An Internet rap video which claims to reflect true conservative values is quickly becoming a cult success:

“The Young Con Anthem,” created by two Dartmouth students, has received more than 115,000 views and has been featured on The Huffington Post, USA Today and a variety of blogs across the political spectrum.

Students David Rufful and Josh Riddle made a rap video which they say was intended to spread the views of the Young Conservatives, a group started by Rufful and Riddle with “a devout mission to spread the love and logic surrounding true conservatism,” according the organization’s Web site. http://www.theyoungcons.com/

Rufful and Riddle, both due to graduate in 2012, came to Dartmouth from the Northfield Mount Hermon School, a private school in Massachusetts.

“We didn’t think it would blow up to be this big, but it was kind of a way for us to express a pretty unique view,” Riddle said in an interview with The Dartmouth. “We kind of wanted to spread the love that’s behind the conservative movement.”

How do Reagan’s values apply today?

This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress starting in 2001, that this economic crisis was Coming, if something was not done. But Congress refused to Listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.This video says it all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off. This link is of the same video, but is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this before it is Yanked off the Internet again! Let’s see how far we can spread it before the liberals Pull it off the Canadian site.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tore into President Barack Obama for his friendly greeting of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying Obama is bolstering the “enemies of America.”Gingrich appeared on a number of morning talk shows comparing Obama to President Jimmy Carter for the smiling, hearty handshake he offered Chavez, one of the harshest critics of the United States, during the Summit of the Americas.

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant.

It is this: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’ clothes in Harlem.

Obama supporter and rapper Young Jeezy, who worked the phone banks for his candidate before Election Day, penned “My President Is Black” in time for the Democrat convention in August and invoked it after Obama’s victory.

Language Warning! NOT safe for work.

.

This item appeared in the news, an indicator that things are getting out of control more rapidly than anyone expected:

Barack Obama, inexperienced as he is, with all his radical-left associations, his wanting to bankrupt the coal industry….is a dangerous gamble for America.Obama is just too risky. Too risky for you, your family.http://tinyurl.com/5atzhe

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger campaigns for John McCain in Columbus, Ohio, on October 31, 2008. Great video, and a terrific speech by the Governator, saying John McCain has served America longer in a POW camp than Obama has been in the United States Senate.Schwarzenegger said while he played an action figure in the movies, John McCain was one in real life.

Watch this bring out the Obama-bot hate machine!

Obama – Lacking the Experience and Judgment to Lead:Obama is a dangerously inexperienced Euro-Socialist that will endanger Israel.

Meghan Kelly lets the Obama-bots have it!

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don’t favor either candidate, and 13% say they don’t know which candidate most reporters support.

In recent presidential campaigns, voters repeatedly have said they thought journalists favored the Democratic candidate over the Republican. But this year’s margin is particularly wide.

At this stage of the 2004 campaign, 50% of voters said most journalists wanted to see John Kerry win the election, while 22% said most journalists favored George Bush. In October 2000, 47% of voters said journalists wanted to see Al Gore win and 23% said most journalists wanted Bush to win. In 1996, 59% said journalists were pulling for Bill Clinton.

In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

Coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable — and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three-to-one — the most unfavorable of all four candidates — according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six-in-ten stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two-in-ten (14%) were positive.

Read the full report at journalism.org

Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

UPDATE! Also see this post.

Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party’s aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical leftist activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama’s campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party, this before the damning evidence was disclosed.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.

Note that the text refers to Barack Obama as a New Party member, while Willie Delgado is only "NP endorsed"

The party’s Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying “these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

Click To Enlarge Image

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The New York Times reports on a previously undisclosed internal memo that raises new questions about the way ACORN’s funding is used.

ACORN was drawing new scrutiny Wednesday after an internal memo surfaced that raised concerns about whether the low-income advocacy organization improperly used charitable dollars for political purposes.

The memo, written by Washington lawyer Elizabeth Kingsley, delved into ACORN’s relationship with Project Vote, a group Barack Obama worked with in Chicago in the mid-’90s.

The memo, according to a report in The New York Times, said the close ACORN-Project Vote ties make it impossible to determine whether Project Vote’s funds were used only for non-partisan purposes, as the law requires. The two organizations work together on voter registration drives.

The memo also addressed concerns about money transfers among ACORN affiliates and potential conflicts caused by employees of multiple affiliates, and it gave a different account from the organization of the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of ACORN’s founder, according to the Times report.

Bertha Lewis, ACORN’s top executive, told the Times the group is looking into the report and has “taken everything [Kingsley] said in the report very seriously.”

ACORN, which is under investigation for voter registration fraud in several states, has consistently said its voter registration efforts are non-partisan.

The group, along with the Obama campaign, is fighting back against the fraud allegations.

Click here to read The New York Times article on ACORN.

In April, 2002, Ayers Says Everyone In His Office Knew He Was Terrorist-Marxist.Obama and Ayers both had offices on the same floor of a rather small office building.This video discusses many Obama/Ayers interactions, and concludes there is no way Obama didn’t know of Ayers background, and continued their association.

Barack Obama Lied About His Relationship With Bill Ayers.

Barack Obama, who has consistently downplayed his relationship with William Ayers during his presidential campaign, once gave a glowing endorsement of a book by the former domestic terrorist and was mentioned by name in the book itself.

A blogger unearthed the Dec. 21, 1997, endorsement in the Chicago Tribune and posted photographs of the praise for Ayers’ book on Zombietime.com Saturday, October 18th.

Featured next to a smiling photograph of himself, then-State Senator Obama called Ayers’ book, “A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court, “a “searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.”

The book, which details life at the Chicago Juvenile Court prison school, mentions Obama by name on page 82 when it describes Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood:

“Our neighbors include Muhammad Ali, former mayor Eugene Sawyer, poets Gwendolyn Brooks and Elizabeth Alexander, and writer Barack Obama. Minister Louis Farrakhan lives a block from our home and adds, we think, a unique dimension to the idea of ’safe neighborhood watch’: the Fruit of Islam, his security force, has an eye on things twenty-four-hours a day.“

The Obama campaign said the blurb was not a full-fledged review of the book, which is odd, because the quote Obama supplied to the publisher seems to be just that.

A month before the item appeared, on Nov. 20, 1997, Michelle Obama, then dean of student services and director of the University Community Service Center, held a panel at the University of Chicago that featured both Barack Obama and Ayers.

“Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system,” the University of Chicago Chronicle reported on Nov. 6, 1997.

Obama has been criticized for refusing to elaborate on the extent of his relationship with Ayers and for claiming to have had no idea Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, which claimed responsibility for bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a New York Supreme Court justice’s home in the Sixties.

The Obama campaign has noted that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers and the Weather Underground were active and has no link to their activities, however Obama has yet to explain why he befriended Ayers as an adult, and participated in so many of his endeavors.  Ayers has said he has “no regrets” about his participation in the domestic terror group, and in fact has lamented they didn’t “do more” acts of terrorism.

“A Kind and Just Parent” was in stock at Amazon.com and ranked 51,273 in sales on Monday.

NOTE: For the skeptics out there, here is a contextual photo, showing where the Obama review came from look at lower left. This shows the entirety of page 5 of the Chicago Review book section on December 21, 1997. Obama’s review is visible at the lower left. (Hi-res version of this photo here.)

What, exactly, can we expect if the liberals gain both houses of Congress and the Presidency? It appears there are no “moderate” Democrats left.

.

.

.

.

.

Two nights ago, “Joe the Plumber” was a symbol of the American dream. By Friday morning, you would have thought he was convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Did you know he owes back taxes? Or that he’s not actually a licensed plumber? And his first name’s not even really Joe, but Samuel? The “shocking” revelations spurred a litany of plumber putdowns in newspapers and liberal blogs across the country. “Joe the Plumber’s story sprang a few leaks,” The Associated Press reported. But does it really matter? No, Samuel “Joe” Wurzelbacher doesn’t have a plumbing license, but his employer does. His back taxes total less than $1,200. Not exactly Wesley Snipes.

The House quickly divided into hostile camps on what had intended to be a bipartisan bill, with both sides saying the other had not held up its end of the bargain. Indeed 40 percent of Democrats and two-thirds of Republicans opposed the legislation in the 205-228 vote against the bill.

.

.POST ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN

September 8, 2008

THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain’s lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.

McCain has been in Washington for many years now, but he is not of Washington. He knows where the levers of power are located – and how to manipulate them – but he is not controlled by them.

McCain’s selection of the charming, but rock-solid, outsider Sarah Palin as his running mate underscores the point.

Neither plays well with others.

And this is an unalloyed asset at a time when special interests – lobbyists, lawyers and organized labor chief among them – wield enormous influence in the nation’s capital.

McCain’s Democratic opponents, Obama and Sen. Joseph Biden, lead a party constructed of special interests – public-employee unionists in particular.

There are many reasons to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Here are but a few:

.

• National security: The differences between McCain and Obama are especially stark.

McCain says 9/11 represented a two-decade “failure . . . to respond to . . . a [growing] global terror network.” He understood that Iraq is a critical front in the war on terror – and he urged perseverance even in the dark days that preceded the success of “the surge.”

Obama backed policies that would have abandoned Iraq to its fate, he bitterly opposed the surge, and once insisted that US forces invade Pakistan in search of Osama bin Laden – seemingly without regard for the potential consequences of attacking a nuclear-armed nation, ally or not.

Regarding a nuclear Iran, McCain has pushed for the strongest possible international sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Obama opposes sanctions.

And, when Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, threatening a return to the Cold War, McCain reacted with stern disapprobation: “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.”

Obama called for UN action – unaware, apparently, that Russia’s Security Council veto would have prevented any.

• Taxes: McCain knows that when government absorbs ever-larger shares of national income, the economy suffers.

High tax rates diminish investment, killing jobs and stunting growth.

And while Obama promises tax cuts for “95 percent” of Americans, what he actually is proposing is some $650 billion in tax-credit-driven hikes in entitlement and other spending, to be paid for with heavier imposts across the board, but especially on investment – like a sharply higher capital-gains tax.

This is bad news for the millions of ordinary Americans who own stocks, either personally or through pension funds or who plan someday to sell their homes or other real property.

McCain, wisely, vows to keep capital-gains taxes at 15 percent and to keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place – understanding that new growth will boost revenue, and promising to make up the rest with spending restraint.

And he’s called for a one-year freeze on most discretionary spending and an end to pork-barrel giveaways.

• Trade:

“I object when Senator Obama and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism,” says McCain – noting that “globalization is an opportunity” for US workers. He adds that while emerging economies like those of China and India are worrisome, the answer is competition informed by education and innovation – not protectionism.

• Energy: On the economic issue most vexing Americans today – energy prices – McCain is aggressive

He is a strong convert to offshore drilling: “We have trillions of dollars’ worth of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy.”

He also strongly backs nuclear power – a carbon-free form of energy that America can produce relatively cheaply.

Obama, meanwhile, hews to the Democratic Party line on energy: no nukes, no drilling and no comprehension of the consequences of such policies.

None of this implies an iota of disrespect toward Obama. It took a formidable candidacy to defeat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton – a candidacy, by the way, which we strongly supported earlier this year.

And the intelligence, the organizational skills and the ability to communicate that Obama demonstrated from the beginning dramatically underscore the history that is being made by the first African-American to head a major-party presidential ticket.

He should be around for a long time, and we hope that he is.

In the end, though, sound security, economic and energy policies – plus allegiance to principle – are critical to keeping America safe and strong.

On all counts, John McCain and Sarah Palin understand this – and that’s why we’re in their corner to the finish.

Tammy Bruce is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, and  is the author of “The New American Revolution” . She has a daily talk radio show. A registered Democrat her entire adult life until February, she now is registered as a decline-to-state voter. So, feminist credentials established, I was happy to see her offer some clarity about Sarah Palin.

.

.

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama quipping, “I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal,” and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, “Fatal Attraction,” noting, “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career…”. These attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and media that it was “Bros Before Hoes,” to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.

The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.

Palin’s candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.

The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued, nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.

It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line – the abortion card – where the party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.

The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats – a group that just told the world that if you have ovaries, then you don’t count.

Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions – the passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin’s focus has not been to kick the gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal. The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political base that would include pro-choice voters.

On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin’s comment. You see, none of her peers, not one of them, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she’s voting. Many more now are realizing that it does indeed take a woman – who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.

.

.

Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist. A lifelong Democrat, in the 1990s she worked to help elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and aided the Clinton for President campaign. Before we knew he was a sexual compulsive and “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

She was drawn into feminist activism in the late 1980’s to contribute to the ongoing effort to ensure safe and legal abortion for all women, and with a special focus on violence against women and ending international subjugation of women. Just two years after joining the National Organization for Women, with a brand of feminism that places her somewhere between Donna Reed and Thelma and Louise, Ms. Bruce was elected president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW at the age of 27. The youngest ever to achieve that position, she doubled the chapter’s membership from 2,000 to 4,000 within a year with issue campaigns that introduced a fresh view of feminist activism. In her seven years as president (1990-1996, the longest continuous tenure in the chapter’s 30 year history) she mobilized activists locally and nationally on a whole range of issues, including women’s image in media, child care, health care, violence against women, economics, and domestic violence. Ms. Bruce also served two years as a member of the National NOW Board of Directors.

An important contributor to the author’s position on the relevance of free speech comes from her experience as a radio talk show host. Flagshipped at KABC Radio and nationally syndicated with 153 affiliates, The “Tammy Bruce Show” premiered in 1993 in Los Angeles. Additionally, her editorials and commentaries on significant social issues have been published nationally and internationally in a wide variety of magazines, newspapers, and on television and radio programming. Ms. Bruce is also a Fox News Channel Political Analyst, and served on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Transition Team.

Ms. Bruce’s first book, “The New Thought Police,” was published by Forum, an imprint of Crown/Random House, in October 2001. An analysis of freedom of expression and the culture wars, it explores the importance of freedom of expression and personal liberty and how that liberty is under attack by the dangerous rise of Left-wing McCarthyism. Her second book, “The Death of Right and Wrong,”also for Random House (April 2003), addresses the rise of moral relativism in society and quickly became a New York Times best seller. Ms. Bruce’s latest work,“The New American Revolution,” was published by Harper Collins/Morrow in November 2005. The paperback edition was released November 2006. She is currently working on her fourth book, with a subject matter yet to be revealed.

A native of Los Angeles, Ms. Bruce holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of Southern California. She also notes her interest in politics and individual liberty was sparked during her childhood in part because of the work of authors Ray Bradbury and George Orwell, both of whom remain her favorite writers. Ms. Bruce lives in Los Angeles with Snoopy the Cat, Snoopy’s best friend Sydney the Dog, and puts up with a raccoon she has named Rocky, who refuses to leave her outside patio.

Free Tammy Radio Stream
M-F 9am-12pm PT
Talk Stream Live also carries a replay from 12pm-3pm PT
Saturday 4pm-7pm PT

KABC Radio, Los Angeles, Saturday’s, 7-10 PM Pacific Time

The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it might have helped reduce violence in the country…..

.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

Speaking on other national security matters, Obama said he would not take military action off the table in dealing with Iran, but diplomacy and sanctions can’t be overlooked.

The Islamic republic is a “major threat” and it would be “unacceptable” for the rogue nation to develop a nuclear weapon, he said.

“It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, it would be a game changer,” Obama said. “It’s sufficient to say I would not take military action off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and the United States’ interests.”

But Obama also warned against the current U.S. administration lumping radical Islamic groups together.

“They have fueled a whole host of terrorist organizations,” Obama said of Iran, but “we have to have the ability to distinguish between groups. … They may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.”

Obama sat down with O’Reilly in York, Pa., after holding a discussion on the economy with voters nearby. The Illinois senator has been campaigning in battleground states since accepting the Democratic presidential nomination last Thursday at his party’s convention in Denver.

Obama repeated his campaign’s foreign policy position that Afghanistan must become the “central front” in the War on Terror.

read more | digg story

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Alaska Maverick.” The ad highlights Governor Sarah Palin’s record of taking on the special interests in Alaska and bringing reform and change. While Barack Obama talks about change, Governor Sarah Palin has actually done it.

.

AD FACTS: Script For “Alaska Maverick” (TV :30)

ANNCR: The Journal says: “Governor Palin’s credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama’s.” They’re right.

· The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial: “We’d Say Governor Palin’s Credentials As An Agent Of Reform Exceed Barack Obama’s.” “For starters, we’d say Governor Palin’s credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama’s. Mr. Obama rose through the Chicago Democratic machine without a peep of push-back. Alaska’s politics are deeply inbred and backed by energy-industry money. Mr. Obama slid past the kind of forces that Mrs. Palin took head on.” (Editorial, “A Reform Ticket,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/30/08)

ANNCR: She “has a record of bi-partisan reform.”

· The Associated Press: Governor Palin “Has A Record Of Bipartisan Reform.” “It is true, as the statement said, that Palin has a record of bipartisan reform. She has a growing reputation as a maverick for bucking her party’s establishment and Alaska’s powerful oil industry.” (Ron Fournier, “Analysis: Palin’s Age, Inexperience Rival Obama’s,” The Associated Press, 8/29/08)

ANNCR: He’s the Senate’s “most liberal.”

· “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Was The Most Liberal Senator In 2007, According To National Journal’s 27th Annual Vote Ratings.” (Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007,” National Journal, 1/31/07)

ANNCR: She “took on the oil producers.”

· Anchorage Daily News: Governor Palin “Took On The Oil Producers.” “Palin took on the oil producers, especially Exxon Mobil, saying they had been dragging their feet on a gasline. She persuaded the Legislature to pass a bill authorizing an independent company to build the line with state subsidy.” (Tom Kizzia, “The Joan Of Arc Of Alaska Politics,” Anchorage Daily News, 8/29/08)

ANNCR: He gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways.

· Barack Obama Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #152: Motion Agreed To 92-4: R 53-1; D 38-3; I 1-0, 6/23/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #158: Passed 85-12: R 49-5; D 35-7; I 1-0, 6/28/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 6, CQ Vote #213: Adopted 74-26: R 49-6; D 25-19; I 0-1, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Yea)

· The 2005 Energy Bill Included $2.8 Billion In Subsidies For Oil And Natural Gas Production. “The conference agreement provides for $14.6 billion in tax breaks and credits between 2005 and 2015, including: –$2.8 billion for fossil fuel production …” (Toni Johnson, “CQ Bill Analysis: HR 6,” Congressional Quarterly’s “CQ Bill Analysis,” www.cq.com, Accessed 7/14/08)

ANNCR: She’s “earned a reputation as a reformer.” His reputation? Empty words.

· Seattle Times: Governor Palin “Has Earned A Reputation As A Reformer.” “Since moving into the governor’s mansion in Juneau in December of 2006, Palin has earned a reputation as a reformer who worked with both Democrats and Republicans to overhaul the state oil-tax system and to restore confidence in state government shaken by political-corruption scandals.” (Hal Bernton, “Alaska Governor Palin Comes From Small Town To National Stage,” Seattle Times, 8/29/08)

Jake Tapper @ Political Punch had this Biden item……

August 22, 2008 11:41 PM – Jake Tapper

Remember that clunker of a zinger from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY?

Trying to make hay out of Sen. Barack Obama’s use — with permission but not attribution — of some language from previous speeches by Gov. Deval Patrick, D-Mass., Clinton essentially called Obama a copycat.

The controversy soon died down.

But lest we forget, the man whom Obama has chosen as his running mate — Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. — has an episode in his past where he used someone else’s lofty rhetoric, unattributed, as well.

Biden withdrew from the Democratic primaries for the 1988 presidential campaign after it turned out he had lifted passages from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution.

“Stupid,” an older, wiser Biden judged for ABC News’ Charlie Gibson twenty years later, for a profile of the major 2008 presidential contenders. “My mistake. Born out of ignorance, thinking I didn’t have to prepare. And I didn’t deserve to be the nominee. And all of a sudden, internationally, I’m this guy who cuts corners, who isn’t honest, who’s using other people’s words. And it was, it was, man, it was, it was terrible.”

The episodes are not completely similar. And Democrats sure feel confident that the problems in the U.S. right now will overshadow political kerfuffles like these.

But I’d sure expect Republicans to make hay out of it all.

- jpt

August 22, 2008 | Permalink

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/01/content_9746022.htm

PRAGUE, Aug. 31 (Xinhua) — NATO should cooperate with Russia on the issue of Georgia, otherwise it might be defeated in Afghanistan because Russia would make it difficult or impossible for NATO to supply the allied troops, Semyon Bagdasarov, member ofthe Russian State Duma, told Czech Television (CT) on Sunday.

Bagdasarov, member of the pro-government Fair Russia party, indicated that Moscow might disconnect crucial transport routes going over Russian territory by which the alliance transport its rotating troops and supplies for them.

NATO needed Russia more than Russia needed NATO, he said, adding that NATO’s Afghan allies were behind the production of up to 80 percent drugs that get to Europe via Russia.

Russia agreed only in the spring that NATO transport its supplies and soldiers over its territory, according to Czech media.

Georgia, a former Soviet republic, has long been at odds with Russia over its two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as its own bids to join NATO and the European Union.

Earlier this month, Georgia sent in troops to reclaim South Ossetia, its breakaway region, triggering a military counter-offensive by Russia. The conflict ended with a cease-fire agreement between Tbilisi and Moscow brokered by France.

However, tensions between the two nations were heightened as Russia recognized the self-proclaimed independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region of Georgia, last Tuesday. 　

read more | digg story

“Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say congratulations.

How perfect that your nomination acceptance would come on this historic day, the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.

Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it. But for tonight Senator, congratulations on a job well done!”

–John

.

.

.

.

Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate white-columned Greek Temple. As befits a huge celebrity, Barack will stride out to a podium that can be magically raised from beneath the floor. It is unknown if Obama will materialize from billowing clouds as a huge chorus and orchestra announce the presence of “The One” There will, however, be a giant fireworks display, perhaps with lasers!

Obama really is a presumptuous celebrity who believes he has a lock on the Presidency.  His managers have deliberately created a cult of celebrity geared to the youngest members of the voting public, who are caught up in the MySpace/Facebook online celebrity worship game.

“Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said. “When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm’s way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”

read more | digg story

Published on:
August 26, 2008 at 11:33 am

Check out this important story at Texas Darlin’s blog!

CLICK THE PHOTO TO ENLARGE TO FULL SIZE

The AP caption reads: “This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy’s religion as Islam. (AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)”

What It Means

This AP photo is compelling evidence of the following assertions, which have been set forth on this blog:

1. Barack Obama had Indonesian citizenship

2. Barack Obama had the legal name Barry Soetoro

3. Barack Obama was a Muslim, despite his “fight the smears” claim that he never has been. (see new story that we just posted on this topic).

In addition, it means that Barack Obama apparently lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record:

PLEASE GO TO TEXAS DARLIN’S BLOG FOR COMPLETE STORY AND DOCUMENTATION!

Watch this and weep…

The agenda for the Democratic Convention makes it, effectively, a two day convention for Hillary and a one day convention for Obama, who needs all the national buildup a four day convention normally affords, will have to cut it short because of the Clintons’ skill in hogging the limelight on Tues night, when Hillary speaks, and Wed when Bill does.

read more | digg story

While Hillary and Bill Clinton have both scored plum speaking spots on two separate nights during the convention in Denver in two weeks, party operatives are still trying to find the appropriate role for the pair in the crowning of Obama as the party’s presidential nominee. Fear grips the Obama camp about the real possibility of a role-call vote…

read more | digg story

Obama’s prone to running weaselly, holier-than-thou ads about his opponents being in the tank for big oil even though he himself is rolling in dough from oil company employees. He tried it on Hillary in the primary and got a care package from FactCheck.org and a 30-second rebuttal ad from the Clinton campaign for his trouble. As Ed once said when writing about some of the fundraisers organized for him by oil executives, “Obama lies about this in a particularly bald manner.” Which brings us to McCain, whose running mate this year is the Exxon Corporation if the DNC is to be believed. Maverick does take more oil money than Obama does overall (three times as much, although the two were roughly even last year per CRP’s graph), but the walls of the house from which The One casts his stones are glassier than he’d have you believe:

Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500. McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though — Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list goes on. (You can see detail on all these companies in the spreadsheet linked below.) McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. — $91,000 to Obama’s $8,000 — which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain’s campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama’s has — $1.3 million compared to about $394,000.

Comparing Obama’s and McCain’s financial ties to the oil industry, there’s no question that McCain has benefited more from the industry’s contributions, just as his Republican Party has for years and years. But Obama’s edge with the oil producers Americans know best — and might be cursing most these days — makes it harder for him to continue to tar McCain as the industry’s darling.

read more | digg story

First look at author Jerome Corsi’s controversial book targeting Barack Obama. Listen to the real truth about The Chosen One….

read more | digg story

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary and conservative pundit who bedeviled the press corps and charmed millions as a FOX News television and radio host, died Saturday after a long bout with cancer. He was 53. A syndicated columnist, editor, TV anchor, radio show host and musician, Snow worked in nearly every medium in a career that spanned more than 30 years. Snow died at 2 a.m. Saturday at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

“Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend Tony Snow,” President Bush said in a written statement. “The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character.”

Snow joined FOX in 1996 as the original anchor of “FOX News Sunday” and hosted “Weekend Live” and a radio program, “The Tony Snow Show,” before departing in 2006.

“It’s a tremendous loss for us who knew him, but it’s also a loss for the country,” Roger Ailes, chairman of FOX News, said Saturday morning about Snow, calling him a “renaissance man.”

He leaves behind his wife and 3 children.

read more | digg story

Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator. He turned around and said he “regretted” allowing his daughters to participate in that piece on ‘Access Hollywood’ within 24 hours after agreeing to do it. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. Google “Obama” and “regrets” yields more than a million hits! I wonder what Obama might regret in four years as president?

read more | digg story

George Bush is set for victory as Congress nears final approval to provide legal immunity to private telecom companies that aided government wiretapping. It was originally opposed by Barack Obama, but after securing the nomination, he veered to the center and said he would support the bill’s wiretapping immunity and the expanded powers it gives.

read more | digg story

This sense that America is in need of fixing in order to be a great country points to Obama’s real patriotism problem. And it’s not Obama’s alone.

read more | digg story

Let’s face it, when was the last time we had a chance this good to win the White House? The last time a national nominee committed his own resources to the downticket races this early? Paid staff in all 50 states where he can help others? You seriously want to throw that away, because of one vote? Because of something he said? Or didn’t say?

• This sounds like desperation time for the far left.  Rationalizing, yet again, reasons for voting for yet another politician who has sold them a bill of goods!  Obama really let them think whatever they wanted to about where he stood, and they bought into it and projected their wild socialist wish list onto him.  Just like he said in his book, that he was an empty screen upon which supporters projected what they wanted to see….

read more | digg story

Obama using words to obsfucate his true agenda?  What do you think?