Obama’s Church Back At It Again

Barack Obama has already pronounced this sermon that went on at his church as disappointing. Strangely enough, 20 years of this didn’t cause him to bat an eye, yet all of a sudden whenever something controversial comes out at his church, he feels the need to separate himself from it. Kind of convenient timing, don’t you think?

Check out what the nice Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger had to say from the pulpit at Obama’s church this past week.

Barack Obama: Media Darling

If you follow politics closely, there is a distinct media bias in this country that is evidenced almost on a daily basis. In this current political season regarding Barack Obama, it is more observable than ever.

Never in my life have I witnessed one politician “misspeak” so many times in such a short period and have it utterly ignored my the main stream media. Most candidates are crucified for gaffes. Can you remember what happened with Dan Quayle spelled potatoe? Or when John Kerry said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it?

Obama Pakistan

Michelle Malkin compiled a list of gaffes made by Barack Obama in just the last year.

— Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

— Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

— Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. … I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

— Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

— Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

— Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

— Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

“Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

— Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father”:

“Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

— And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave

People are going to eventually catch onto this. If he claims Arabic is spoken in Afghanistan or that there he’s been to 57 states during one of the debates with McCain, Obama will be in real trouble. The media won’t be able to hide that one anymore. Right now, he’s got the entire national media in his back pocket, so no one hears about the gaffes that he makes in Podunk City, Indiana.

The media and money machine that is Barack Obama will continue to roll through November unless:

1. The Republicans figure out a message (and a conservative one at that)

2. The public realizes out how clueless Obama is

3. Hillary figures out a way to steal the nomination. Don’t think it’s out of the question yet.

4. That “kill whitey” video of Michelle Obama surfaces (I’ve heard that one does exist)

I’m not too optimistic, but I’m hoping that at least #1 happens before 2012.

Obama Asks Us To Sacrifice Our Food

In front of a crowd of 75,000 people in Portland, Oregon, Barack Obama made the following statment:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”

This type of speech sounds strangely familiar to what we heard out of John Kerry four years ago with his “global test” comment. But is Obama for real with these comments? Is he really prepared to limit driving and how much we eat?

Is this what his campaign is about? Limiting our freedoms? Because if it is, it sounds and awful lot like socialism to me. Would an Obama Administration really bring an end to “eating as much as we want?” Do we need other countries’ approval to eat as much as we want or drive as much as we want? Under Obama, would we really need the government’s approval to set our thermostats to 72 degrees?

If Obama isn’t serious about this, then why is he bringing it up on the campaign trail? And how does he intend on regulating our overeating? Air strikes on Chinese buffets across America?

Michelle Obama has made similar statments:

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Translation: You have to give up your good education and good healthcare so everyone can have lousy education and healthcare, because that’s the new American way.

The Obama’s preach the Robin Hood philosophy. Take more from the rich and give more to the poor. Maybe someone close to Michelle should share with her that we already spend 60% of our federal budget on entitlements. If you get that number any higher we are bordering on an entire nanny state and the complete wussification of America. But, that of course, is the new goal of the Democratic party.

Palestinians Campaign For Obama

Sometime next fall, when you get a call from someone with a foreign accent urging you to vote for Barack Obama, you may consider asking where they are calling from. There’s a good chance it may be the Gaza strip and from a member of Hamas.

Palestinians in Gaza have taken it upon themselves to actively campaign for Obama from Gaza. In a world that gets smaller every day through the internet and other forms of communication, this should come as no surprise.

However, when pondering whether or not to vote for Barack Obama in the fall, one should ponder this….why would members of Hamas in the Gaza strip attempt to influence our Presidential election? Why are they so preferential to Obama? What is it about him that makes him so attractive to people who belong to terrorist groups and have pledged themselves to the destruction of Israel? Could it be that they think he’s just pretending to be a supporter of Israel and really isn’t?

That my friends, is exactly what they think. And I think they’re right.

This pro-Obama news video is from Al Jazeera.

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marraige in California

Today the California Supreme Court overruled a legislative ban on gay marriage by a 4-3 decision. Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority and stated that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. With this ruling, California becomes only the second state after Massachusetts to legalize gay marriage.

Click here to read the Supreme Court Decision.

Gay marriage

Naturally, gay marriage supporters hailed this ruling as a victory for their cause. However, their battle is far from over.

Currently, a coalition of religious and conservative social groups is putting together a measure that may make it onto the November ballot. The measure needs 694,354 signatures to make it on the ballot and these groups claim they have already accumulated 1.1 million signatures. This measure would allow the voters of California to decide whether or not to put a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution. If this measure passes in November, this will trump the California Supreme Court’s decision.

We can be certain that gay marriage advocacy groups will fight any measure allowing the California voters to decide this. Liberal activist groups are rarely successful implementing their agenda with voters or elected officials, so resorting to the judiciary to get their way is what we’ve come to expect.

The ruling set off a big celebration at San Francisco City Hall. This will, no doubt, be an issue in this year’s election process and is a winning issue for conservatives if they choose to use it.

Obama Seeks to Enact Carter-Style Taxes

Windfall profit taxes on oil companies have been tried before and they failed miserably. What makes anyone think they’ll work now? Hope? Are we just supposed to hope that Carter’s failed policies will now work just because Barack Obama is the one enacting them? Welcome to the era of Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years later.

Video Script: VO: As American families face higher prices at the pump, Barack Obama opposes immediate relief and lower taxes on fuel.

VO: What Obama has proposed are new tax increases that reduce oil production, increase dependence on foreign oil and hurt consumers.

VIDEO: Obama Video: “I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profit tax on our oil companies.”

VO: Obama’s proposals have been tried before…

VIDEO: Carter Video: “Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay.”

VO: Sound familiar?

VO: The last time this was tried, domestic oil production dropped by 5% and US reliance on foreign oil increased by 10%.

Text (displayed during VO): “The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil.” (WSJ, 11/30/05)

VO: Is this the kind of change America needs?

VO: Barack Obama… Out of touch…. And not ready to be President.

Bush Administration Falls for Polar Bear Gimmick

As originally reported on TownHall.com, the Bush administration took a page from Al Gore’s playbook and named the polar bear to the “threatened species” list because of anticipated losses of the polar bear due to global warming. Computer models show that loss of polar ice caps may degrade the polar bear population down to endangered species levels in approximately 45 years. So by adding the polar bear to the threatened species list, it might slow a population decline if global warming is true.

Of course, these computer models probably aren’t aware that all of the allegedly lost polar ice has now frozen back. Or maybe they didn’t hear any of the latest research that continues to debunk the entire man-made global warming myth. Perhaps the computer just forgot to take into account that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently reports that polar bear populations are on the rise. There are currently between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears, which is up from the low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Now of course, we should expect the environmental lobby and the EPA to accept any computer model that furthers their agenda of man-made global warming. However, we should not accept the Bush administration recognizing the same kind of computer generated models without asking the hard questions and challenging the “facts” laid out by the environmental lobby. For this, the Bush administration should be ashamed. They have largely given the opponents of legitimate domestic energy production (i.e. Progressives and Democrats) another reason not to explore for any oil or natural gas in the entire state of Alaska. Can’t you just hear Chuck Schumer arguing that drilling in Alaska will threaten the population of polar bears 45 years from now?

Maybe if conservatives and Republicans are lucky, domestic energy production will be at the forefront of the Presidential campaign this year. It’s funny that the main people you hear railing against the U.S. purchasing oil from the Middle East are Democrats, yet Democrats are the main opponents of domestic energy production.

As reported by Gateway Pundit:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?– Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?– Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?– Democrat

We are in very grave danger of being completely dependent on foreign oil because of the Democrats in Washington, and yet the general public blames the Republicans for America’s dependence on foreign oil. Despite the fact that oil is at $127 a barrel, Democrats continue to demonize American oil companies and impede their ability to search for new oil reserves or tap the known reserves that would bring down the global price of oil.

But now, thanks to the pandering by the Bush administration and liberal “environmental friendly” Republicans like John McCain, we might very well see Alaska added to the “No Drilling” zone as well. And all because a computer owned by someone in the environmental lobby told us that there might be fewer polar bears in 2053. Unless this pandering by some on the right stops, the Republicans are heading for a monumental and embarrassing defeat in November.