Race-Motivated Donations Plague Planned Parenthood

By Steven Foley - Opinion

Ok! Right off the bat I have to tell you this is the sickest story I've had the misfortune of researching in a long time. Although it turns my stomach to comment on, I would be remiss not to share it with our readers.

Students at the UCLA based pro-life publication, The Advocate in California taped phone calls in an investigation linking Planed Parenthood and racism.

The results are sickening:

Much more and video below the fold!

CNSNews confirmed the call with Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio and they said this:

Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio confirmed to Cybercast News Service that the telephone conversation with a presumed donor occurred in mid-summer 2007, adding that it was not the policy of Planned Parenthood to accept donations specifically to underwrite abortions among minority women.

But the transcript, audio and video of the call tell a different story!

Here's a transcript of one of the calls made by James O' Keefe, a first-year law student and an advisor for the The Advocate, who made the call posing as a potential donor to Planned Parenthood of Ohio.

Planned Parenthood:"Planned Parenthood Administration, this is Lisa."
O'Keefe:"Hi. I am interested in making a donation today."
Planned Parenthood:"Let me put you through to Tim in our development office."
O'Keefe:"Is there anyone I can speak to now?"
Planned Parenthood:"Me."
O'Keefe: "Who am I speaking with now?"
Planned Parenthood: "My name is Lisa Hutton."
O'Keefe: "Lisa, what is your position?"
Planned Parenthood: "Administrative assistant."
O'Keefe: "When I underwrite an abortion, does that apply to minorities too?"
Planned Parenthood: "If you specifically want to underwrite it for a minority person, you can target it that way. You can specify that that's how you want it spent."
O'Keefe: "Okay, yeah, because there's definitely way too may black people in Ohio. So, I'm just trying to do my part."
Planned Parenthood: "Hmm. Okay, whatever."
O'Keefe: "Blacks especially need abortions too. So, that's what I'm trying to do."
Planned Parenthood: "Well, for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."
O'Keefe:"Great, Thank You."
Planned Parenthood:"Mmmm, hmmm."

Here's the video:

O'Keefe told Cybercast News Service it was his voice on the recording and that the recording has not been doctored. "Nothing was done to change the content," he said. "I think the audio clearly speaks for itself."

O' Keefe explained that part of his motivation for placing the call was to fight the racism he perceives in Planned Parenthood.

"African-Americans today are targeted by the abortion industry and suffer deeply because of it," he said. "Planned Parenthood makes a profit off of their operations. We wanted to reveal their racist past - and the practical racism of their policies today - reflected in their other operations. Planned Parenthood must be held accountable for their actions, both past and present."

This is disturbing on a number of levels but one can't help but be appalled at the racist underpinnings here. As someone who thinks the abortion issue is complex enough without adding this type of hot-button controversy to it, I must say if we're going to have these death shops they must be operated at a level higher than this!

Planned Parenthood can't be permitted to use race as an incentive in which to collect donations, Period!!!


Cross posted from The Minority Report

Mud Fight at the O.K. Corral (or thereabouts)

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Howdy, folks!

We’re sittin’ here in our rockin’ chairs on the front porch thinkin’ about what new surprises them crazy presidential candidates will have for us come first light tomorrow. Word is the Texas state primary is as close as down on a duck, and the war camps of “Calamity” Clinton , “Tenderfoot” Obama, and “Maverick” McCain are in full whoopin gallop (or Gallup , dependin’ on if you’re ridin’ over the left or right side of the ridge). Bettin’ parlors are split as to who can rustle up more dirt on the others, and who has enough verbal buckshot and can cuss louder, longer and downright nastier. So far, Calamity’s hit the bull’s eye with arrow-splittin’ accuracy.

It shouldn’t take a school marm to see that these here primaries have become so durn wild, wooly and lawless that they make Deadwood and Tombstone seem as tame as “Little House on the Prairie.”

Calamity and her sidekick, Billy “depends on what the meaning of is, is” Clinton , uh, Clanton, with their posse are burnin’ the candle at both ends. Their plan: to cut Tenderfoot and Maverick off at the pass to keep them from squattin’ on their spread down the avenue called Pennsylvania . We’re bettin’ anyone a plugged nickel whether they have the firepower to get what they think they’re entitled to, or if they can put a spoke in Tenderfoot’s wheel.

Maverick is an odd stick and the biggest toad in the puddle, and he’s got every right to be. The man was noosed, tarred & feathered. And he proved he’s got a tough hide -- came back stronger and meaner, and maybe a little more spooked than we like, but still someone to ride the river with. When it comes to fightin’ the enemy of this here land, we’d rather have a grizzled veteran than a wet-behind-ears whippersnapper.

Tenderfoot gets a boodle to listen to his bazoo flap but we’re wonderin’ if he ain’t plain buffaloed when push comes to shove. Why he’s between hay and grass standin’ next to Maverick who’s waitin’ for the boy’s ballyhoo to wind up come Super Tuesday. The debate atween Maverick and Tenderfoot will sure ‘nuff test the kid’s ability to stand the gaff. If his knees buckle under the pressure, then Tenderfoot’s just going to have to skedaddle back to Chicagee. Everyone says Maverick’s too old. Mebbe. But for an old cur he’s still got plenty of horsepower in them britches of his to show the shave tail that all that soft solder will get him only as far as he can toss his purty missus, Michelle .

Speakin’ of the missus, we all got to give credit to Calamity. That little lady has packed a wagonload of piss ‘n vinegar in her six-shooters. She ain’t goin’ down easy, you can bet your eyeteeth on that. Scuttlebutt has it she kin fling a mean dish of grits in Billy ’s direction. And speakin’ of Billy , Grandpa says he’s whipped like puddin’ and only wants to get back to some unfinished business in the Lincoln Bedroom. That’s where flannel-mouth did his best work. Thems is Grandpa’s words. Not ours.

For Tenderfoot the chant “Oh-bah-MAH!” is echoing far and wide, across the plains and valleys. He’s seems a nice enough fella – tall, dark and to a manor born. He talks… and talks and talks. We’re still waitin’ for him to take a breath. But he is doin’ a bang-up job on the trail, though Grandma says he’s got about as much sense as a lemon. After listenin’ to Grandma we got to thinkin’, that we’re havin’ serious doubts about a passel of his ideas. They’re what that nice Boston gent, Mitt, calls naïve. For instance, Tenderfoot says he wants to end the war in “Eye-rack” after he’s elected. That’s fine and dandy. But the plain-as-day truth he’s ignoring is, those varmints that attacked and killed so many of our kin back in ‘01 will be sure as shootin’ ridin’ roughshod to damnation in Eye-rack iffin Tenderfoot orders the cavalry home. Grandpa says that’s like pickin’ up and movin’ the chicken coop instead of killin’ the fox.

Meanwhile, Maverick is tryin’ to mend fences with conservatives hopin’ to roust support. The logjam he’s facin’ with us is, we’re a tad skeptical about whether or not he’s “speakin’ with forked tongue”…again. And you’d better hightail it when he doesn’t get his way, ‘cause he’s as ornery as a rattlesnake with a toothache, t hat’s for darn sure.

When is this range war goin’ to end? Not any time soon, pardner. We reckon the high noon stage will be carryin’ even more bitter feudin’. The end of the trail for all this bad blood ain’t nowhere in sight. And it’ll be eight more months a’fore we’ll know if it’s goin’ to be Maverick, Calamity or the Tenderfoot countin’ sheep in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Yes indeedy, summer’s a comin’ and the primaries are already gettin’ hotter than a whorehouse on nickel night.

And y’all thought politickin’ was dull.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/29/mud-fight-at-the-ok-corral-or-thereabouts.html

Equal Treatment Means One Perspective Mr. Steele, Not Two

My eyes just opened wider than when Michelle Obama told the whole truth concerning her lack of pride in America until her husband got white votes in Iowa.

My conservative black friends told me long ago of the taboo subjects in black America. I have seen Clarence Thomas and others attacked over same. John McWhorter outlines them best in his “Losing the Race.” But I have to admit I was shocked tonight, when…

On Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes just now, Michael Steele came to the defense of Black Americans who have worked with the nation’s number one racist “in the field” due to the “black” perspective as opposed to Sean Hannity’s “white” perspective.

Hannity challenged a black liberal democrat on the show to admit what the liberal democrat would think of Hannity if he continued to attend a church that honored David Duke like Obama’s church honors Farrakhan.

America, especially including those that propose to unify said America, lend me your ears: There is no legitimate perspective from which one could do anything but be repulsed by Louis Farrakhan.

This issue is on the order of Holocaust denial. The rise of Obama proves Shelby Steele’s conclusion that white racism is no longer a significant factor in America life, but…

Apparently, given that even republican Michael Steele is willing to give Obama a pass on his Hate America Church/Black nationalist, separatist church and his stuttering 30 sentences vague half ass denunciation of something-Farrakhan, there is a cancer on Black America.

Well, we are about to cut it out. The occasion of Obama’s inevitable nomination makes the long needed operation imminent. And while we operate on blacks, we will finally have that conversation on race that Bill Clinton so craved yet saw within 25 minutes of the convening of the conference that no honest dialogue could be had since any white getting too close to the truth would be deemed a racist.

I thought to myself the other day, who are the top ten known prominent racists in America. Farrakhan came to mind first. Slam dunk number one.

People, the politically correct police are on the beat, and they apparently have already mugged Michael Steele.

Barack Obama is a card carrying member of the cancer. He must not be given a pass.

More importantly, we must use this occasion to force the lid off the pathologies in the Black community, one of which reserves respect for Farrakhan.

This is a deep sickness. A sickness so deep in white and black America that my first dead-tree MSM column with the Charlotte Observer addressed the issue:

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.

That was mu admonition to whites. Well, now Blacks, you can’t use the guilt of whites to hide your cancer now. Barack wants his hand on the button.

Yet, despite the above, Michael Steele’s comments tonight shocked me, and I guess I learned only recently how bad the sickness is from a man that has been a lifelong republican. A black man who was shocked at the level of inferiority shown by a lifelong black woman that wrote a letter to me objecting to my column on The Jena One.

I am not going to reveal either’s identity.

The issue is crystallized by Michael Steele. He was honest. He gives the black nationalist portion of the black community a pass.

I won’t. I wouldn’t have given them a pass even if one that attends such a church for 20 years wasn’t running for the most powerful job on Earth and who pretends to want to unify the nation while he and his children get schooled in the opposite in comfy pews.

I won’t give Obama or anyone that turns a blind eye to racism and hate. Why? Because I hate racism and love humanity, and because I have a special love for Black people, Black Americans. I spent 18 years in the party that egged this bullS**t on. I feel I was an aider and abettor in the destruction of the black family and in this PC pathology that gives Farrakhan, FARRAKHAN DANMMIT!, a pass.

I will not be silent.

I called out white racists and those that stayed silent in the 70’s, and I am calling out the black racists and those that turn a blind eye now.

Michael Steele, you insulted black people tonight, suggesting that the history of blacks has created a different perspective from which to view the relationship of Black America with Farrakhan.

I am reminded of the different perspective of plantation owners on the issue of slavery.

The perspective of the GOP was founded on the moral bankruptcy of the latter, and it stands now on the moral bankruptcy for the substitution of Farrakhan for Simon LeGree.

Simply put: Obama’s 20 year attendance at his church disqualifies him to President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=3&oref=slo…

Period.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

Obama: Hoping Away Reality

by Lee Culpepper

When the competitive edge begins to dull, successful organizations and individuals often regroup and reevaluate their methods. In sports, when a gifted-new talent contributes extensively to upsetting a dominant team, a wise coach frequently refocuses his athletes on the fundamentals of the game.

Practicing the basics requires self-discipline, hard work, and modesty – particularly for anyone who has tasted success or accomplished lofty goals. Discipline, work ethic, and fundamentals are what separate dynasties from novelties.

Shooting stars are often gifted, as well as timely. They unveil spectacular talent, dazzle fans, and savor the limelight. More often than not, though, over-night sensations are nothing more than the latest fad. Such superstars habitually fall to competitors who remain focused and committed to solid fundamentals.

Though fads rarely possess enduring value, they naturally capture the imaginations of immature, shallow, and fickle people. They also fizzle swiftly the moment the next craze ignites.

Barak Hussein Obama is the epitome of this phenomenon. Obama represents the romantics who wish to dream away reality.

Obama is a gifted speaker. But what will he call upon when his big government theories encounter the real world and begin to crumble? His superb speaking skills dangerously conceal his most sobering weakness – his void of proven substance.

Talent becomes a liability when one depends on it and neglects a solid foundation in the basics. And Obama’s adroit oration will never compensate for his disregarding America’s fundamental principles.

Contrary to Obama’s soothing message, America was not built on the audacity of wishful thinking or pleasant-sounding rhetoric. America was built on valuing the sanctity of human life, individual freedom, limited government, lawful order, and supreme justice.

Nevertheless, Obama continues beguiling star-struck fans with abstract references to hope and change. But do Obama supporters hope that Islamic terrorists will also swoon when Obama levels his smooth and intangible words at them? What happens when the Muslim sociopaths don’t faint? Do we blame Obama’s followers for not having enough audacity in their hope?

Seriously, Obama’s eloquent words are in fact “just words.” His mantra has no concrete substance. If he ever clarifies the murkiness of his enchanted language, we all would likely faint at the deftness of Obama’s verbal irony.

Obama’s hypnotic message reeks of hopelessness -- not hope. He promises change, but what he means is that he has no faith in Americans’ ingenuity. Obama believes his government programs -- not America’s principles of freedom and self-reliance -- will come to our rescue.

Sadly, Obama ignores why so many Americans came to this great country. They were eager to escape the trademark despair that Obama’s disarming melody is threatening to impose. Many hard-working Americans once fled countries that suffered under governments that inflicted the same oppressive brand of misery that Obama conceals in his silver-tongued proclamations.

Consider the Cuban Americans who escaped Fidel Castro’s charismatic rhetoric regarding “socialist hope.” Obviously, facts about socialism don’t matter to many on the Left. Plenty of liberals are passionate about tagging Castro a hero simply for defying America. But what does that mean – “defying America”? It’s almost as vague as Obama’s repetitive chorus about hope and change.

Despite reality, Obama continues peddling government programs while trying to hope away authentic consequences to his brand of “wishful thinking.” Not surprisingly, the Left adores Obama similarly to how it adores Fidel Castro. To the Left, Castro provided “excellent” government healthcare to Cuban citizens. But only foolish and spoiled liberals -- who do not have their government dictating what medical care they do or do not need -- believe such nonsense. Try selling Obama’s wishful thinking to Cubans and everyone else who have actually endured the anguish distributed by socialist idealism.

Americans are indeed frustrated. But frustration often leads to desperation. Desperation can lead to poor judgment, and poor judgment almost always leads to bad results. Accordingly, Barak Hussein Obama is posing a serious threat of becoming the next President of the United States.

Right now, America needs a leader -- not a politician with slick rhetoric, a debonair appearance, and wishful thinking. We need a leader who understands the edge that made hard-working Americans and this great country successful. We need a leader capable of refocusing all of us on the fundamental principles of life, liberty, independence, and limited government.

Let’s all return to the real world where the Left’s latest rock-star is just a swanky politician elegantly singing monotonous lyrics.

Lee Culpepper is a former Marine and high school English teacher. Read Lee's previous article, "It's All About the Vice President Now" at www.leeculpepper.com.

The First Black President

Opinion

by David Hinz


I remember the Watts Riots in 1965. I remember the Detroit and Newark riots in 1967. We all watched the riots outside the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago of that year. The country was in flames as racial tensions "Burned, Baby Burn."

We have come a long way in this country since that time, but the Presidential election of 2008 will be the election that sets back race relations in this country by 40 years. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election; regardless of who wins or who loses, we are destined to experience racial strife as a result. Let me explain the reason.

the Date today is Feb 27, 2008. There is still more than eight months until Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday, November 4th, and Democrats cast their votes on Wednesday, November 5th**, to select a new President of the United States. A lot can change on the political landscape between now and then, but at this time -- we are looking at President Barak Obama being sworn in on January 21, 2009 as the 44th President of the United States of America.

I would place the odds right now at:

Barak Obama 80%
John McCain 15%
Hillary Clinton 5%

HILLARY CLINTON

I will begin with the least likely Presidential sweepstakes winner, Hillary Clinton. At this time, Obama has a lead in delegates, momentum and Charisma. With two important primaries coming up in Ohio and Texas less than a week away, Hillary would need a huge victory in both to be able to claim any legitimacy at all. While she would likely still trail Obama in delegates, wins in those two states could allow here to twist the arms of "Superdelegates."

Regardless of what happens next Tuesday, she cannot win the Democrat nomination without the help of the Superdelegates. She will also likely have to fight for the seating of the controversial delegates from Michigan and Florida. Any attempt on her part to seat those two delegations will be viewed by Obama supporters as an attempt to steal the nomination.

If Hillary does find a way to take the Democrat nomination from Obama, there will very likely be demonstrations or even riots at the convention. If she steal the nomination from Obama it will be clear to black America that we are a racist country, and will simply not elect a black man as president. A significant number of black voters are likely to feel disenfranchised and will stay home in November. Black voters do not need to defect to the Republican Party to sink the hopes of Hillary to win the presidency. If 10-20% merely stay home -- she loses, and loses big.

On the other hand, if she is somehow able to rally women in greater numbers, and to pull Hispanics to here candidacy in great enough numbers to overcome the loss of the black voting block, she could prevail. I find this scenario very unlikely, however, which is why I put her chances at only 5%.

JOHN McCAIN

Barring a major blockbuster scandal between now and the Republican Convention, John McCain will be the Republican standard bearer in November. While he has alienated the conservative base over the past eight years, when faced in November with either of the two Socialist candidates left standing in the Democrat Party contest, the base will rally around McCain. This is already beginning to happen -- despite the candidate's sometimes ham-handed approach toward conservatives.

Should his opposition be Hillary, he will be a clear winner. Should his opponent be Obama, he is almost sure to lose. There could not be a more stark contrast than that between McCain and Obama. McCain, with his ancient tortured body (tortured literally, not figuratively by America's enemies), is the epitome of the grizzled warrior. Obama, with his youth and charisma, the new turk.

Unfortunately for McCain, he is a grizzled warrior of a war that America would prefer to forget. He is a grim reminder of the past -- a past in which our nation was humbled by a group of savage insurgents. Over 58,000 US Military died in Vietnam, a war that, we are told, we lost. America would like to forget, as well, the millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians who died as a result of our retreat.

McCain reminds too many Americans that Americans are dying every week in Iraq -- another war, they have been told ad nauseum, that America cannot win. While uncomfortable with the thought of another retreat in failure, and preferring to ignore the possibilities of massacres that would follow, the public has been given cover by the Democrat claims of "Bush Lied." Armed with this falsehood, it becomes almost noble to cut and run, regardless of the outcome.

I would like to believe that the American people will see through the Cotton Candy Candidate, but at this point, he looks unbeatable. If, somehow, McCain beats Obama in the general election, it will be exceedingly close; and we can be sure that the exit polls will be examined to death, with the conclusion being, that America is racist, and simply refuses to elect a black man.

Barak Obama

Clearly, at this time, Obama is on the fast track to the presidency. He speaks of Hope and Change, and women swoon at his feet. Democrats, so eager to recapture the White House that they would even elect Hillary if necessary, find in Obama, a charismatic figure that they can even like. The fact that he is a mile wide and less than an inch deep, means nothing at all. They believe he can win -- and so, his beliefs and principles are meaningless. He need not make sense. He has no need of qualifications. He has HOPE! He wants CHANGE!

In the presidential campaign, John McCain will not be able to lay a hand on the man. If he points out Obama's lack of experience -- he is being a racist. If he points out Obama's Socialist agenda -- he is being a racist. Republican attack ads will be labeled as racist. And Obama will be swept to victory in November.

He will have a Democrat Congress, and he will be free to pursue his agenda for America. He will destroy the American economy, and will never be called to task for it -- because to criticize the first black President will be clear evidence of racism. Republicans in Congress will roll over. Democrats in Congress will push for more and more government -- and the American people, will suffer through the worst recession since the great depression -- because none of the Democrats have answers that will work.

The president, as he usually is, will be blamed for the terrible economy. But this time, it will be different. Poor blacks, usually the hardest hit in a bad economy, will feel the need to defend the president. Many will see attacks on Obama as an attack on "the first black president." Racial tension will rise, as more and more whites become frustrated by the inability to publicly criticize a failed president, because of accusations of racism.

Sadly, the country IS ready for a [fill in the blank] president. The RIGHT woman would win and do a fine job of running the country. A Maggie Thatcher comes to mind. Hillary does not.

The RIGHT black would be a fine president. Names like Steele, Blackwell and Watts come immediately to mind.

Unfortunately, only the wrong candidates are applying for the spot this year, and as a result, we can expect to see race relations set back for decades.








**Every election the Democrats accuse us of trying this tactic to suppress the Democrat vote, so "What the heck?" It's worth a try.

"St. Obama" - Is Canonization Next?

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Could it be that Barack Hussein Obama will soon become the patron saint of the Left, or is admiration of this gifted orator being viewed through the broken prism of a disillusioned citizenry?

After his awe-inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the air was charged with hope like thousands of Fourth of July sparklers, and that hope was felt by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Everyone’s thoughts were festooned with unbridled delight, as if we were witnessing a latter day William Jennings Bryan.

“Wish he was a Republican” had become an oft-repeated water cooler comment amongst fellow conservatives. There was suddenly this gift, this glimmer of optimism that had crossed party lines, but just as quickly it went flat like yesterday’s champagne. Four years later, his bubbly personality is still being swallowed by Democrats, and in ever-increasing amounts, much like a Jim Jones cocktail. For Republicans, however, the champagne is still flat, his messages are a mouthful but indigestible, and the chinks in his rhetoric are becoming as evident as the ruts in a muddy road – and with it the sound…of an Obamump, bump, bump, bump, bump.

As each day folds into the next, hysteria continues to balloon for Obama as he sweeps the nation’s primaries, a hysteria the likes of which these writers have not seen in our lifetime – except for the Beatles’ arrival at JFK. Which brings to mind the closest political comparison — John F. Kennedy, lately tossed into the party mix by none other than his daughter, Caroline Kennedy. She stirs the crowd but doesn’t shake the cocktail. Leave it to Uncle Ted to jump in and mix things up. If John F. Kennedy were alive today, he would look like a far right wingnut compared to B. Hussein Obama.

Our foremost fear is that an Obama administration will signal an unwelcome invitation to our enemies, just like those “Kick Me” signs children stick on each other’s backs. While a President Obama wastes his charm trying to placate an implacable enemy, liberals and Democrats will still be uncorking their magnums. Why? Because dim-witted followers (the way Kansas cattle were driven across the plains to market and the slaughterhouse) were so frantic for change that they had actually put every cent of their faith into the goldmine Obama sold them, sight unseen.

We have to admit, Barack Obama is one heck of a ”Willy Loman.” But there is no snake oil here or shattered emotions, or the unctuousness usually associated with an unwelcome sales pitch. We do, however, see The “Power Within” Obama Seminar in his future.

Conservatives are becoming increasingly concerned with his unabated, and quite frankly, unexplainable victories. This insane rush to endorse Obama reminds us of when the purchase price for houses hit the ceiling but average Americans were persuaded by smooth-talking real estate brokers into believing they could handle zero down and a mortgage. And what has been the outcome of the trust invested in all that “you can afford it” double-speak? Foreclosures and evictions have hit a staggering historical high.

Insofar as the war on terror is concerned (the highest priority on the table), the messages Obama has delivered have been mixed, contradictory and unenlightened. His out-of-the box accusation of “unilateral” damage caused by President Bush was more dumb than outrageous. Had his advisors (which is what advisors are for) first briefed him on the actual successes in the Middle East as plainly written in a piece by Amir Taheri (who is inside the box) for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Islam at the Ballot Box,” Obama would not have made such a disgraceful accusation against our Commander in Chief.

In the political ring, hubris is a word that has been as overused as an old English plow horse – but we’re going to get another forty acres out of it here.

And then there is the matter of Iraq. On the one hand, he said that, if elected President, he intends to end the war and bring the troops home within sixty days of taking the oath. On the other hand, however, he stated he would fill his Cabinet with the best advisors available, and if they counsel him that such a troop withdrawal would be impracticable he would not issue the order. I will, but then I won’t. Suddenly, support from John Kerry makes more sense.

Obama should know – or someone, at least, should jog his memory – that America was drawn into the ugliness of this war on terror, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Bringing the troops home will not end the madness. Terror will continue to rage, and very likely with even more intensity should our military be pulled out. Jihadists would enjoy nothing more than to arrange America’s funeral the moment they hear our warriors are packing up their bombs and going home.

The very nature of Obama’s tone reveals that he genuinely believes he knows everything necessary to lead this nation. But he is dangerously close to becoming the proverbial legend in his own [political] mind. Regardless, he basks in the warmth, or rather, the over-heated yearnings of his followers who hear but are not listening, who see but are blind to the fact that his platform will outspend the current administration and grow dependence on a government that may well become irrelevant if the enemy has its way.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/25/st-obama-is-canonization-next.html

The Obamas and Osama were taught to hate America

I see no evidence that either Obama hates America, but I was only mildly surprised to hear the Democratic Party’s nominee for First Lady say that she had never been proud of her country before her husband’s recent electoral success in his campaign for the presidency.

Since the McGovernite takeover of the world’s oldest party in 1972, and especially since 9/11, most leaders of the party say and do for free what America’s enemies would gladly pay them to say and do.

The madrassa educated Osama bin Laden regularly quotes prominent Democrats in biennial missives from his cave echoing his grievances against the America the infidel as justification for the terrorist war being waged against the United States. Iran’s mullahs and their front man president as well as Saddam Hussein’s former lawyers have regularly quoted elected Democrats in recent years to justify their hatred of The Great Satan as well as, Israel, the Little Satan.

Michelle Obama, like her husband, were “educated” at madrassa-like (sans any belief in God) Ivy League blame America first institutions to be ashamed of America. Millions of Blacks and Whites are victims of the 1960’s born academic, mainstream media and Hollywood Fifth column in this country that has robbed them of their individuality and the joy of the love of one’s country by projecting their own racism onto the GOP and most whites.

Like I said early last year, Barack Obama is an Out of the Mainstream Liberal McGovernite, but the Obamas have suffered a double whammy via the left’s use of “Black Power” to thwart the power of Martin Luther King’s dream and the objective fact that most American whites now and have for decades embraced that color-blind society dream. The Obamas’ formal education has been reinforced by the black nationalist, Hate America church they have attended for years in Chicago. The pride they exhibit is their grievance ideology fueled “community organizing”, i.e. the democratic party’s vile recruitment method of ginning up hate against America among the less educated denizens of inner cities that heretofore hadn’t thought to blame “The Man” for their lot in life.

Given all that, it would be a miracle if Michelle had been proud of the USA before 2007.

Of course, her gaffe (how the media defines the speaking of vile truths about the Left that they would prefer be kept secret) is now being “explained” as only referring to pride in American “politics”, not America.

Fooey!

How are our “politics” any different in 2008 than in any previous election year, other than that her husband is a candidate? They aren’t. Moreover, her statement is consistent with what she and her husband have said in other contexts, not to mention what they and most liberal dems have not said for most of the past 40 years.

The quotes of American presidents Barack is proud of, that were “borrowed” from Massachusetts governor DuVal Patrick, end in 1968. Michelle says her husband is the only man that can save America’s soul.

The Obamas, like most liberal dems since 1972, very rarely volunteer their pride in America, and especially not the achievements of its military forces abroad. Rather, they speak of the need for us (non-military) to “protect” or “kids” from our own Commander in Chief.

Obama wants to be President so he can hide the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in Yucca Flats so that they are the last killed? Or as they protect them with words?

I left the dem party after 18 years an activist and official in no small part due to the evolution of racism as a cancer on the party, as well as the party’s aggression inviting appeasement and hostility to faith on God. The party treats blacks like disabled children, and their race-based laws since the assassination of MLK, Jr. 40 years ago this coming April 4th, have had the effect of disabling millions, not just Michelle.

I was very disheartened by several black callers into Dennis Prager’s radio show last week, even from conservatives, that said until Obama’s recent successes, they hadn’t felt “all in” as fully patriotic Americans.

Who is responsible for this? The dems would say the much overblown Nixon “southern strategy” in 1968/1972 to woo former dem party racists into the GOP.

For democrats, it’s always 1860, 1929 or 1964 in America if a Republican occupies the White House.

Earth to libs. It is the Year of our Lord 2008.

The blame for blacks not feeling “all in”, lies at the feet of Obama’s party and their leftist masters in the culture whose main message is that no one is all in. We are all members of victimized by whites, groups. Only exceptional personalities could resist 40 years of brainwashing. The ones that do, like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, are vilified as Uncle Tom betrayers of their “race.”

The left is “all in” for the idea that skin pigmentation limits one’s ability to think for oneself, an idea that is anathema to all America stands for.

The GOP needs to get “all in” to denounce the left in no uncertain moral terms. President Bush has done well with his “soft bigotry of low expectations” and appointments of blacks to positions of great power.

But that is not enough, and the real issue is about much more than race. It is about morally and intellectually bankrupt modern day liberalism and its vessel, the Democratic Party.

Achieve King's dream with equal treatment

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King's mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a "conservative epiphany," in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don't remember Daddy's answer to his eldest son's innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew's Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King's dream more of a reality.

When we can re-expose the sins of such liberalism that great majorities were educated on in the 70’s and who saw Reagan’s conservative policies correct, then we will have a chance at having fewer un-proud Obamas in the future so that we can better defeat Osamas.

But even more importantly, my heart aches for the joy too many liberals are missing. America deserves to be loved and it is part of the greatest joy of my life that I was properly educated to realize it, and to live it. I previously described this love libs are missing below:

The maturing of patriotism post-911

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Huck is history in the Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Barack Obama, The New JFK ? - Not Hardly

The Democrats are fast approaching a show down between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. March fourth which brings Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to the Primary table is possibly a make or break situation for Clinton. Obama has the clear momentum though he has yet to garner enough delegates Super or otherwise to insure that Clinton cannot win the nomination.

Obama's popularity has been the subject of many commentaries and discussions. He has taken on the persona of a , "Rock Star, " in liberal politics with thousands standing mesmerized at the Senator from Illinois who talks with the clarity and charisma of another Democrat that he has repeatedly been compared to, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Yet when asked who Obama is, what his qualifications are to be President and pressed about his experience, few Democrat voters can site a single accomplishment from Obama. But the comparison with JFK continue to mount. Many actually refer to Obama as , "this generations JFK."

While they both share a charismatic nature and the ability to mesmerize an audience are there truly any other comparison between the Illinois Senator and the 35th President of The United States ?

Both share a youthful age for Presidential candidates with Kennedy being the younger. Obama is 46 and when JFK was assassinated he was 46. When assuming the Presidency in 1961 Kennedy was 43 years old, the youngest man ever elected President.

Both graduated from Harvard and both served as United States Senators. This is about where the comparisons between JFK and Obama actually end. Taking a look a some of the issues that have common ground now and in the early sixties as well as experience before entering office, Barack Obama is a far cry from John F. Kennedy.

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE - JFK served from 1947 -1953 as a Representative in the House from the 11th Congressional District of Massachusetts. In 1953 he was elected to the Senate and served there until his election as President 1960. So before assuming the Presidency Kennedy had held Federal political office for 13 years.

Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 until 2004 at which time he was elected to the United States Senate after a failed run for the House and has served in that capacity since, after assuming office in January of 2005. So prior to his run for President Obama served seven years in State office and two years at the Federal level.

During his tenure in the House and Senate Kennedy served on numerous Committees and along with his brother Robert Kennedy was a key player in the investigation against organized crime in The United States. Both also were highly involved in legislative initiatives for Civil Rights.

Obama has had a lackluster tenure in his two years in the Senate. He worked with Russ Feingold to eliminate travel gifts by lobbyists. Supported the McCain/Kennedy Amnesty bill and sponsored several amendments to already pending bills.

FOREIGN POLICY - JFK would have been consider a hawk today because of his strong stand against the Soviet Union and especially during the Cuban Missile Crises. Kennedy supported a strong military and an aggressive foreign policy which included strong anti-communism initiatives in the Latin America and a firm stance against the Soviets in Germany after the rise of the Berlin Wall. Kennedy believed in a foreign policy from the stand point of American strength.

Kennedy was against any negotiation with the Castro regime in Cuba and during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crises in which the Soviet Union introduced Nuclear Missiles into Cuba aimed at the United States, Kennedy's steadfast stand on the removal of those missiles caused Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to back down and remove the missiles under United Nations observation. It was later learned that a side deal to remove obsolete US missile from Turkey already scheduled for removal was brokered with the Soviets in turn for a pledge that the US would not invade Cuba.

Barack Obama has already indicated that upon assuming the Presidency he would immediately move to pull our troops out of Iraq regardless of the consequences to both Iraq and the Middle East. Obama has a very obvious anti-military attitude and believes that the best way to handle terrorism is through talking with Islamic Fanatics such a Usama bin Laden. He has also indicated that he would quickly begin talks with Raul Castro the new, "President, " of Cuba a stand that is in direct opposition to US policy that has been in effect since the Kennedy Administration. Obama does not see having a strategic advantage as part of US foreign policy

SANCTITY OF LIFE - JFK was a Catholic and his personal beliefs were against abortion. His one appointment to the Supreme Court opposed Roe vs Wade. Kennedy supported several initiatives while in the Senate and as President to make adoption easier to allow the finding of families for children both born and unborn.Barack Obama voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, supports Roe vs Wade, voted against parents of minors being notified about a daughters pending abortion has a 0% rating with pro - life groups.

TAXES - President Kennedy was the first President to institute a tax cut as a means to spur the economy. He also was pushing for tax reform to simplify the tax code and the way that taxes are filed to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

Barack Obama has indicated that in order to fund his many spending proposals he will raise taxes. While serving in the Senate Obama voted against every measure before the Senate to reduce taxes. He has garnered a 100% rating by the CTJ indicating he favors progressive taxation.

John F. Kennedy understood the necessity of working with both his Democrat Party and members of the GOP. Kennedy even installed several Republicans as members of his cabinet in order to get views from both sides of the political spectrum as he made the hard decisions of his day.

Barack Obama is highly partisan and in fact was rated as the most liberal Senator in the United States Senate for the year 2007.

Kennedy's optimism about our nation was based on Americans working for the betterment of the nation. He said, " Ask NOT what your Country can do for you, ask what you can do for your Country."

Though not saying it our right Obama is saying, " Ask not what you can do for your Country but what your Country can GIVE to you!?

Those who are attempting to use the iconic status of John F. Kennedy within the Democrat Party and also those who respect and admire the 35th President who are not Democrats, as a means of bolstering the candidacy of Barack Obama are barking up the wrong tree.

The differences between JFK and Obama are more numerous than those that have been mentioned in this post. Kennedy while having his well publicized short comings was a far cry from the liberal, anti war, tax and spend Barack Obama.

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

The Late Great United States of America

Opinion

By David Hinz


In order for Democracy, or in the case of the United States of America, a Representative Republic to succeed you need an educated and informed electorate. We can no longer make that claim in this nation. Fifty years of liberal "outcome-based" education have so dumbed down the electorate, as to make issues almost entirely moot -- while elevating appearance over substance. The electorate is no longer interested in substance.

This election, like so many in recent years will not be won in reasoned debate, but by feel-good rhetoric on 30-second soundbites -- cast during American Idol and re-runs of Friends. It will not be won by voters contrasting the stands taken by each candidate on issues affecting the nation, but instead, by the charisma and style with which the candidate delivers his generalizations and platitudes -- saying nothing with the greatest charm.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of outcome-based education, it can be best summed up by the following two quotes. First, from Wikipedia:

Outcome-based education (OBE) is a recurring education reform model. It is a student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance, which are called outcomes. OBE contrasts with traditional education, which primarily focuses on the resources that are available to the student, which are called inputs. Unlike many pedagogical models, such as project-based learning or whole language reading, OBE does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires that students demonstrate that they have learned the required skills and content.

Each independent education agency specifies its own outcomes and its own methods of measuring student achievement according to those outcomes. The results of these measurements can be used for different purposes. For example, one agency may use the information to determine how well the overall education system is performing, and another may use its assessments to determine whether an individual student has learned required material.

According to that Wikipedia article, outcome-based education simply frees up educators from examination from authorities to prove that students have achieved according to specified expectations. Students learn at their own levels, and are graded according to their own expectations. This lowering of individual expectations is what is wrong with the concept, and what has resulted in the dumbing down of education in the United States.

The May 1993 Phyllis Schlafly Report covers this problem well:

OBE advocates continually use double-entendre expressions that parents assume mean one thing but really mean something different in the OBE context. When they talk about "new basics," for example, they are not talking about academics such as reading, writing and arithmetic, but OBE attitudes and outcomes. When they talk about "higher order thinking skills" or "critical thinking," they mean a relativistic process of questioning traditional moral values.

The following statement from OBE literature is typical: "OBE schools are expected to become `success based' rather than `selection oriented' by establishing the instructional management procedures and delivery conditions which enable all students to learn and demonstrate those skills necessary for continued success." OBE salespersons don't tell parents that "success" for all children means "success" in demonstrating only the dumbed-down outcomes that the slowest learners in the class can attain. OBE means "success" in mediocrity rather than excellence.

That report goes on to demonstrate the failures of outcome-based education before, only under another guise:

The best test of an OBE-type system was Chicago's experiment in the 1970s with Professor Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning (ML), which is essentially the same as OBE. ML was a colossal failure and was abandoned in disgrace in 1982. The test scores proved to be appallingly low and the illiteracy rate became a national scandal. Bloom, the father of ML, is well known for his statement that "the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." (All Our Children Learning, page 180.)

Dr. Bill Spady, sociologist and director of the International Center on Outcome-Based Restructuring, defined the connection between OBE and Mastery Learning in an article entitled "On Outcome Based Education: A Conversation with Bill Spady" (Educational Leadership, Dec. 1992-Jan. 1993): "In January of 1980 we convened a meeting of 42 people to form the Network for Outcome-Based Schools. Most of the people who were there — Jim Block, John Champlin — had a strong background in Mastery Learning, since it was what OBE was called at the time. But I pleaded with the group not to use the name `mastery learning' in the network's new name because the word `mastery' had already been destroyed through poor implementation."

So, the people who are pushing for outcome-based education today, know it has been a dismal failure in the past, and yet push for its implementation. Their cowardice in renaming it to cover past failures speaks volumes about their motives.

This stampede away from excellence has resulted in not one, but several generations of voters who cannot name their Congressional Representative, a single Supreme Court Justice, or even the candidate running for president from "the other" party. The vast majority of the American electorate can no longer differentiate between candidates on issues -- they know nothing about the issues. They identify with "Party" knowing only that the Republican Party is the party of the rich and the Democrats are for the little guy. Their vacuous understanding of principles and founding philosophies demonstrates the absolute abdication of education today.

Our dumbed down electorate knows nothing about Kelo v New London, or why it has stripped them of personal freedoms. A kilo to them is a measurement of their favorite recreational drug -- something that affects them on a personal level -- not an infringement on the US Constitution. As long as Surviver has a new and entertaining season, all is well with the world.

The electorate cares nothing about Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform. They have been taught that all politicians are corrupt, and that it is money in politics that causes that corruption -- not to be confused with morality and integrity of the people elected to office -- and so they are fine with that. They understand nothing about the further erosion of the Bill of Rights that foolish Rightwing pundits clamor about when discussing the issue -- if they even hear about the issue at all. If The Daily Show fails to mention it, it will go unnoticed anyway.

It will not be the candidate with the most workable answers who will be elected president in 2008, but the candidate who is packaged in the most attractive wrapper. New and Improved is a Madison Avenue slogan for selling soap, and it has worked for generations in persuading housewives to buy their product.

Unfortunately, the buying public has been so dumbed down that it is unable to differentiate between empty campaign rhetoric and toilet bowl cleanser. This is a pity, because after the next election, we are going to need that toilet bowl cleanser.

BREAKING NEWS: The Senator Was Sleeping With The Lobbyist

By Lord_Vegas


The Hinzsight Report has uncovered an anonymous source which has provided irrefutable evidence that a US Senator with presidential aspirations has been sleeping with a lobbyist who had business before that senator’s committee. Both the senator and the lobbyist are married.

This is a clear ethics violation at the least, and raises serious questions as to whether federal laws have been broken.

As an influential member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Diane Feinstein routinely reviewed and accepted contracts from Perini Corp. and URS Corporation, both owned by Richard C. Blum, a man with whom she was sleeping on a regular basis. While carrying on this personal relationship with Blum, Feinstein was responsible for approving billions of dollars of military construction contracts for the two companies.

It is known that Blum personally profited millions of dollars from those contracts, and Feinstein, under California law, is reported to have shared equally in those profits.

Feinstein has since removed herself from the MILCON subcommittee citing her desire to remove any appearance of impropriety. Critics have noted that her resignation from the committee as, now a moot point, as Blum divested himself of his interests in the military construction company in 2005. He still, on the other hand, retains interest in companies which provide medical care for wounded service members. The quality of that care has been called into question in recent months.

"Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases ? often without the benefit of competitive bidding ? to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch."

Alright, at this point, the observant reader will have noted that this is neither breaking news, an exclusive, nor a recent report. Nor is it news that Senator Diane Feinstein is sleeping with her husband, Richard Blum.

However, the salacious nature of the headline, and the suggestion of impropriety is every bit as valid as the charges leveled at Senator John McCain – if not more so, since the evidence against Senator Feinstein is actually proven, and on the record – and not merely innuendo and unsupported anonymous sources.

Waking Up With the Enemy

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

"Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters.” -Francisco de Goya

The morning news led with the announcement that the New York Times had published an extensive article exposing an alleged dalliance over eight years ago between John McCain and a woman (not his wife) which came as absolutely no surprise to us. We had synchronized our watches in expectation, because it was just a matter of time – the countdown commencing the moment the Times puffed their feathers and handed McCain a grandiose endorsement following the final Republican debate at the Reagan Library. The fact they endorsed the most liberal Republican candidate was also lost on no one save the candidate himself.

With this so-called exposé of Senator McCain and a lobbyist, Sulzberger’s gang – three, two, one – fired away, and right on schedule.

For the unenlightened and non-believers, the New York Times was once the noble powerhouse of responsible journalism – their sheets filled with some of the finest writing ever to grace any newspaper of any country. To wake up every morning and have the New York Times waiting for you on the floor at your door was a thrill. But the thrill is gone as B.B. King says. Like religious zealots, this newspaper is now governed by ceremony and greed: pandering to and supporting the man or the issue, gaining their trust to close the distance between them then stabbing them in the back.

John F. Kennedy was courted by mobsters and it was rumored he kept company with other less-than savory characters, but the New York Times did not turn him into a “made man by association.” In 2008, however, this is neither a ludicrous analogy nor out of the question. The Times has inferred that sensible advice given to the candidate, “ But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity ” enough of a story to pin their assumption of impropriety right after their endorsement.

We very recently wrote an article entitled “ Media Calls Election ” in which we reminded readers how hard line liberal journalists and influential bloggers, from the start of these primaries, have harnessed Americans’ attention towards who they wanted attention paid to. It does not take a university graduate to comprehend which rivers we are being steered down, because, ladies and gentlemen, we are there.

The Times, much like the other major dailies currently on financial life-support, has reduced itself to speculation, hearsay, and innuendo in order to score well-timed points in an effort to control the direction of the 2008 election. While we do not fully support John McCain’s numerous moderate-to-liberal positions on a multitude of issues, the game of politics, most especially Presidential campaigns, was never meant to be usurped, controlled or driven by The Gray Lady. These major dailies have virtually ignored – and this is possibly why they are falling fast like a fiery stone -- the guidelines set down by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, specifically: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Their Times’ editorials have become self-serving nonsense delved out without conscience or reason. They have acquired an unsoundness that supports our enemies. We are a nation in turmoil, and the Times is only adding to the confusion and chaos, such as when they and other media disclosed the Administration’s plan to monitor the financial records of terrorist cells within the United States after our administration pleaded with them not to do it. But then they have made it crystal clear how they feel about “your” President.

Ever hopeful, we wish that the Times, and all other MSM, will reconsider their position when disseminating events of the day in light of the public’s emerging cyber-awareness -- whether about politicians, the war on terror, illegal immigration or widgets. Because one day, and that day will come, we will open our front door and there will be nothing to pick up.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/22/waking-up-with-the-enemy.html

The Real Obama And The United Nations

Barak Obama has garnered his tenth Primary win in a row and is the leader for the Democrat nomination. While Hillary is not out yet because of huge delegates numbers still available from Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania which hold their Primaries on March 4th, she is struggling and the 4th has become a must win situation for the Senator from New York.

Obama has long been the Rock Star in the Democrat Party and with the general weariness of yet another Clinton in the White House, this Senator from Illinois who has no experience at all and has accomplished nothing as a US Senator has caught on like wild fire because he sounds good, has great charisma and calls as friend Oprah Winfrey.

What type of President would he make if, Heaven forbid, he wins the Democrat nomination and defeats John McCain in November ? In 2007 Obama had the most liberal voting record among every Senator even surpassing Hillary by 15 places as she was number 16 on the liberal list to Obama's first place.

He has proposed massive entitlements programs and huge government spending as well as calling for immediate pull out from Iraq and a general surrender to Islamic Terrorism since he beleives that because of his Muslim back ground he would have the capability to talk with these fanatic murderers. Besides this delusion the Senator from Illinois has no clue as to how these finatics think and why they act as they do or he would understand that killing them first is the ONLY answer.

A vote that is taking place in the Senate on Thursday of this week gives key insight as to what a Barack Obama Administration would hold for the Country. Obama has sponsored the, "Global Poverty Act, " and Joseph Biden , Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pushing the bill through Committee without any debate because of who is sponsoring the bill and its favortism with liberal causes as well as showing some, "accomplishment, " for Obama.

"The Global Poverty Act, " is a UN sponsored program that provides funding for impoverished nations with the idea that this money would feed the hungry in the Third World. Now we all know how corrupt the UN is when it comes to spending money and the funding actually arriving at the location and for the purpose it was intended. Need I mention the , "Oil for Food, " scandal that took place in Saddam's Iraq ?

Obama' s bill, if passed would require the United States to appropriated 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations every year which equates to $845 BILLION dollars over 13 years at the present GNP total. Now of course as that total goes up the appropriation would follow as the funding is based on a percentage and not a fixed number. At the current GNP this , "funding, " to the United Nations equals $65 BILLION dollars per year.

All going to the most corrupt organization in the world and as usual, a blank check without accountability to the United States for the spending of monies reciveved. You'll never guess where this money is supposed to come from ? You got it the American tax payer, which is what Democrats beleive is their obligation, to spend our money because we just do not know what to do with it ourselves.

This one piece of legislation is a clear sign of what a Barack Obama Administration would bring to this nation. Globalization with the United States bowing at the alter of the United Nations. A weakened military making us vulnerable to attack. Massive entitlements with tax increases to offset the additional spending required.

Less money in our pockets and a general disintigration of our freedoms and liberties as Obama and his liberal friends increase government dependency, creating a more intrusive and powerful Federal System, regulating and taxing private companies out of business while breaking the backs of hard working Americans and those who provide the jobs with a tax burden to cover their spending!

Ken Taylor The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth

McMitt...Because Americans Deserve A Break Today

The structure and strength of conservative ideals as they stood against the anti-climaxes of the Republican state primaries must now be examined based on the outcome of those primaries. Scrutiny should not involve what should have been or could have been but what has in fact occurred, which is, John McCain has pitched past his competitors and is the de facto conservative leader. It is clear that while the polls fluctuated almost daily on the issues most important to Americans, the war on terror continues to guide our priorities. That is the clear answer for all that didn’t see the contentious result coming.

Prior to his present poll position, Republican prophets of doom came out en masse to belittle and accuse McCain of numerous gross breaches of his fiduciary duty as a conservative. They continue to repeat and remind that he is not worthy of the People’s trust for his myriad anti-establishment and self-serving political maneuvers (McCain-Feingold; McCain-Kennedy; McCain-Leiberman; McCain-Kennedy-Edwards; the McCain-Reimportation of Drugs; his vocal opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts; his hostility towards American enterprise; McCain-ACLU; the Gang of 14, etc.), all of which have been deemed unsound and ill-advised for this nation. Yet, even in the face of conservative forewarnings, McCain the maverick has, to the party’s bewilderment, scored the most delegates.

With these facts in mind, we will reluctantly agree to cast our votes for John McCain. As conservatives we must support the nominee – but (and this is a big but) only if his decided choice for the vital post of Vice President is made with exuberant logic and not with undignified or compromising haste. This, of course, is not John McCain’s style, but it is critical that he understands and accepts that the party base will not give him Carte Blanche to reinvent conservatism. If he concedes to a second-in-command who is less than fearless or lacks a moral calling, he will lose the support necessary to regain a majority. His choice of a running mate must be a man who has America’s best interests at heart and who can step into the leadership position at a moment’s notice.

The break Americans deserve today is for John McCain to select Mitt Romney as his running mate. It is by no means a “Happy Meal” for dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. However, the GOP should carefully examine and consider our future, and once they are able to set aside both men’s personal differences they would come to realize that a McCain-Romney unification is a palatable and sensible combination.

It goes without saying that both the President and his linear successor, the Vice President, require ceaseless patience and perception if they are to effectively pilot this nation through the ever-darkening threat of jihadism. Both must have the ability to instantly recognize the gravitas of national and international situations, and if necessary, tighten control over them before they unravel, such as the current chaos in Pakistan. Mr. McCain knows this and of that we can be certain. If he offers us a fraction less than a balanced ticket, Americans will lose confidence and inadvertently cede power to the Left in November.

Even taking into account their political adversities, McCain should acknowledge that his and Romney’s stated positions are uniquely suited to right the listing negatives – that the sum total of their parts will equal a worthy and formidable team.

Critics of Romney couldn’t be more mistaken. Mitt Romney is a patriot. He is also highly intelligent and a pragmatist. And that would be a complementary asset for John McCain and for this country.

Romney has the keen ability to be, when necessary, analytical and tough. This is a parallel to how Ronald Reagan approached and dealt with problems. Romney’s refusal in September 2006 to provide state police protection to Mohammed Khatami, a former president of Iran, was immediate and swift. He then denounced Harvard University for extending an invitation to Khatami. This was critical decisiveness under pressure. He likewise did not hesitate to urge the United Nations to revoke an invitation for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at their general headquarters in September 2007. Mitt Romney sees people and situations for what they are and isn’t afraid to “hands-on” deal with it.

There seem to be two ways for Americans to fully grasp the paramount importance of keeping the war on terror a political priority. We can read the numerous well-researched non-fiction books available on jihadism or we can sit back and look at “Deal or No Deal” while waiting for another attack. Hugh Hewitt described correctly this general unawareness that plagues America: “they don’t know what they don’t know” – because far too many Americans and their children no longer take the time to read. But they will ultimately get it if and when we all GET IT.

John McCain and Mitt Romney “get it,” as they have both represented. That clear and present danger that looms over everyone’s heads propels them both to want to do everything, no matter the cost, that is necessary to protect and defend our country. In his concession speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Romney said, essentially, that our countrymen must choose a leader who understands the very nature of the enemy and hence how to save from harm the future of America.
We cannot deny that John McCain does understand the nature of the enemy, and he does have the experience necessary to qualify him to make the claim that he would be a good President. However, as we said, pulling the lever in his favor will be much easier if his selection of a running mate is, in character, confidence and strength, the best man for the job. That best man is Mitt Romney.

It is our concerted opinion that the indefatigable and experienced team of John McCain and Mitt Romney will trump the leading inexperienced liberal opponent’s mantra “Yes, we can” with the conservatives’ “YES, WE WILL.”

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/2/19/mcmitt-because-americans-deserve-a-break-today.html

The Cotton Candy Presidential Primary

AND THEN THERE WAS ONE!

Opinion

by David Hinz

A Presidential Primary Season that began almost as an embarrassment of riches, with so many seemingly good candidates vying for the two nominations, has turned into an Agatha Christie-style murder mystery. Like her classic, Ten Little Indians (the British version of which I will not even consider discussing), the candidates have been killed off one by one, until we are left with only one credible choice.

Oh yes, I am well aware of the fact that there are still three candidates with legitimate chances for their Party’s nomination – but only one is a viable choice for President of the United States.

In what Steven Spielberg alternative universe is Barak Obama a serious candidate for the highest office in the land? Only those nubile sycophants on their knees proclaiming, “Help us Obama Wan, you’re our only hope,” could look at this child with anything less than amusement. As one pundit so adroitly stated, he needs at least one more term as Student Council President before he is ready to by POTUS.

The platitudes for hope and change – mindless slogans designed to make the voters feel good – without resorting to actual ideas or issues, are perfect metaphors for the vacuous dearth of leadership of the Democrat Party. A heart attack results in change – with very little hope. A marijuana buzz is big on hope – with little chance of change. He hopes to ride the cult of personality into the White House without ever resorting to answers. He has an opportunity to do this be