Can You Smell What Barak Is Cookin'!!?

[Rich]

The Real Obama
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, February 14, 2008


?[C]ivilizational war is real, even if political leaders and polite punditry must call it by another name.?
--Robert D. Kaplan in the December 2001 issue of the Atlantic Monthly

It?s an amazing time to be alive in America. We?re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won?t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won?t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He?s not. He?s the next George McGovern. And it?s time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he?s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let?s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial ?beauty.?

Start with national security, since the president?s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists ? something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on ?the rich.? How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, ?All praise and glory to God!? but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have ?hijacked? ? hijacked ? Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban ? ban ? on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don?t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of ?bringing America together? means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and ? yes ? they?re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama?s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It?s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let?s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.

[Michael Tee]

<<Start with national security, since the president?s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. >>

Really?  Even when there are no credible threats against the country?  A lot of Americans with REAL problems would like a President who pays more attention to them than to protecting them from imaginary enemies.  And they're starting to realize that all this boogeyman talk is meant precisely to scare them off voting for anyone who might resolve their own and very real problems.  Tough luck for someone, I'd say.

<<Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons>>

Sure, talked about it.  Lotsa people talked about it.  Did he ADVOCATE it?

<< meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; >>

Of course without preconditions.  See what he really said and what he meant.  The Zionist bullshit machine has already mistranslated the speech and plastered their fake translation all over the MSM, why not meet with the guy and see what he means?  Who better to hear it from than himself?  OH NO - - BAD IDEA.  When we want to know what Ahmadinejad really means, we should follow the standard procedure of allowing Zionist bullshit artists to speak FOR him. Oh and about those "preconditions" - - tell me, what preconditions would the U.S. be willing to have imposed on itself as a condition of talking with anyone else?  (Just askin')

<<and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people . . . >>


well, if he IS "murdering and starving  his people," he must be doing it in very small doses because the last time I checked there were still about 23 million of 'em left and no significant decreases.  Here's the CIA's Fact Book's latest on North Korean "starvation" - -

<<Due in part to severe summer flooding followed by dry weather conditions in the fall of 2006, the nation suffered its 13th year of food shortages because of on-going systemic problems including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries have allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption.>>

Now of course one has to wonder, if Kim Jong Il really is "starving and murdering" his people, how come he allowed what the CIA refers to as "large-scale international food aid deliveries" to the people he was supposedly "starving and murdering?"  How does one account for that?  Absent-mindedness?  Schizophrenia?  Oh - - I know: he was tricked into thinking the food deliveries were weapons.  Rice and beans were coming in disguised as machine guns and bombs.

This article is definitely one of the most abysmally foolish I have read lately.  Shoulda known when it begins with a quote from Robert D. Kaplan, another Zionist bullshit artist.

 <<but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists ? something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. >>

That's hilarious.  When the bomb was created during WWII, it was never thought of as a weapon to be used against "terrorists."  There were other more lucrative targets which were occupying people's minds at the time.

<<Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. >>

Especially those whose funding came from AIPAC and other Zionist lobby groups.

<<Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.>>

Well, as a novice, he sure showed plenty of judgment in opposing Bush's drive to war.  Something that Hillary and Kerry and all those "experienced" Democrats never had the balls or the wit to oppose.  I'll take Obama's judgment any time over all those Democratic failures and bullshitters who fall all over themselves explaining why they allowed Bush to wage a war they now fault him for waging.

[BT]

Obama is selling optimism and a can do attitude.

The rest are selling various versions of the status quo.

This election will boil down to comfort zones.

Simple as that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.>>

===========================
There never has been a more disastrous foreign policy novice than Juniorbush. He was issued Colin Powel, a man with a doctorate in foreign policy, whom he ignored totally.

All Obama has to do is pick the right advisers and take their advice.

This article is rightwing drivel.

[Michael Tee]

Obama is selling optimism and a can do attitude.

The rest are selling various versions of the status quo.

This election will boil down to comfort zones.

Simple as that.
===========================================================

Well said.  Good summary. 

[Rich]

If Barack Hussein Obama is the democrat nominee, McCain will make mincemeat of him. He's more liberal than McGovern, and we all remember what happened to McGovern.

Barack Hussein Obama is an empty suit attempting to sound like Martin Luther King. Good strategy as far as it goes, but he's no King. He doesn't mean a word of it. He's a fraud. When he strays off message he just more of the same old liberal blame America first democrat. He'll never get elected.

[sirs]

All Obama has to do is pick the right advisers and take their advice.

Strange how Bush gets crucified by the left, for supposedly doing the same.  Go figure

[Xavier_Onassis]

All Obama has to do is pick the right advisers and take their advice.

Strange how Bush gets crucified by the left, for supposedly doing the same.  Go figure

==============================================================
Juniorbush picked Rumsfeld, Pipes and a whole passel of neocons. The WRONG advisors. They screwed up, and the more they screwed up, the more Juniorbush followed their advice.

[Michael Tee]

<<Barack Hussein Obama is an empty suit attempting to sound like Martin Luther King. >>

We'll see.

<<Good strategy as far as it goes, but he's no King. >>

King had an ideal set of challenges to fight.  Pure evil in a form most Americans could recognize.  Obama has a more difficult challenge to fight:  pure evil in a form many Amerikkkans can't or won't recognize as such.

<<He doesn't mean a word of it. He's a fraud. >>

Funny, but I remember "conservative" Americans slinging the exact same shit at Martin Luther King.  Some things never change.

<<When he strays off message he just more of the same old liberal blame America first democrat.>>

Give us one example of when you heard that.

<< He'll never get elected.>>

Against McCain it'll be a cakewalk.  Some 70-year-old gnome-sized fart with white hair promising 100 years of war in Iraq and more of Bush's failed policies against a young, dynamic virile black guy with a new look and a new approach?  You gotta be kidding.  Why are the Democrats turning out twice as many primary voters as the Republicans if the G.O.P. is gonna cream them at the polls in November?  Everyone can read the writing on that wall.

[sirs]

All Obama has to do is pick the right advisers and take their advice.

Strange how Bush gets crucified by the left, for supposedly doing the same.  Go figure

==============================================================
Juniorbush picked Rumsfeld, Pipes and a whole passel of neocons. The WRONG advisors. They screwed up, and the more they screwed up, the more Juniorbush followed their advice.

says an obvious Bush-can't possibly-do-anything-right leftist.  Unlike you, I've actually criticized Bush on many fronts.  Can't say the same with you now regarding any Bush accomplishments, can we now

[Rich]

>>says an obvious Bush-can't possibly-do-anything-right leftist. <<

So obvious in fact it begins to all sound the same. Seriously, I suspect the neighbors dog is giving him instructions.

[BT]

Why are the Democrats turning out twice as many primary voters as the Republicans if the G.O.P. is gonna cream them at the polls in November?  Everyone can read the writing on that wall.

Two reasons. Younger voters are excited by Obama, and Republicans are crossing over to thwart Hillary.

[Michael Tee]

The analysis I read of the Republican crossover was that they are Republican moderates and independents who otherwise would have been for McCain.

I think voters are fed up with the mess and even the formerly apolitical are coming out of the woodwork to "throw the bums out."   
And Hillary is too compromised to be a credible agent of change for anyone.

We had a similar thing in Ontario after 8 years of "conservative" rule - - "We're not the  government, we're here to fix the government" and in 8 years they nearly bankrupted the Province, ran up a huge deficit while slashing health and education budgets to the bones, poisoned the public water supply, caused the SARS epidemic because of hospital cuts that forced nurses to moonlight -- and finally a public lured by huge tax cuts realized, "there's no free lunch.  You get what you pay for." - -and demanded responsible government that collected taxes and provided benefits.  Now if that same government had ALSO managed to lie us into a disastrous quagmire of a war for the "freedom" of a bunch of fucking Arabs eight thousand miles away who nobody ever gave a shit about in the first place, I could begin to imagine the results of the election that is going to happen in the U.S.A.  But I've been wrong before.

I never overestimate the intelligence of the U.S. electorate any more.  In Ontario, even without them lying us into a war, they were turfed out in a landslide.  In the U.S.A. the moron quotient is such that I'm really not sure what's gonna happen.  But I am reasonably optimistic.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The election will be quite simple, as choices go...

In 2000, gas was $1.30 per gallon, and the people elected a pair of venial oilmen. Now the price is two dollars higher, and nothing whatever has been done to liberate the US from its addiction to foreign oil.

Now we have the choice of electing a aged military man. Can the electorate be so utterly stupid as to not expect more wars as a result?
McCain will have to resort to a campaign of fear about terrorism to be elected. This failed for Giulani.

[Amianthus]

In 2000, gas was $1.30 per gallon, and the people elected a pair of venial oilmen. Now the price is two dollars higher, and nothing whatever has been done to liberate the US from its addiction to foreign oil.

Well, at least that's better than the claim I heard the other day that gas $0.87/gal in 2000.

Average price in 10/2000 was right at $1.60/gal. Now, it's $2.94. That's an increase of $1.34.