Posts filed under 'Kook Left'
The problem, my friends, is that Obama grew up in the political hot-house of the kook left, and now has to try to fit into mainstream America, and it ain’t working:
In response to the new evidence which reveals that Senator Barack Obama has misrepresented his position regarding his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the Obama Campaign has continued to deny that the Illinois state bill included a neutrality clause.
On Thursday, the ChicagoTribune.com posted a “fact check” on its website regarding Sen. Obama and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) when it was proposed in the Illinois Senate. The site quotes a Susan B. Anthony List press release from August 12 as stating:
“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”
ChicagoTribune.com quoted the Obama Campaign’s response as:
“There are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”
President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser responded to the article saying, “The Obama campaign thinks if they continue to repeat their flimsy story about Barack Obama’s opposition to the common sense Born Alive Infant Protection Act that their thin explanation will become true. The reality is that actual legislative records directly contradict their story.”
She continued, “Here’s the truth: Barack Obama killed the commonsense Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Senate, and his campaign continues its game of hide and seek. That’s because his position is heartless. There is no baby at any stage - even born accidentally - that he finds worth protecting. Where is his heart for the downtrodden when it comes to the most vulnerable human beings? It is no wonder he cannot admit to the truth of his ‘leadership’ as a State Senator.”
Heartless, indeed. As a matter of fact, that is what the whole so-called “pro choice” position is - heartless. To think that abortion - the killing of an unborn child - is a good or even reasonable reaction to the temporary condition called pregnancy is absurd. It is only the love of lies and the cowardice of our times which allows this position to be professed, and the people professing it to continue on in politics as if they held reasonable opinions worthy of merit.
What I wonder is just when sensible Democrats will realise that they have signed on to a monstrous crime - there is a great deal to be said for such Democrats ditching the far left and setting up a Christian Democratic party…a party which will advocate for great amounts of social welfare, but which won’t be beholden to the wickedness of abortion, nor in thrall to those who seek by one means or another to undermine the family and traditional morality. Welfare has all sorts of problems with it, but someone who wants to help the poor has his heart in the right place - but no heart at all if an alleged concern for the poor is joined to an unconcern for the women and children who fall victim to the abortion industry.
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, Born Alive, John McCain
August 19th, 2008
I’ve seen this, too - the accusation that McCain cheated, as explanation for why he had a superlative performance while Obama bombed at Saddleback; didn’t know, however, that Andrea Mitchell was also a kook:
…Andrea Mitchell on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” suggested the Obama campaign felt John McCain “may not have been in the cone of silence” during Saturday’s Saddleback Civil Forum, “and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were.”
Although she claimed this was being “[put] out privately” by Obama’s people, CNN is now reporting that his campaign is “not pursuing whether McCain heard any of the other questions,” and that they’re “assuming McCain had the same information they did.”
So where did Mitchell get this idea from? Might it have been a Daily Kos blog posted at 9:22 PM PDT Saturday entitled “McCain cheated? proof he knew the questions ahead of time”…
If you go to the Kos entry in question, you’ll find that the conviction is that McCain had the questions, with the only doubtful thing being whether Obama had them, too.
What seems to have flummoxed Mitchell is just how prepared McCain was - in contrast to Obama. It just will never occur to an MSMer that the GOPer might be the smarter guy…and as far as Obamessiah is concerned, the MSM can’t imagine anyone holding a candle to him, let alone beating him like a drum. I still suspect that some day the MSM and the left will realise that it is they who aren’t all that bright - you’d think that after nearly 8 years of having GW run rings around them they’d figure this out, but the level of obtuseness on the left and in the MSM is extraordinary; its like armour plate…if we can figure out how it works, we can use it to up-armour the Army’s humvees and make them really impervious.
This, though, is just a slight taste of what we can expect if McCain goes on and wins the election - the level of hatred and paranoia on the left will make the past 8 years seem like a tea party. Remember, the left is not just convinced they will win this year, but that they will win big…anything short of a massive victory will be viewed with suspicion, while an Obama loss will be considered proof that we’re living under a dictatorship.
Ed. Note: This counts as “What Media Bias? Part 121″.
Tags: Barack Obama, Daily Kos, John McCain, Kook Left, liberal lies, Saddleback Church
August 18th, 2008
There’s really no other way to put this:
A quick reading of the measure that will go before San Francisco voters in November to decriminalize prostitution easily could leave you with the misimpression that the measure is an exercise in fairness that demands that prosecutors go after men who abuse prostitutes and implement policies “to reduce institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.” A careful reading of the initiative, “Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers,” however, shows a measure that shields child prostitution and traffickers of human beings.
“If I had just heard from the proponents, I would probably vote for it myself,” said the Rev. Glenda Hope, whose San Francisco Network Ministries helped found the Tenderloin AIDS Resource, in the mistaken belief the measure is meant “to protect women.” But as the executive director of SafeHouse, a residential center that helps women get off the streets, Hope knows too much.
…the San Francisco ballot measure completely ignores the prostitution of children. The measure simply states, “Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.” Astonishingly, there’s no exemption that encourages police to enforce the law for minors.
If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors.
And where does that leave Bay Area youth? “They want new and young,” Jasmine, a former teen prostitute from Oakland who now volunteers for the nonprofit SAGE Project, which fights sexual exploitation, explained to me.
Thus the tail end of the sexual revolution - a ballot measure to allow men (and it will be almost exclusively men) to legally procure boys and girls for sexual gratification. When you de-couple sex from marriage and child-rearing, this is precisely what you get as was predicted back in the 60’s when the concepts underlying the sexual revolution first gained a mainstream foothold. This is absolutely no surprise at all - its digusting, but not a surprise. The piece goes on to note that some are expecting the ballot measure to pass rather handily as San Francisco is a “sex-positive” city - meaning, presumptively, that there is so much selfishness and demand for personal gratification that San Francisco may very well cut itself entirley off from civlization and descend to a level of depravity untouched since the worst of Nero.
You see, back when it was first seriously proposed that we de-stigmatize pre- and extra-marital sex and all manner of sexual deviation those who opposed it weren’t just a bunch of squares with sexual hang-ups who just didn’t want anyone having fun. Not, it wasn’t like that at all - the concept was opposed because it was already known what would come of it. It was known - not guessed-at, not theorised over; known. This is because, waaaay back when, Christianity was (among other things, of course) the cure for a society which had allowed sexual licentiousness to descend to such a level that child-bearing and -rearing was considered a burden and personal sexual gratification trumped all, no matter how sterile and un-fulfilling it steadily became. Christianity knew this in 60, 560, 1060, 1560, 1960 and will continue to know it in 2060 - sex is a powerful thing, and unless carefully contained within proper limits this great gift becomes a taskmaster and a means of self-destruction.
And now San Francisco proposes to legalise the worst of it - because people want it and want it now and exactly how they want it and everyone else can go to Hell as far as they are concerned, San Francisco may do this horrible thing. And then we’ll await the inevitible lawsuit, claiming that the right to privacy means that not only San Francisco, but the whole nation must turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of youth. How it will come out will remain to be seen - unless, of course, it turns out there is some remaining level of human decency in San Francisco and this terrible, anti-human initiative is defeated.
UPDATE: And the Democrats endorse.
Tags: child abuse, Christianity, Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Wor, morality, San Francisco
August 17th, 2008
Rather strange world we live in:
The executives of a gay sex site are apparently more concerned about the perception that they’re associated with John McCain than McCain is about the association with them.
The chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Cambridge-based hookup site, was forced to resign after reports that he gave $2,300 to McCain.
Manhunt co-founder Larry Basile e-mailed the blog Towleroad:
It should be known that Jonathan Crutchley’s donation to McCain left the entire Board in disbelief. I am disappointed that we have lost some customers, and I understand the anger. It is too bad for the web site if we lose customers, but PLEASE never refer to me as a Republican. I consider it an offense.
Earlier today, at the request of the Board, Jonathan has stepped down as Chairman.
McCain’s campaign hasn’t responded to questions about the $2,300 contribution.
Crutchley defended it on similar grounds to those McCain has offered on other hot-button social issues: They agree on national security issues, and can argue domestic policy later.
Being a Republican is offensive, but running a gay sex site is peachy keen? Interesting.
Outside of the rather odd view of morality, the more important issue here is the rank intolerance on the left - I mean, it doesn’t appear that the guy was advocating for McCain on the website…he was just exercising his right to support the candidate of his choice, and for the leftwingers who run the site, that was a crime (how do I know they’re lefties? Oh, come on….). This is the hatred we refer to when we speak of the “hate filled left”…the intolerance is astounding, as if politics is the most important thing which happens.
August 16th, 2008
With a major Presidential hopeful openly pining for one-world socialism, and the prospect of encroaching socialism moving ever more mainstream, it would appear that John Lennon’s dream in his protest song, Imagine, is much closer to fruition this day and age.
So, with conservatism becoming the new counter-culture, I offer a protest song for the 21st century.
Imagine, for the 21st Century (without apology to John Lennon)
Imagine there’re no Liberals
It’s easy if you try
No welfare state to enslave us
Or taxing us to the sky…
Imagine all the people
Keeping their own wealth…
Imagine we have a country…
It isn’t hard to do
One that we’ll defend and die for..
And secure our borders, too
Imagine all the people
Living life secure…
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And our nation will be as one.
Imagine no class envy…
I wonder if you can
Opportunity for everyone..
From fetus unto man
Imagine all the people
Living the American Dream.. ah-haaa-ah!
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll be conservative
And our nation will live as one.
Tags: Conservatism, Obama, taxes
August 14th, 2008
I guess if you know nothing, then its ok to have someone who also knows nothing giving you advice - from the Daily Mail via Hot Air Blog:
George Clooney once famously declared he could never run for public office because he’d ‘slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties’.
But now the Hollywood heart-throb has entered the political arena at the highest level – by becoming an unofficial adviser to US Presidential front-runner Barack Obama.
Oscar-winner Clooney, 47, is said to be helping the Democratic candidate to polish his image at home and abroad.
But he is also sharing with Obama his strong opinions on Iraq and the Middle East.
A self-admitted philanderer and drug user to advise on polishing an image? Only in modern America would a Presidential candidate get within 10 miles of Clooney…
Sources say the actor has tried to hide the pair’s friendship for fear his Left-wing views and playboy image would hurt the Presidential hopeful’s bid for the White House.
But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.
One said last night: ‘They are extremely close. A number of members of the Hollywood community, including Brad Pitt, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, offered to help raise funds for Barack but it was with George that he struck up this amazing affinity.
‘George has been giving him advice on things such as presentation, public speaking and body language and he also emails him constantly about policy, especially the Middle East.
‘George is pushing him to be more “balanced” on issues such as US relations with Israel.
‘George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins.
‘It’s a very risky relationship. His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.
‘But they text and email each other almost every day and speak on the phone at least a couple of times a week, often more.’
Its not so much Clooney’s leftism (after all, it’d be hard to out-lefty Obama, anyways), but the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s yet another of those Hollywood liberals who latch on to fashionable causes and right now the fashion is to be pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and, of course, opposed to victory in Iraq. Among the many people I would expect a President to get advice from on foreign policy, Clooney never makes that list - in fact, he wouldn’t make the list of people to advise on the color of the drapes in the Oval Office. Somehow, being an actor doesn’t seem to be the best training for figuring out whether Hamas is a partner for peace or a bloodthirsty terrorist organization. Perhaps Clooney has been doing some studying, but if he has he’s yet to register as someone who has offered his own opinion in a forum where criticism of same is possible. What we don’t need is a star-struck President going along with ill-informed advice simply for fear of offending a glittering pal.
Tags: Barack Obama, George Clooney
August 12th, 2008
Al Gore’s new boat - the B.S. One:
But the question persists as to whether he (Gore) actually buys into what he is selling. His own behavior clearly indicates that he doesn’t believe we are at a “tipping point” of worldwide environmental destruction. While he preaches that the rest of us must dramatically change our lifestyles and lower our standards of living to “save the planet” he lives by another set of rules himself.
It happens in the air, where he jets about in private planes that consume massive amounts of energy to spread his message of “conservation.”
His hypocrisy is revealed on land, where he travels in fleets of limos and SUVs to deliver speeches about the dire consequences of ignoring “man-made global warming” — and leaves the cars running throughout his entire speech in order to ensure that they will be nice and cool when he exits the building and returns to his gas-guzzling vehicles.
His supposedly “green” mansion consumes electricity that dwarfs the consumption of the typical family home.
And now, in order to complete his hypocrisy trifecta, Al Gore may now be extending his excessive consumption to the water as well. In an amazing display of conspicuous consumption, even for Al Gore, his new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina in Smithville, Tennessee is creating a critical buzz among many of his former congressional constituents. Dubbed “Bio-Solar One,” which may reflect some latent Air Force One envy, Gore has proudly strutted the small-town dock claiming that his monstrous houseboat is environmentally friendly. (Only Al Gore would name his boat B.S. One and not get the joke. Or perhaps the joke is on us?)
There really is a sucker born every five minutes and these days they are easily identifiable - they are all leftwingers.
Tags: Al Gore, liberal lies
August 10th, 2008
Interesting, to say the least - American Thinker brings this to our attention from a March, 2008 NPR report (of all things):
Even in this era of YouTube and camera phones, a recording of Obama’s speech is all but impossible to find. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to re-create portions of the speech for a television ad, with the candidate re-reading the text, with audience sound effects…
Obama says he risked his career to go out on a limb for the anti-war cause…but is this really the case? From the same story:
…So, just how much attention did the speech attract?
Bill Glauber, who covered the rally for the Chicago Tribune, says he didn’t even quote Obama.
“I guess other media was there,” Glauber says, “but we didn’t quote Barack Obama at his famous anti-war speech. He was not the main guy.”
Glauber says that he did not even mention Obama in his newspaper article on the rally and instead focused on the rally’s other speaker, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.(emphasis added)
An un-reported speech in a very blue State - hardly the high risk endevour Obama says it was…and given that he also trimmed towards a more pro-war stance during his 2004 Senate run, the whole story of Obama’s anti-war speech now has a large question mark about it. Certainly, Obama comes from the anti-war left of his party…but one wonders just how much of that speech as we know it today was re-crafted to appeal to leftwing primary voters in 2008? Anyone who would fake a speech for an ad is not someone to whom “scrupulously honest” can be applied to - Obama seeks to deceive if he believes such deception will help him win, and if a man will deceive once, he’ll do it again and again.
It just could be that the whole Obama story is a fraud from start to finish - a con job designed to advance only one thing, Obama. Any of you lefties feeling like suckers, yet?
Tags: Iraq, liberal lies, Obama Deceptions
August 8th, 2008
This is what gets serious discussion on the left, as NRO’s The Corner points out:
At the Netroots Nation gathering in Austin, Texas last month — that is the successor to YearlyKos — Dahlia Lithwick, of the Washington-Post-owned website Slate, did an interview with the Talking Points Memo site in which she described a panel discussion she had just taken part in on what is known as the “first 100 days of accountability.” Among Lithwick’s observations:
We’re already falling into this trap of either positing Nuremberg-style war crimes tribunals, or nothing, immunizing everyone from John Yoo up and down…but everybody says there’s a lot of gray area in between that, and that accountability doesn’t necessarily mean Nuremberg, it doesn’t necessarily mean nothing, it means possibly a truth commission, possibly appointing a special prosecutor to look at it…
Lithwick recommended a massive retrospective investigation of the Bush administration, going through every piece of paper, before moving forward:
Certainly long before we make a decision to do what Stuart Taylor suggested this week, which was immunize everybody in advance, or alternatively make a decision to trot them out before a war crimes tribunal before the whole world, we should really find out what happened…
But Lithwick recognized that there are those who argue such an action might be divisive:
We talked a lot about this notion that it’s bad for America, that it will rip America apart if we have hearings or we have criminal trials or if we have war crimes tribunals. And I think it’s really worse for America if we don’t…
The level of insanity here is breathtaking - and while one can attempt to dismiss this as the paranoid ravings of screwball lefties, the problem is that these screwball lefties will have a large say in any potential Obama Administration. These people appear to be quite serious in thinking of President Bush and his Administration (a moderate, center-right, constitutional American government) as akin to Nazi Germany. And do keep in mind that by implication those of us who support President Bush are criminals, too - at least in the minds of the left. These are not people who view me as a fellow American - they view me as a pestilence to be at least thwarted, and destroyed if possible.
It is imposisble for us to reach these people, but we can rest completely assured that we must stop them from gaining power - the plans they have, the lunatic assumptions they hold, are the stuff with which civil wars are made. Essentially, the left wishes to criminalise non-leftist actions and ideas, and as we on the right won’t ever agree to that, push may very well come to shove if the left gains power and seeks to prosecute us for what they consider to be crimes. I wish never to see anyone who is a fellow citizen of the United States as an enemy - but anyone who thinks putting President Bush et al up on war crimes charges - or even attempting to set up a truth commission - is someone who has definitively set themselves up as my enemy. Not a fellow citizen with ideas I think wrong, but an enemy I’ll fight.
Tags: Afghanistan, Conservatism, FISA, Gitmo, Iraq, liberal lies, political ideology, Signals Intelligence Program
August 7th, 2008
Older Posts
