The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Discuss world politics in relation to Islam and Muslims.
Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Idesigner »

Still I believe there are enough grounds to impeach Obama.

He is not even a man. When corn on colb is fake everything therein is fake. Best way to expose him is to chacek air line/ ocean line data between Monbasa-Kenya and Honulul starting Dec 60 to DEC 61. In those days only handful airlines were flying between Honolulu and mainland or Orient.

The way he talks its feminine. He/ She is too skinny for man.

Some DNA data will settle whole issu. If he lied about his sex, that is impecchable offense. Piggy, Prgma and others shpuld keep vigil of all Men's restroom this president visit. Bingo!! :*)
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

And the LIAR Messiah mission to bring destruction to America and the American way continues.


OBAMA'S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK

Last updated: 2:59 am
March 30, 2009
Posted: 1:23 am
March 30, 2009

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish.

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say.

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution.

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience."

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his "advocacy of unfettered presidential power" to President Richard Nixon's. And that was the first Bush -- Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm.

Koh has also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' use in the 1980s of the International Court of Justice to get Congress to stop funding the Contras. Imagine such international lawyering by rogue nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela today, and you can see the danger in Koh's theories.

Koh, a self-described "activist," would plainly promote his views aggressively once at State. He's not likely to feel limited by the letter of the law -- in 1994, he told The New Republic: "I'd rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning."

Worse, the State job might be a launching pad for a Supreme Court nomination. (He's on many liberals' short lists for the high court.) Since this job requires Senate confirmation, it's certainly a useful trial run.

What happens to Koh in the Senate will send an important signal. If he sails through to State, he's a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. So Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront his radical views.

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like.

Meghan Clyne is a DC-based writer.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/po ... 161961.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:Again: What -exactly- do you have against Human Rights, or 'Yuman Rites' as you demean them?
No need to show everyone that your comprehension abilities are not very good its plain to see. I said the people who support 'Yuman Rites' which in its imposition on Western Democracies has only served to safeguard the 'rights' of criminals and Terrorists are idiots. Witness the UK Governments Yuman Rites driven STUPIDITY they took an ETHIOPIAN Terrorist who was in GITMO and who was originally caught with a FALSE passport and terrorist literature trying to board a flight to UK from Pakistan after absconding from UK where he was an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT and going to AFGHANISTAN he says to 'try and get rid of his DRUG ADDICTION :prop: :prop: ' and to study the CULTURE :worthy: . The UK spent $500,000 chartering an aircraft to fly him back to UK and are now giving him 24/7 Police protection a safe house and Social Security benefits plus Legal Aid so he can sue the UK Government. AND ALL IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH YOU FIND SO WONDERFUL. This is but ONE example of the STUPIDITY Yuman Rites legislation has inflicted across the whole of the Western World and YOUR Messiah loves it too. Whatever happened to COMMON SENSE it flew out of the window when 'Yuman Rites' flew in.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Pragmatist doesn't care about the fair trial principles at stake. He doesn't give a damn of the principle of a man being innocent until -proven- guilty. Dissenters must be jailed and tortured, that's the Constitution according to Neocons. That's their 'Common Sense'!

Yuman Rites I guess are pagan rituals... and The Rule of Laws to be done with in a perfected Neocon world!
Image

Now, the guy Pragmatist is talking about is Binyam Mohamed
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British resident released after four years at Guantanamo Bay arrived back in the UK Monday, officials said, in a case that has helped deepen controversy over U.S. treatment of accused terrorists. Binyam Mohamed, seized in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of terrorism, returned after being freed in a deal between the British and U.S. governments, the UK Foreign Office said. Police said he was detained under anti-terror regulations after arriving in the UK and released about five hours later.

Ethiopian-born Mohamed says he was tortured into falsely confessing to terrorist activities while in U.S. custody in Morocco. He says he was then taken to Afghanistan and then to Guantanamo in 2004. He says the UK intelligence agency MI5 was complicit in his treatment.

The United States charged him last year with allegedly plotting to blow up apartment buildings in America with radioactive "dirty bombs." But all formal charges were dropped against him and four other detainees last October. Mohamed subsequently went on hunger strike to protest his imprisonment.

Mohamed is the first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be released since U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention facility at a U.S. naval base within a year, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement. Synonymous with the Bush administration's harsh anti-terror policy in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, Guantanamo has been mired in claims of prisoner abuse.

The British government appealed in August 2007 for the release and return of its legal citizens, but struck a deal last Friday to secure Mohamed's freedom. In a statement on his release, Mohamed reiterated his allegations of abuse at the hand of the United States and called for the release of other detainees.

"I have been through an experience that I never thought to encounter in my darkest nightmares," he said. "Before this ordeal, 'torture' was an abstract word to me. I could never have imagined that I would be its victim." He added: "I am not asking for vengeance; only that the truth should be made known, so that nobody in the future should have to endure what I have endured."
I think there should be another trial, and a real Constitutional one this time for crimes against the American people!
Image
[b]How very very funny in your haste to defend the INDEFENSIBLE you refer to this ETHIOPIAN NATIONAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TO THE UK not just Ethiopian BORN as you say to try to FALSIFY his true status who absconded from the UK of his OWN FREE WILL and went to a WAR ZONE and the place that produces of of most of the worlds heroin to' SORT OUT HIS DRUG PROBLEM' and then tried to get back to UK on a FAKE PASSPORT with TERRORIST documents as a UK RESIDENT .[/b]
Now we know that Yuman Rites spouters really do not know what they are talking about and why this abomination of a policy is destroying countries and it seems your perception of reality. And to back your nonsense up you quote CNN the font of all knowledge. You really are a gullible fool.
Last edited by Pragmatist on Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Psycho Bunny wrote:
Pragmatist wrote: You know Psychotic Lapin being attacked to by you is like to quote an old Labor Politician 'Being savaged by a DEAD SHEEP' such is your lack of intellect and non existent wit.
Ad hominem crap. Was I trying to be witty? I thought I was just making a comment. You are projecting. Again......
Pragmatist wrote:I see the medication is wearing off now back to the Doctor to get some more you naught little boy.
If this is your notion of "wit", I pity you.
Pragmatist wrote:Your reading skills are still not fully developed EITHER are they where did I ever call Gordon Brown the Messiah
Neither did I. Get some glasses. Or try employing comprehension skills.
Pragmatist wrote:I would never dream of being so blasphemous for there is only ONE LIAR Messiah and there is only one PORKULUS and the Messiah is Obama and truly the PORKULUS is all his. In your haste to post your spiteful crap you never engaged your brain did you and READ what I posted that is of course if you have one which by the anger ansd spite fueled nonsense that you post I really doubt . You just leap in with both feet an brain in NEUTRAL. Oh I see you read my intro then the TITLE and like an IDIOT presumed I was talking about Gordon and not the Messiah who I highligheted further down how THICK you are and prove yourself to be time after time.
Where is the "spite"?

I am not insulting your intelligence by calling you "THICK", am I?

I need not stoop so low. Your posts say more than I ever could about your state of mind and your level of intelligence.....

Yawwwwwn!!!!
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

THHuxley wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:There we agree he IS an idiot.
No we do not.
Pragmatist wrote:Ahh of course the PEDANTIC Obamabot HUXLEY resorts to ISLAMIC like word play lets see the difference Oh yes the second phrase has' SUNSET' and 'ONE OF THE' in it so that makes everything OK and makes Obama wonderful. I already knew you would plumb any depths jump through any hoops to defend your Messiah but this one is a doozy
How odd. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying here.

You posted a fake quotation, added to it completely fabricated information about the Shahada, and I corrected your error.

So, according to you, correcting your deliberately faked paraphrase is "Islamic like word play?"

You know what? I can live with that.

"The Mohammedan call to prayer and the Shahada are the MOST beautiful sounds in the world," is a very different statement than, "The Muslim call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

That you cannot tell the difference can only be attributed to your blinding hatred. You must really be a miserable person.
Sorry HUCKSTER your attempt to defend your Messiah by Islamic style word play will not work everyone can see that BOTH phrases are virtually IDENTICAL. Methinks in your attempted defense of the indefensible you doth protest too much.
Last edited by Pragmatist on Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Pragmatist wrote:
The Cat wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:By the way don't forget the NAZIS were the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.
Do you know that Neo-conservatism is a Socialist ideology coming out from ex-leninists and trotskyists, like David Horowitz?
Yes, Neocons are from a socialist background too, named Social Conservatism... same as in most Islamic countries!

In plain facts, Neocons aren't that far away from Islamic fundamentalism on crushing issues, as we can see above.
Western societies aren't so based on religious family nucleus, but on the individual rights within secular societies.

That's what they want to change in their 'intelligent design' of a society... It's an Evangelical way of thinking decency.
In America, they would have to twist and change the Constitution in order to make it happens the way they want...
Ahh I see it hurts to have your left wing stupidity exposed for what it is and its obvious conclusions pointed out to you I bet you really hate it when its pointed out and you know that the most vile regime ever to be imposed on planet earth was left wing SOCIALIST Nazism closely followed by left wing SOCIALIST Russian Communism both of which were responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS of millions and that is without mentioning left wing SOCIALIST Communist China who also killed MILLIONS of their own too. Those FACTS must be really comforting to you as you watch and ACTUALLY SUPPORT the LIAR Obama Messiah as he drives the USA further and further down the same path. His similarities to Hitler grow day by day just look at the CIVILIAN ARMY answerable directly to him he is raising TICK, Charismatic LYING Leader TICK, Cult of personality TICK, Anti Semitic TICK, Pro Mohammedan TICK. OBAMANUTS are truly DELUSIONAL.
I was simply pointing out that the Neocons themselves are from a national socialist background too.
Instead of debating the rights or wrongs of this, Pragmatist got more into his litany of foggy foes...
The inanity here to see my point leaves me speechless, but what else to expect from a Neo-Cockoo![/quote]

I will take that as confirmation that you have no defense to offer for the Lest Wing Moonbats who are presently destroying the USA led by the LIAR Messiah. You really should try to overcome your OBAMA and compliant MSM instilled fear of the big bad NEO CONS you know its all a PLOY. But then in your normal state of hysterical Messiah worship you are in no position to see that
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Coshida
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:31 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Coshida »

Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Psycho Bunny wrote:
Pragmatist wrote: You know Psychotic Lapin being attacked to by you is like to quote an old Labor Politician 'Being savaged by a DEAD SHEEP' such is your lack of intellect and non existent wit.
Ad hominem crap. Was I trying to be witty? I thought I was just making a comment. You are projecting. Again......
Pragmatist wrote:I see the medication is wearing off now back to the Doctor to get some more you naught little boy.
If this is your notion of "wit", I pity you.
Pragmatist wrote:Your reading skills are still not fully developed EITHER are they where did I ever call Gordon Brown the Messiah
Neither did I. Get some glasses. Or try employing comprehension skills.

Below is what YOU wrote Psycho but now you are trying to accuse me of saying YOU called Gordon Brown the Messiah when all I did was disabuse you of YOUR mistaken incomprehensible accusation that I did. You did not read and understand my first post that is obvious then when I pointed out YOUR errors in comprehension you misunderstand that TOO. You then proceed to say I have comprehension problems when you have demonstrated not once but TWICE that the problem lies with YOU. You must really stop creating STRAWMEN just to demolish them it only highlights your lack of logical, educational, and comprehension abilities.

Psycho wrote in his first response
And above, you refer to Gordon Brown as "the LIAR Messiah's SOCIALIST PORKULUS" amongst a load of unsourced quotes. Any evidence for this? Did you actually examine the stand-offish approach Obama had towards Brown? I doubt it.


Pragmatist wrote:I would never dream of being so blasphemous for there is only ONE LIAR Messiah and there is only one PORKULUS and the Messiah is Obama and truly the PORKULUS is all his. In your haste to post your spiteful crap you never engaged your brain did you and READ what I posted that is of course if you have one which by the anger ansd spite fueled nonsense that you post I really doubt . You just leap in with both feet an brain in NEUTRAL. Oh I see you read my intro then the TITLE and like an IDIOT presumed I was talking about Gordon and not the Messiah who I highligheted further down how THICK you are and prove yourself to be time after time.
Where is the "spite"?

I am not insulting your intelligence by calling you "THICK", am I?

I need not stoop so low. Your posts say more than I ever could about your state of mind and your level of intelligence.....
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Coshida wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Wonderfully well argued perceptively referenced and detailed refutation as usual from the Muslimah...... NOT!!!!
Really Muslimah if you have nothing to say best to say nothing you are a waste of bandwidth. :prop: :prop:

How does it feel OBAMANUTS to have such a towering intellect as Coshida on your side and rooting for you and what a revealing insight in to the way Mohammedans really view your Messiah I would go so far as to say they think he is ONE OF THEIR OWN :lotpot:

Thanks for the help Coshida
Last edited by Pragmatist on Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Coshida
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:31 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Coshida »

Pragmatist wrote:
Coshida wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Wonderfully well argued perceptivly referenced and detailed refutation as usual from the Muslimah...... NOT!!!!
Really Muslimah if you have nothing to say best to say nothing you are a waste of bandwidth. :prop: :prop:
I've seen many other posters respond to you with well argued, referenced and detailed refutations, and you invariably respond with a pile of drivel so dim witted that it would disgrace a Downs Syndrome patient. If a chimpanzee was taught to type, its outpourings would be more intelligent than yours.

So for that reason I wouldn't waste my time responding to your nonsense. I wouldn't call you a waste of bandwidth though, you have an unintentional comedy value.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Coshida wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Wonderfully well argued perceptivly referenced and detailed refutation as usual from the Muslimah...... NOT!!!!
Really Muslimah if you have nothing to say best to say nothing you are a waste of bandwidth. :prop: :prop:[/quote]

I've seen many other posters respond to you with well argued, referenced and detailed refutations, and you invariably respond with a pile of drivel so dim witted that it would disgrace a Downs Syndrome patient. If a chimpanzee was taught to type, its outpourings would be more intelligent than yours.

So for that reason I wouldn't waste my time responding to your nonsense. I wouldn't call you a waste of bandwidth though, you have an unintentional comedy value.[/quote]

In all your time on the Forum I have never seen you post ANYTHING of interest to a debate or even instigate a debate at all. All you do is post your pathetic ONE LINERS such as to me above and Mohammedan debunked propaganda. You are merely background noise and just have nuisance value and no substance whatsoever.
You have seen many posters respond to me with ObamaNut hysterical, emotional nonsense that's all but I can see how that would appear to you as well argued and perceptive as I know where you are coming from and can see how Islam has affected your brain functions and of course how much Mohammedans love Obama ONE OF THEIR OWN in the White House.

Ariel hopefully you will take similar action to that which you afforded me to this personally insulting name calling Muslimah. Or are only Kaffirs and Obama critics legitimate targets?
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Wow breaking News the stupid MOONBAT American MSM exposed as hiding derogarory news to PROTECT the LIAR messiah who ever would have thought it possible.Oh how these wicked CONSPIRING Neo Cons do anything to smear the chosen one. :roflmao: :roflmao:


'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story

The New York Times building is shown in New York on June 2008. The Times pulled a story about Barack Obama’s campaign ties to ACORN. (Frank Franklin II/Associated Press)
Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected Campaign With ACORN
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
Monday, March 30, 2009
A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Moncrief told Ms. Heidelbaugh the campaign had asked her and her boss to “reach out to the maxed-out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN.”

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

Ms. Moncrief made her first overture to Ms. Heidelbaugh after The New York Times allegedly spiked the story — on Oct. 21, 2008. Last fall, she testified under oath about what she had learned about ACORN from her years in its Washington, D.C. office. Although she was present at the congressional hearing, she did not testify.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the ranking Republican on the committee, said the interactions between the Obama campaign and ACORN, as described by Ms. Moncrief, and attested to before the committee by Ms. Heidelbaugh, could possibly violate federal election law, and “ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws.”

He also voiced criticism of The New York Times.

“If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper.”

Academicians and journalism experts expressed similar criticism of the Times.

“The New York Times keeps going over the line in every single campaign and last year was the worst, easily,” said Mal Kline of the American Journalism Center. “They would ignore real questions worth examining about Obama, the questions about Bill Ayers or about how he got his house. Then on the other side they would try to manufacture scandals.”

Mr. Kline mentioned Gov. Sarah Palin was cleared by investigators of improperly firing an Alaska State Trooper, but went unnoticed by The Times.

“How many stories about this were in The New York Times,” he asked.

“If this is true, it would not surprise me at all. The New York Times is a liberal newspaper. It is dedicated to furthering the Democratic Party,” said Dr. Paul Kengor, professor of Political Science at Grove City College. “People think The New York Times is an objective news source and it is not. It would not surprise me that if they had a news story that would have swayed the election into McCain’s favor they would not have used it.”

ACORN has issued statements claiming that Ms. Moncrief is merely a disgruntled former worker.

“None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility and we’re not going to spend our time on it,” said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director in a statement issued last week.

Stephanie Strom was contacted for a comment, and The New York Times’ Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications Catherine Mathis replied with an e-mail in her place.

Ms. Mathis wrote, “In response to your questions to our reporter, Stephanie Strom, we do not discuss our newsgathering and won’t comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama.” :lotpot:

Michael P. Tremoglie can be reached at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

More News on the Oh so green Climate saving LIAR Mesiah , seems that excercising restraint is only for LESSER MORTALS not for the MESSIAH.
A real man of the people ........which people? I haven't a clue. I can't relate to this radical clown. He is HYPOCRISY itself writ large.


Prospect of Barack Obama show causes UK to clear its decks

With an entourage of 500 staff, an armour-plated limousine and a fleet of decoy helicopters, America's new president will arrive for his first visit to Britain amid huge razzmatazz on Tuesday for the G20 summit. But it will be his closed-door meetings with world leaders that are likely to prove the most significant of the trip
No carbon emission problems there then. :lol1: :lotpot:




Britain will get its first chance to see Barack Obama this week when a White House cavalcade - complete with armoured limousines, helicopters, 200 US secret service staff and a six-doctor medical team - sweeps into the UK.

Obama will fly into London for his first visit to the UK as president of the United States on Tuesday to take part in the G20 summit in the capital's Docklands area. He will not be travelling light.

More than 500 officials and staff will accompany the president on his tour this week - along with a mass of high-tech security equipment, including the $300,000 presidential limousine, known as The Beast. Fitted with night-vision camera, reinforced steel plating, tear- gas cannon and oxygen tanks, the vehicle is the ultimate in heavy armoured transport.

In addition, a team from the White House kitchen will travel with the president to prepare his food. As one official put it: "When the president travels, the White House travels with him, right down to the car he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats. America is still the sole superpower and the president must have the ability to handle any crisis, anywhere, any time."

US security teams have already carried out three visits to prepare for Obama's first official visit to Britain. The first was a "site survey", the second a "pre-advance visit" which was carried out to pick sites that the president would visit. Finally there was the "advance trip", which took place last week. Its purpose was to set up equipment, sweep venues for electronic bugs, test food for poison and measure air quality for bacteria.

Obama will start his first presidential visit to Europe when he steps down from the US presidential jet, Air Force One, at Stansted airport on Tuesday. The Boeing 747-200B is fitted with its own gym, electronic defence units and shielding to protect its complex communication devices from radiation from nuclear blasts. Among the officials on the flight will be a military officer carrying America's nuclear missile launch codes.

Obama will then be flown to central London in a VH-3D helicopter known as Marine One. Again, high-tech security will dominate his journey. Marine One is fitted with flares that can be fired to confuse heat-seeking missiles and always flies in groups containing several identical decoy helicopters.

While in town, the president will be guarded by more than 200 US secret servicemen - easily identifiable by their shirt-cuff radios and Ray-Ban sunglasses. Obama has already had some time to get used their attention. It was decided 18 months ago, when he was still a presidential candidate, that his African-American background put him at particular risk of an assassination attempt and he was provided with his security guards.

And should anything befall the President, a White House medical unit will be at hand to provide emergency care. The team consists of surgeons, nurses and other medical personnel and carries supplies of blood of the type AB, the president's blood group. At the same time, Obama will be constantly minded by his personal aide Reggie Love, who dials his BlackBerry, fetches his jacket and tie and supplies him with snacks. First Lady Michelle Obama will also have a coterie of assistants, including a secretary, a press officer and several bodyguards.

It is a striking presence and shows that, for the next few days, London, not Washington, will be the beating heart of American foreign policy. At the end of the week Obama and his massive retinue will head off for meetings in France, Germany and the Czech Republic, although not before he has indulged in an unprecedented whirlwind of diplomatic activity - he and his advisers will not just be involved in complex summit negotiations, but will also be camped out in London conducting a series of individual high-level mini-summits with the most powerful leaders in the world.

Indeed, despite all the heat and fury over this week's G20, the most important work might actually emerge from the meetings that Obama and his team have scheduled on the side, far away from the debate over the economic crisis. In effect, if the G20 were a party with a guest list, then Obama's series of mini-summits would be a VIP room; open only to a select few powerful players and conducted firmly behind closed doors.

The schedule is hectic and the subjects are weighty. On Wednesday, Obama will hold his first bilateral talks with President Hu Jintao of China. The meeting of America's first black president at a time of almost unprecedented economic crisis with the leader of the world's foremost rising power is historic. It comes at a time when China has been asserting its international role and taking on the US by talking of replacing the dollar as the main international currency and having a recent naval showdown with a US spy ship in the South China Sea. On the same day, Obama will also meet Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev, again in the first face-to-face talks between the two. Subjects up for discussion will include ways to co-operate to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions and debate over plans for a US missile shield that Russia views as a hostile act.

But that will be just the beginning. On Thursday, Obama will hold his first personal meeting with India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh. Their discussions will be crucial, given the fact that the explosive situation in India's neighbour, Pakistan, is the most pressing foreign policy concern of Obama's administration. Then, just to add another massively complex problem to an already exhaustive list, Obama will hold bilateral talks with the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak. That chat comes against the backdrop of an increasingly erratic North Korea, which is threatening to attack the South and is moving to launch a long-range missile which Japan has said it might try to shoot down. "He does have a huge amount of challenges to try to tackle," said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former aide in the Clinton White House.

That is putting it mildly. But Obama is far from alone in dealing with his intense schedule. At his London "diplomatic base camp" will be an array of the best and the brightest from his new administration. Chief among them will be former rival Hillary Clinton, now secretary of state and the public face of American diplomacy. His famously combative chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, will also be travelling to London on Air Force One. Obama's economic team includes Larry Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

The reasoning behind Obama's sudden flurry of international diplomacy is complex and only partly explained by the number of thorny problems in need of attention. In fact, Obama is cramming so much diplomacy into such a short time because so far his concerns have all been domestic. "Even when his attention has to be focused on foreign policy, his mind is still bound to be on the thing that really matters: the American economy," said Haas. Indeed Obama has been so consumed by efforts to stop and then solve America's domestic woes that the White House has barely had time to put its mind to international affairs. The London meetings offer a rare opportunity to do just that in a highly compressed time frame. "This is his time to make his pitch to world leaders," said Christian Weller, a senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress.

It also offers a brief break from dealing with domestic woes, where Obama's popularity has been slipping slightly in the face of the scandal over AIG bonuses and political splits over his huge proposed budget. Holding high-powered meetings with world leaders will allow Obama to remind Americans how much the rest of the world still admires him. It will also be good for the leaders who meet him as they play to domestic audiences. "Personally, I think every one of those leaders wants to sit down and get a photo opportunity with Obama," said Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "The mere fact that he is the new president has still got something special about it abroad."
The entourage

Apart from the 200 secret service personnel who will follow Obama on his European tour, the president's entourage will also include representatives of the White House Military Office, the White House Transportation Agency, the White House Medical Unit, the Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron, the State Department Presidential Travel Support Service, the US Information Agency, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service and the Customs Service.

In addition, there will be staff from the White House kitchen ready to turn out a quick burger should the president suddenly feel peckish.

Michelle Obama will have eight of her own staff, including a secretary, a press officer and bodyguards. And Obama's personal aide Reggie Love - called by the president "the kid brother I never had" - will be at hand to provide pens, Nicorette gum, throat lozenges, tea or even aspirins.
The Beast


With its armour-plated body and doors, a raised roof, and reinforced steel and aluminium, The Beast will be Obama's official car. It boasts a titanium and ceramic superstructure and a sealed interior forming a "panic room" capable of shielding him from even a chemical weapons attack. Equipped with a night-vision camera and an armoured petrol tank filled with foam to prevent explosion should it suffer a direct hit, it also has pump-action shotguns, tear-gas cannon, oxygen tanks and bottles of the president's blood. Its tyres allow it to keep driving even if they have been punctured.
Marine One

Obama will be ferried from Stansted to the US ambassador's residence in Regent's Park, London, in a VH-3D helicopter. For security reasons, helicopters are now preferred to motorcades, which are also dearer and more difficult to organise. Much of the current fleet of 19 presidential helicopters was built in the 1970s and after 11 September 2001, when it was decided faster and safer helicopters were needed. But last month Obama said his current presidential helicopter was "perfectly adequate", a clear sign he is ready to cancel a multibillion-pound contract to replace it.
Air Force One

Using the most famous air traffic control call sign of any US aircraft, Air Force One, the president will arrive in his customised Boeing 747-200B series aircraft.

Beyond its armoured glass in all windows, Obama will have dined in the presidential suite and could even have worked out in his personal gym and taken a shower.

The aircraft has been designed with security as its priority and is equipped with armour-plated wings capable of withstanding a nuclear blast from the ground, flares to confuse enemy missiles and electric defence systems able to jam enemy radar. Mirror-ball technology in the wings is able to scramble infra-red guidance systems. More than 200 miles of wiring are specially shielded from electromagnetic interference caused by a nuclear attack.

Should the president feel the need to retaliate offensively, Obama is able to launch a nuclear strike while flying. The aircraft, among the most photographed in the world, has 85 telephones, 19 televisions, computer suites and faxes to ensure Obama stays in touch with the outside world. At the rear of the aircraft is Obama's travelling press corps.
Secret Service

More than 200 Secret Service staff will protect the president during the trip, instantly recognisable by their dark business suits, sunglasses and communication earpieces.

John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush were attacked while appearing in public. Kennedy was killed and Reagan seriously injured, while Bush survived when a hand grenade thrown towards his podium failed to detonate.

Secret Service personnel have made three missions to the UK during which they have swept venues for bugging devices, tested food for contamination and measured air quality for bacteria. Obama was offered bodyguards over a year ago following concern that his African-American roots made him a target.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... sit-uk-g20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mindstorm »

Pragmatist wrote:
OBAMA'S MOST PERILOUS LEGAL PICK

Last updated: 2:59 am
March 30, 2009
Posted: 1:23 am
March 30, 2009

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/po ... 161961.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's going from bad to worse. This article from 6 months ago.

Obama Supreme Court Candidate Harold Koh
As this article by Neil Lewis of the New York Times reflects, Yale law school dean Harold Koh is widely regarded as a leading contender for a Supreme Court appointment if Barack Obama becomes president.What sort of a justice would Harold Koh be?

Let’s begin with Koh’s status as one of the leading proponents of transnationalism, and specifically of judicial transnationalism. Here’s how Koh explains judicial transnationalism:
[T]he Supreme Court has now divided into transnationalist and nationalist factions, which hold sharply divergent attitudes toward transnational law. The transnationalist faction—which includes Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and at times, Justice Kennedy—tends to follow an approach suggested by Justice Blackmun in the late 1980s: that U.S. courts must look beyond national interest to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and must “consider if there is a course that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.” In contrast, another group of Justices, which includes the new Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, seems committed to a more nationalist course.

Generally speaking, the transnationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy. The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law; while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law. The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law. The transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system. Finally, the transnationalists urge that the power of the executive branch should be constrained by judicial review and the concept of international comity, while the nationalists tend to believe that federal courts should give extraordinarily broad deference to executive power in foreign affairs...

With Justices Roberts and Alito now seemingly poised to join the nationalist camp, the transnationalist-nationalist split increasingly hinges on Justice Kennedy's pivotal vote, with the next Supreme Court appointment after Justice Alito most likely to determine the Court's future course on these issues.
(Koh, Why Transnational Law Matters, 24 Penn St. Int’l L. Rev. 745, 749-750 (2006) (emphasis added; footnote calls deleted).)

The reality of Koh’s transnationalism is even worse than this passage reveals. Koh believes that it is “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in light of foreign and international law” in “at least three situations”: (1) “when American legal rules seem to parallel those of other nations”; (2) when (quoting Breyer) “‘foreign courts have applied standards roughly comparable to our own constitutional standards in roughly comparable circumstances’” and we can draw “empirical light” from their experience; and (3) “when a U.S. constitutional concept, by its own terms, implicitly refers to a community standard”. (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int’l. L. 43, 45-46 (2004) (emphasis added).)

more ...

Transnational Progressive Nominated as Legal Advisor for State

John Fonte
March 24, 2009
The Transnational Progressive assault on the sovereignty of the American liberal democratic nation-state has just kicked into high gear with the nomination by the Obama administration of Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the Legal Advisor to the U.S. State Department. Dean Koh wants to “trigger a transnational legal process” that will “generate legal interpretations that in turn can be internalized into domestic law.” Put simply, he favors opening a transnational legal space beyond the Constitution and the democratic decision-making process of our liberal democracy. My comments on Koh’s theories below are excerpted from my Bradley Symposium essay of June 2008, “Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation State: What is the Best Regime?
Harold Koh, the dean of Yale University Law School, served as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor during the Clinton Administration. In a detailed article in the Stanford Law Review responding to the Bush foreign policy, Koh articulates the central viewpoint of the American governing left.

more...


Re: Transnational Progressive Nominated as Legal Advisor for State

Andy McCarthy
March 24, 2009
To add to the sage observations of my friends John Fonte and Ed Whelan, I offer this from Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny (I think we're going to be saying that a lot):
Thomas Jefferson, in an 1803 letter to Senator Wilson Cary Nicholas of Virginia respecting the Louisiana Purchase, explained:
Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & deliniates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution....
This will be the battle ahead. Those John has brilliantly coined the transnational-progressives will attempt to impose unconstitutional, sovereignty-sapping arrangements by treaty and other international agreements. It will be up to the Republicans to block ratification by mustering 34 no votes. But an important bedrock principle must be: The Constitution cannot be changed by a treaty. A treaty is only "the supreme law of the land" in the same sense that a statute is, meaning: If it violates the Constitution, it is invalid.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

OBAMA the LIAR Messiah a COMMUNIST???? I was going to attach a copy of one of Obamas Political writing but it seems to have been DELETED from the web, HOW STRANGE :lol1: :lotpot:

A Communist??? What is this, 1953? Are we the Un-American Activities Committee? First he was a Muslim, now he’s a Communist? I know, I know, but please, bear with me…

I just naturally tend toward extremes, so I deliberately temper myself when I see something that strikes me as alarming. Consequently, I didn’t say a word when Hot Air posted the picture from a Fox News broadcast that showed one of Barack Obama’s campaign offices with a Cuban flag on the wall, with a stenciled image of revolutionary murderer Che` Guevara on it. Remember this?

I just figured that office would be getting a call from the Mother Ship sometime soon. Not that Obama would be all that irritated by it, but I didn’t figure it meant much besides some hard lefties were working for Obama.

I also pretty much ignored it when Politico reported that Obama had sat down with 60s radicals Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers in a local Chicago political meeting. Those are two very scary, unrepentant terrorists, but it was 1995, he met with them once, they actually had clout in the neighborhood (both teach at the University of Chicago now), and I figured there was not going to be any serious fallout to the Obama campaign. Yes, if it had been McCain and Rev. Bob Jones it would have been front-page news on the Times for 3 days at least, but the press flacks for the Democrats, we all know it, and that’s that.

Then, I noticed this addition from Hot Air. See-Dubya there received links from readers: one showing a conference in 2002, where Obama and Ayers spoke together as two members on a panel discussing “Intellectuals in a Time of Crisis,” the other showing Obama joining the Weatherman duo giving testimonials for Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hating Columbia professor, in 2005. And Craig Kincaid at Accuracy In Media reports that Obama and Ayers both serve on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Showing up on the same panels a few times doesn’t make Obama and the Weathermen friends or associates, though the Woods Fund contact suggests they’re at least acquaintances. Sitting on the same panels does, however, suggest that Obama thinks like those two on more than one issue, which is why their paths are crossing. (I suppose it’s not theoretically impossible that Obama was called to balance other views, but balance isn’t often among the stated values of gatherings that invite ex-Weathermen, so I regard this as unlikely.)

I detest two, contradictory things: sleaze attacks and dishonest politicians. They’re contradictory because you have to read and study sleaze attacks to find dishonest politicians. When I receive a report of some background dishonesty, I research it, and if it’s false (most of them are), I get angry and write nasty letters back to the source. I’ve rejected several baleful mailings about Obama’s past that were manifestly sleazy, not to mention provably false.

But in the light of the incidents above, I’m now paying closer attention to a several articles I’ve run across, which appear to be both accurate and relevant:

Lisa Schiffren at National Review discusses the phenomenon of “red diaper babies” (that is, 60s children of Communist activists,) and the likelihood that Barack Obama is one of them. She does not make the case, she just describes the phenomenon: communist activists in the late 50s and early 60s choosing to marry cross-race as an attack on bourgeois society. It’s not implausible, as Barack’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a radical activist at the University of Hawaii, having been stimulated in high school by two teachers who were reputed to have been Communists (the students referred to the hallway between their rooms as “anarchist ally”), and by a Unitarian church that sported liberal theology. See these two snippets from Tim Jones of the Chicago Tribune (here and here), that dance around the question, calling Dunham a “free thinker” and the two teachers that influenced her “members on the staff that encouraged us to think about a lot of things.” This article from the same author fills in detail, pegging the teachers as radical for the times, although by modern standards they seem like run-of-the-mill leftists.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media describes an important mentor of Obama’s teenage years, who was a well-known Communist poet. Obama, in his book Dreams From My Father, writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Frank Marshall Davis, identified as a member of the CPUSA by the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, appears to have mentored young Barry from 1971 - 1979, when he left Hawaii for college. Davis’ biographer D. Kathryn Takara cites Davis’ “acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and how he held forth on American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. Professor Gerald Horne, contributing editor to the Marxist publication Political Affairs, muses about how future generations will note the significance of the relationship between Davis and Obama.

I’m particularly interested in Obama’s period of community activism in Chicago in the 1980s. His employer was the Gamaliel Foundation. Gamaliel, an activist organization strangely merging the teachings of Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky with those of the Apostle Paul, operates with that same sense of religious destiny that we’ve noticed in both Barack and Michelle Obama’s speeches. Alinsky counseled tapping anger as a motivator for radical change; Gamaliel’s Greg Golluzzo notes Obama’s energy in applying this tactic:

Barack was in the community… talking to the people, sensing their passion, their anger and he wanted to create an opportunity for them to express that anger and resolve the problem.”

Ryan Lizza in The New Republic, cites another of Obama’s mentors, radical organizer Mike Kruglic, admiring Obama’s skill at this sort of manipulation:

He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

Kincaid also discusses Obama’s ties with international Socialist organizations. While Obama is not a member of any of these, he accepts the backing of Democratic Socialists of America and backs initiatives championed by Socialist International. These contacts, along with those of the Party of European Socialists, lurk behind the Democratic party’s eagerness to make the United States “become good citizens of the world community.” Invariably this means for the US to cooperate with neo-Marxist initiatives as put forward in the UN. This explains Obama’s sponsoring of the Global Poverty Act, which, based on the UN’s Millennium Declaration, forces the US to commit .7% of its GNP toward foreign aid. (The US, alone among the world’s nations, may already come close to this through private charity, a phenomenon ignored by the UN’s radicals.) This will likely do for the world’s poor what Johnson’s War on Poverty did for the poor of the US — enslave them to the dole, enrich the bureaucrats who administer the programs, and waste an unimaginable amount of money, making the problem worse while driving taxation through the roof.

Where does this leave us? If all the facts cited here are accurate, here’s the complete picture:

Barack Obama was born of Communist activists, mentored by Communist writer and activist, spent his college days hanging around radical activists (this from Obama’s own book), worked as a radical community organizer learning the radical tactics of Alinsky, kept contact with radicals through the years, and today lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists, and has radicals working on for his campaign. Oh, and he believes opposition to the aims of radical activists will fail because the radicals embody the will of God. Mmm wonder WHICH God my money is on allah.

I’m beginning to wonder whether simply pointing to the National Journal’s assessment of Obama’s voting record as the most liberal in the US Senate is strong enough. It appears to me that Mr. Obama embodies the fondest dreams of radical socialist organizers over the years — that someday, a candidate with enough broad, personal appeal would rise to lead the United States away from its defense of individual liberty, and into whole-hearted support of World Socialism. It’s even plausible — not proved here, certainly, but plausible — that Obama has trained his entire life for this role, and that he’s literally a plant from within the world of radical Marxism to help achieve their goal of world domination by removing the opposition of Marxism’s only effective enemy — the libertarian instincts of the United States.

http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=215" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
User avatar
Mindstorm
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:54 pm

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Mindstorm »

@ Pragmatist

Watch your back, Pragmatist. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are in play. First piggy, then ... I'm just saying. :whistling: :prop:
User avatar
Psycho Bunny
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:47 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Psycho Bunny »

Mindstorm wrote:@ Pragmatist

Watch your back, Pragmatist. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are in play. First piggy, then ... I'm just saying. :whistling: :prop:

Too true, too true.

He was warned only a couple of pages back by a Moderator about his use of insults, and then he deliberately adds more insults, plenty more unnecessary large bold letters and ad hominem rantings.

At least he has been warned........
User avatar
Psycho Bunny
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:47 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Psycho Bunny »

Coshida wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Well said!
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

Psycho Bunny wrote:
Coshida wrote:
Pragmatist wrote:Methinks
No, Pragmatist, you don't.
Well said!

And the obsessive Moderator allowed STALK goes on by the Psychotic DEAD SHEEP. Yawwwwwwn
Last edited by Pragmatist on Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Pragmatist
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:20 am

Re: The one and only Obama thread ( continued)

Post by Pragmatist »

More on the Messiah's VERY VERY Dubious associates.




Back in February, I posted a collection of observations about Barack Obama’s upbringing that established a radical influence at every major stage of his early life, right up through his early work as a community organizer with the Gamaliel Foundation. However, my observation at the time was that the radical connections went silent about that point.

A handful of articles that appeared over the last few weeks helped me fill in the gap between his earlier organizing activity and his current position as Senator from Illinois, and I’m presenting them here for your consideration.

The first was a discussion by Stanley Kurtz at the National Review that explained Obama’s early association with ACORN, the radical voter organizing group. Obama has been associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — ACORN — since the early 1990s, teaches their leadership training seminar every year on the subject of power, and began his legislative career in the Illinois State House by introducing measures that coincide with ACORN’s core issues, which are a high, state minimum wage (which they call “living wage”), expansion of the welfare rolls, and banking oversight to ensure favorable loans for poor neighborhoods. For this reason, it’s not surprising that Obama staffed his first campaign primarily from ACORN volunteers. Kurtz goes so far as to identify Obama in his early State House career as the “Senator from ACORN.”

A representative of ACORN, Toni Foulks, explains how the relationship got started in her article in the progressive journal, Social Policy:

…ACORN noticed him when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois’ refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act, also known as motor voter… Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.

ACORN goes to great lengths to mask how radical an organization they are, because they receive federal funds for their “non-partisan” voter registration function. However, their own literature marks them as neo-Marxists, attempting to institute progressive social policies by any means necessary, including demonstrations and threats. They had their start in the 1960s as the National Welfare Rights Organization, a hard-left attempt to destroy capitalism and usher in socialism by increasing the size of the welfare rolls to unmanageable proportions. The organization succeeded in expanding welfare dramatically, but the result was only the enslavement of a larger number of people to the government dole and the destruction of the work ethic in large stretches of the black community. Having failed to produce revolution, the organization reformulated itself in its current form and set out to produce radical change by working inside the system, applying a systematic approach to their aims. Sol Stern, in a landmark article in the quarterly publication City Journal in 2003, explains ACORN’s roots and strategy at length. Says Stern:

ACORN’s bedrock assumption remains the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism. “We are the majority, forged from all the minorities,” reads the group’s “People’s Platform,” whose prose Orwell would have derided as pure commissar-speak. “We will continue our fight . . . until we have shared the wealth, until we have won our freedom . . . . We have nothing to show for the work of our hand, the tax of our labor”—claptrap that not only falsifies the relative comfort of the poor in America but that also is a classic example of chutzpah, given ACORN’s origins in a movement that undermined the work ethic of the poor. But never mind—ACORN claims that it “stands virtually alone in its dedication to organizing the poor and powerless.” It organizes them to push for ever more government control of the economy…

…and, of course, nothing in ACORN’s strategy even acknowledges, let alone addresses, the matters of individual responsibility that are the almost universal cause of poverty in America, such things as teenage pregnancy and crime. They focus instead on corporate irresponsibility, as they’re certain that all poverty is the result of oppression by capitalists.

Michelle Malkin has noted the number of times ACORN has been identified with voter fraud schemes, and how they manage to get their intensely partisan efforts funded as “non-partisan” voter drives. This is the organization Barack Obama defended in court, helped train, worked among, and called on to staff his first campaign.

A second article was an essay at Right Wing Nuthouse regarding Obama’s connection to the New Party, a Marxist coalition founded in 1992 to elect hard-left candidates by selecting candidates already on the ballot (usually Democrats) and running them as their own, third-party candidate. They would then add together the ballots from both parties — a tactic called “fusion” and legal in several states until around 1997. The New Party, which identified itself as an attempt to drag the Democratic party as far to the left as possible (a reaction to what they considered the too-centrist policies of President Clinton), had a committee approve a potential candidate’s platform and required candidates to sign a contract to maintain their association with the New Party. Obama apparently sought out the New Party as a tactic to obtain his State House seat in 1996, had his agenda approved by their committee, and signed their contract. Erick at Red State explained the New Party, its tactics, and its association with Obama at great length, after Publius, also at Red State, connected Obama to the New Party in an earlier post.

Erick and Kurtz go to great lengths to observe that these associations do not prove that Obama is, himself, a radical. I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Given the fact of his radical upbringing, radical campus politics, and radical community organizing, his association with ACORN, the New Party, and other elements of the New Left clearly mark him as a radical with politics that satisfy those groups. These are as far left as organizations get in the United States, and Obama has his roots among them. His associations with the Reverend Wright. Father Phleger, and Trinity United Church of Christ, with radicals Ayers, Dohrn, and Khalidi, his wife’s association with radical points of view about race and American exceptionalism, and the near-universal favor all international radical organizations show toward Obama, make sense in the light of his unbroken connection with radicals from the moment he was born until he was nominated for the Senate.

Barack Obama is a hard leftist. I’m convinced. An Obama candidacy and presidency will be limited by what he can accomplish politically, and that means he will not be able to establish full socialism. However, I’m fairly well convinced that that’s what he’d establish if he did not have those limits. The American public should know that they’re being asked to elect the American equivalent of Hugo Chavez to occupy the White House.

http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=396" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does a God create you simply to punish you in Hellfire well PREDESTINATING evil, illogical, sadistic allah DOES.
Post Reply