minds as Acceptable and Moral... just creepy. Back to the Point:

The Media's in the TANK. People today are too uninformed about the Consequences of the looming Danger in Electing a man we know little about; or they're too entrenched with the "enchantment of change" he fakes with his "Moderate Act", saying One thing while his Voting Record clearly shows the opposite... He wouldn't get a Security Clearance to work in the FBI, let alone be Handed the White House.

Get the point? Or just Don't Care?

(Originally posted 10/28/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Obama Supports Radical, Murderous Cousin for President

Show me these, then maybe I will start trusting and believing Obama:

-Occidental College record
-Columbia College record & Thesis paper
-Selective Service Registration
-Illinois State Senate Schedule
-Law Practice Client List
-Embossed, Certified Copy, Original Birth Certificate
-Harvard Law Review articles published
-University of Chicago scholarly articles

Here's a shocking clip you probably haven't (and won't) see from the Mainstream Media:

And, for Contrast; here's one from the Biased, Downplaying Media on the same subject:

In the interest of Full-Disclosure, the "Ratings" for this video on YouTube are Disabled... My guess is because it's a blatant attempt at Media Bias, where similar videos reveal the Truth about Obama's Family Connection. While a Google Search will clearly show Odinga is Obama's First (1st) Cousin; in the Second (2nd) Video here, he's only mentioned as "supporting a fellow member of h

Obama "criticizing the Kenyan Government for corruption"? Take into consideration the Government Obama opposes is the very same that won the Presidential Election against his own (literal) blood-brother, Raila Odinga.

Curiously, CBS takes the side of the Kenyan Government (surprise!), saying that they're "firing back"... then they turn around and rail against the very same Government over an (alleged?) issue. (I'm not quite sure what the Ambiguous "issue" is).

Notice that they portray Obama on Both sides... "Standing up" to the Government, claiming "Freedom of Speech" in the Press is being quelled and threatens "Democracy"... Then, literally seconds later, he's seen "on the side" of Government, trying to "help out".

This, my Conservative friends, is what you call a Contrived Controversy... a Pure Media Ploy. Tell me: What's the substance of the "outrage" in the Second Video?

A perfect example of the Media using information in two, separate fashions in the same story for the purpose of shaping YOUR opinion for you. Yet some decry the "paranoia" or "delusion" over such a claim about Media Bias...

It goes to show you; Abraham Lincoln was right:

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

I hope, for the sake of our Country, this Election proves him correct. It seems the Democrat Party may have found a way around it.

(Originally posted 10/29/08 on NationsPatriot.com)

Obama Refuses to Answer Lawsuit or Provide Birth Certificate

I'd say, "We all know" about the Problematic Issue over Senator Obama's legitimate qualification to run for President of the United States, but the truth is, the Drive-By Media refuses to cover it. Hardly a percentage of our country's population is even aware of the Constitutional Requirement and his failure to cooperate with it; but why should a little thing like The Law or Constitution get in the way of a good campaign?

As adamant as Obama is in refusing to produce valid documentation of his birth in Hawaii in an Authentic Certificate of Live Birth; he's now missed a Court Lawsuit's opportunity to make the issue forever disappear and vanish from the minds of all voters... Why wouldn't he simply address the matter and put it to rest? Inquiring minds want to know.

For months, Obama's actual birthplace has been in question... yet not ONE, Single Mainstream Media, Liberal-leaning program has bothered to follow up or look into this matter... WHAT?!

Many theories and conspiracies abound, the most popular being that Obama's mother birthed him in Kenya, and his politically-connected father, with strong ties to government figures, arranged for Stanley Ann Dunham (his biological mother) to fly with the newborn Obama (Jr., Barack Hussein) to the U.S. State of Hawaii; rush to a hospital, and claim she'd just given birth. Seeking help, she may or may not have been issued a valid Certificate of Live Birth...
Is it "unfair", "unethical" or "dirty politics" to ask that such a Legal Requirement for the Highest Office in the Land be provided for Proof, especially with so many shadows and doubts?
What happened to being fair and honest in respecting the Constitution and the Voters, Mr. Obama? Stop stonewalling and withholding ALL documents repeatedly asked of you to produce for the American people (along with an actual Hawaiian Birth Certificate).

I thought Obama wanted to "Change" Washington? I thought he wanted "More Transparency"? I thought the Media was "Responsible"? Okay, that last one was just a joke; of course there hasn't been any Responsible, Journalistic Integrity from Major News Outlets for years. That, my friends, is Indisputable. The closest thing today is FOXNews and a few Not-So-Liberal Anchors on other Cable outlets; but the truth is, the truth is scarce these days.

Obama Refuses to Answer Birth Certificate Lawsuit

Friday, October 24, 2008 4:16 PM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that Barack Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” of the United States took an unusual twist this week, after a federally mandated deadline requiring Obama’s lawyers to produce a “vault” copy of his birth certificate expired with no response from Obama or his lawyers. The lawsuit, filed by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg — a self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton — alleges that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is thus “ineligible” to run for president of the United States. It demands that Obama’s lawyers produce a copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born U.S. citizen. Berg's suit and allegations have set off a wave of Internet buzz and rumors, though Obama could easily have put the matter to rest by providing the federal court with the basic documentation proving he is eligible to take the oath of a president. But Obama has apparently decided to deny the court and the public that documentation. The Constitution provides that any U.S. citizen is eligible to become president if the person is 35 years of age or older and is a natural-born citizen; that is, born in the territorial United States. By failing to respond to the Request for Admissions and Request for the Production of Documents within 30 days, Obama has “admitted” that he was born in Kenya, Berg stated this week in new court filings. Berg released a long list of “admissions” he submitted to Obama’s lawyers on Sept. 15, and asked that they produce documents relating to Obama’s place of birth and citizenship. Instead of responding, lawyers for Obama and the DNC asked the court to dismiss the case. But Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued no ruling in the case that would have given Obama’s lawyers more time. “There are lots of legal ways to stonewall,” a well-placed Republican attorney told Newsmax, who was not authorized to comment officially on the case. “But failing to respond is not one of them.” “The first thing they teach you in law school,” he added, “is don’t put a complaint like this in a drawer. That’s how a nuisance case can become a problem.” The 30-day deadline for defendants to comply with a discovery request is set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. “It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side,” Berg said after he filed a motion on Thursday for summary judgment. “The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. [Obama] admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States.” In a contentious case, lawyers on both sides will haggle over the production of documents, and will frequently go beyond the deadlines, several lawyers told Newsmax. “The rules are more often complied with in the breech rather than the observance,” a senior trial attorney who has close ties to the Democrat Party, but is not involved in the current case, told Newsmax. “Lawyers frequently do not return telephone calls or meet discovery deadlines because of sheer inadvertence. Therefore, we do not consider a failure to respond as a ‘violation,’” he said. Allegations surrounding Obama’s place of birth have been swirling for months. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign sought to put down the rumors by making available a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, issued in 2007 by the State of Hawaii. [See the Certification of Live Birth — Click Here.] Respected conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called the Berg lawsuit a “conspiracy theory” that had been put to rest by the Obama campaign over the summer but ”has arisen like a zombie yet again to suck the credibility out of the conservative blogosphere.” However, the 2007 document produced by the Obama campaign omits key information that normally appears on birth certificates in the United States, including the name of the hospital where he was born, the size and weight of the baby, and sometimes the name of the doctor who delivered him. In addition, the critics of the 2007 document note that Obama's father is described as “African,” a term used today. The formal language in official documents at the time — 1961 — would have identified his race as “Negro” or “Colored.” The Web site snarkybytes.com has produced a vault copy of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth from 1963, issued by the Hawaii Department of Health. [See the vault copy — Click Here.] In addition to naming the hospital and more details about the baby, the 1963 vault copy also includes the “usual residence of the mother,” and the “usual occupation” of the father. None of this information appears on the 2007 Live Birth certificate produced by the Obama campaign. Berg has been a perennial political candidate in Pennsylvania, having run in Democrat primaries for attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor, and other offices without success. He served as deputy attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania from 1972-1980. His credibility was tarnished by work he did for the far-left “9/11 for the Truth” campaign, which alleged in a federal lawsuit that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was caused by “controlled demolition” ordered by the president of the United States. Nevertheless, in recent weeks, lawsuits have been filed in seven additional states demanding that Barack Obama produce an original vault copy of his birth certificate, to dispel the rumors that he is not a natural-born United States citizen. The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records. Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency. Ironically, Obama mentions his birth certificate in passing on Page 26 of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father.” “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” he wrote. Lawyers for Obama and the DNC did not return calls for comment on the current status of the case, or explain why the Obama campaign did not simply put to rest the whole controversy by releasing the birth certificate that Obama apparently cherished as a teenager. In the past, questions about Sen. John McCain's legal status have arisen. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone at a U.S. Army hospital. McCain had legal experts vet his constitutional qualifications, and he also disclosed a copy of his birth certificate.

Click HERE to link to this original article, or "MORE" for the FULL Story, Photos, Links and Sources...

(Originally posted 10/24/08 on NationsPatriot.com)