During
his campaign and the ensuing election, Obama managed to escape the likes of
long-time racists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. With the help of the left-leaning
press (who were his biggest supporters) he even managed to escape the racial
stink of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In other words, he held himself above racial
issues.
Now that he is in
office, however, those innate feelings which he kept hidden in the past are
coming to the fore.
His comments that
the cops “acted stupidly”in the arrest of Harvard
professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. indicates where his true feelings lay.
Especially when he said he wasn’t familiar with the details of the arrest. With
that comment, he was basically a black man protecting another black man from
the law. In other ways, he was basically saying O.J. is not guilty.
On the other
hand, Gates thought he was above the law. This grew out of the mindset that not
only was he an accomplished black man and had all the protections provided by
the civil rights movement, but now that a brother was in the White House, he
damn sure wasn’t taking any lip from a white cop again no matter what the
situation. Gates felt that, with credentials like that, no white man would ever
order him around again.
After the arrest,
he fully expected Sharpton, Jackson AND Obama to rush to his aid because he is
a black man.
And they did.
Let’s watch closely and see what other glimmers
of his innate blackness emerges from our new president.
Sarah Palin said
yesterday that the press has been softer on Caroline Kennedy than they were on
her during her recent vice presidential campaign because Caroline is from
another social class.
I thought Sarah Palin was smarter than that.
The reason why
the press is softer on Caroline than they were on Palin is because Caroline is
a Democrat!
It has nothing to
do with social standing.
The biological nature
of the press is intrinsically liberal. The last presidential election proved
the liberal bias of the main-stream media like no other time in American
history.
The
mainstream-media--newspapers, television and internet outlets--were the biggest
promoters that Obama had.
With innuendo,
half-truths and interesting lies, they made it possible for Obama to win the
election.
Palin represents
the party of Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes.
Deep in their
hearts, the liberal press considers those three administrations to be their
mortal enemy.
So, Sarah dear,
don’t be glossing over the truth with feminine nicety.
The press is
easier on Caroline because she is a member of the Kennedy dynasty.
That dynasty has
always been deeply democratic.
The press is
not going to severely demean the candidates who represent their personal
agenda.
As you witnessed
during the recent presidential campaign, they went after you and like ravenous dogs after a frightened rabbit.
All of your personal problems—real and imagined—made major headlines across the
world as a result of the press’s quiet promotion of the Democratic candidate.
Not only did
major announcers like snotty Charles Gibson and his fat, half-sister Katie
Couric go out of their way to embarrass her publicly and make you look stupid
(which you aren’t), but they launched a personal attack which was tabloidesque
in nature.
They were going
to destroy John McCain and his presidential bid no matter what it took.
And they
succeeded.
So don’t dare
imagine they would ever treat Caroline the way they treated you.
She’s sacred.
She represents their personal political agenda and they would NEVER launch the
personal attacks on her they spewed forth on you.
In this article, Sarah
Palin is trying to explain the role of the vice president to a bunch of
eight-year-olds. She does so in the simplest, most fundamental way she can think
of.
In his official role, the
vice president presides over the senate.
When Palin tried to
simplify that and say “the vice president runs” the senate, that was all the AP
reporter needed to make her look stupid and incompetent.
As a long-time journalist,
I can remember the day AP reported the facts. Just the facts. They gathered
their information and presented to readers in terms of the who, what when and
where.
In the grand tradition of
Charles Gibson and his two-faced, half-sister Katie Couric, AP are doing
everything possible to promote the Democratic candidate by making Paling look
stupid.
Hollywood
types have--for the most part--always been notoriously liberal.
I’m not sure if it’s
the piles of money they make or the result of constantly being in the global
limelight, but long-time celebrities seem to develop colossal egos and assume an aloof, arrogant snobbishness toward those less fortunates
who have to live in the real world.
This has never
been truer than in the ongoing presidential election where media celebrities-including
actors, singers, TV newspeople and talk show hosts-are lining up by the dozens
to demean/belittle/besmirch/turn their back on John McCain in the cheapest,
most gutless ways imaginable.
Let’s take a look
at the list:
By now, everybody
knows that Oprah, after touring with her black brother Barack on the campaign
trail, refused to have McCain on her show because she didn’t want to “influence
the election”. She might be the darling of day-time television but down deep
she’s a two-faced hypocrite.
Then comes Keith
Olbermann and Chris Matthews—two long-time, card-carrying liberals, who were
blatantly demeaning/belittling/besmirching McCain on the air.Long ago, they had forgotten that the
reporter’s job is to present facts and not the reporter’s personal political
views. As a result, they were bumped down
a notch in the broadcaster pecking order.
In the take-them-down-a-notch
conference, the studio heads told them something like:
”Look guys, we
expect you to quietly promote the liberal candidates on air because we’ve been
doing that for years, but you’ve got to be more subtle in your approach.
Professional broadcasters know how to use indirectness, innuendo and
carefully-selected keywords to promote liberals. You guys were too in-your-face
with your promotions.”
Then comes smooth-talking, placid-faced
Charles Gibson and his sweetly-vicious twin sister Katie Couric who went above
and beyond the call of duty to prove that Sarah Palin is not another Henry
Kissinger.
In his interview
with Palin on the Bush Doctrine subject, Gibson--with typical holier-than-thou
arrogance—was staring down his nose at her and questioning her as if he were a
political science professor conducting an oral exam on one of his students.
Gibson pretended
to KNOW--after all, this is the high and mighty Charles Gibson—everything there
was to know about the Bush Doctrine, when, in fact, he didn’t know jack crap
about it. Check out Charles Krauthammer’s (THE expert on the Bush Doctrine)
article if you’re interested in the truth!
Of course, Katie
Couric—in the same mold as Charles Gibson—brought forth her holier-than-thou,
know-it-all attitude and furthered the liberal cause as much as she possibly
could by pushing harder and harder on a KNOWN vulnerability. Of course, her
presentation and gouging technique was a bit more innocent and certainly more
feminine than Gibson’s.
Everybody knows
that Sarah Palin is not another Kissinger, but Gibson and Couric had to rub it
in. They wanted to thrill the souls of their fellow liberals by smearing it in
her face to the point of embarrassment.
Sarah Palin in not a seasoned Washington
veteran. Everybody knows that. That’s
the reason she was chosen for the slot in the first place. She has never been
conditioned to the good old boys network in Washington
like McCain, Biden and Obama. We all know that Sarah Palin is NOT another Madeline
Albright….. at least not yet.
By the same
token, nobody has bothered to understand where Palin is coming from with this
Russia/Alaska thing. It’s too easy to dismiss her with sarcastic derision than
to take a moment and reflect on what she is saying.
Basically, what
Palin is saying is that proximity is information. If you live next door to an
Asian family and see and observe them day after day after day, you become
keenly aware of their existence and have a much more intimate knowledge of that
group of people than someone who has never lived near Asians. And, you must
remember that Alaska has a long
history of cultural/political interface with Russia
down through the years. Remember that
the U.S. bought
Alaska from the Russians. Many
cities in Alaska were settled,
named and remain inhabited by the descendants of native Russians. No other
state in the U.S.
can make that claim!
I’ll lay odds
that, while Sara Palin has never met ranking dignitaries in official diplomatic
talks, she has known and interfaced with more on-the-ground Russians and has a
better understanding of the Russian culture/heritage and their daily lives than
anybody else in the race.
Of course, the
essence of what Palin was trying to say will never be broadcast to the outside
world because the liberals and the leftist-soaked media control such information.
They only have time in promote their own candidate. They certainly aren’t going
to promote yours.
Now late night
talk show host David Letterman--the boyish-grinning, baseball cap wearing comic
with his phallic symbol cigar, has joined the fray against McCain/Palin.
After McCain told
Letterman he would not appear on his show, Letterman launched a flurry of
on-the-air personal attacks against McCain. Of course, all were designed to
promote the Democratic cause and belittle/demean/besmirch McCain.
He made light of
McCain’s age with a “Metamucil” joke and quipped that Sarah Palin “sometimes
calls John McCain ‘grandpa.’” Then he suggested that McCain would not win with
the comment: “We might not see you on inauguration day!”
But you can’t
blame McCain.
After Bill
O’Reilly went on Letterman’s show and was told he “was full of crap,” McCain probably
felt he would get more of the same because Letterman is cut from the same cloth
as Oprah, Matthews, Olbermann, Gibson, Couric et al.
Why expose yourself to a ravenous shark?
Letterman is just
another rich celebrity soaked in liberalism who thinks he owns the world and
expects everyone else to bow down to him and his opinions. Of course, he’s made
his millions making fun of other people so I guess it’s pretty easy to poke
personal jabs at the person he would hate to become president.
Earlier this month, some 300 members of
Hollywood’s elite gathered at the posh Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills and paid
$28,500 a head to hear their darling Barack Obama speak and dine on the finest,
most lavish food that the most talented chefs in Hollywood could prepare.
They are the
aristocrats in our society who have achieved success beyond the wildest dreams of
the average person. They are the privileged, those who live above the heads and
means of the so-called working, common man. They are the sweet cream of our
society and they can do anything they like and they are so rich and powerful
that there is nothing you can do about it.
Like the French
Queen Marie Antoinette—the most famous aristocrat of all—they are looking down
their noses at the common, workaday Joes in this world and saying
sarcastically:“Let ‘em eat cake!
John McCain just might have changed the
course of American history by nominating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running
mate.
For more than 20
years now, the American people have been getting accustomed to the possibility of
a woman president. The reality of a possible woman president was first tested
in 1984 when Democrat Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running
mate. But after they were defeated in an electoral landslide by incumbent
Ronald Reagan and George I, the idea was moved to the back burner and the
Ferraro nomination was deemed little more than a noble experiment.
Then along comes
Hillary and the notion of a possible woman president popped up again. After
serving as her husband’s closest adviser during his two terms, the world began
to take notice. This woman had true leadership qualities. She was smart, tough,
well-spoken and not afraid to get in your face.
To further
advertise her abilities, she nailed down a job as junior Senator from New
York when her husband left the White House in 2000.
With that move,
she became the new front-runner to be the first woman president and, throughout
both of George II’s two terms, all the pundits expected her to be nominated by
the Democrats for president in 2008.
But alas!
Political realities and pundit expectations are not always the same.
In the months
leading up to the nomination, a young junior senator from Illinois—a
black man—upstaged Hillary in the eyes of voters and
nailed down the nomination for himself.
Then, when it
came time for the party’s nominee to choose a running mate, he passed over
Hillary as a result of the personal animosities generated during the months
leading up to the nomination. The upstart said he wouldn’t abide Hillary on the
ticket but he would abide long-time Democratic stalwart Joe Biden.
Once the
Democratic ticket was signed, sealed and delivered, the Republican candidate,
like a bolt from the blue, named a woman—a little-known governor of Alaska—as
his running mate.
It was if the
Republicans were saying to the Dems: ”Hey, if you guys aren’t going to put a
woman on your ticket, then we ARE……”
In short, the Republicans
trumped the Democrats at their own game.
It undoubtedly
changed the dynamics of the 2008 presidential election in a way no one could
have imagined a month ago.
It increased the attraction of the Republican ticket by no less 10,000 per cent.
Sarah Palin is
clearly the new front- runner for becoming the first woman president.
I fear that
Hillary has missed her chance at making history.
Bye bye, Hillary!
In Sarah Palin, I
predict that a political star has been born.
Furthermore, I place my bets on the
tough-talking, bright-eyed beauty from Alaska
to become the first woman president.
I’ve got a sneaky feeling that we’re going to
be hearing about Sarah Palin for a long, long time.
Lincoln said you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of
the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. Never has that
statement been more true than in this upcoming presidential election.
The American
people are not stupid, especially when it comes to electing a president.
Ultimately, they
recognize the difference between a candidate with substance and a candidate who
is little more than an empty cardboard placard. To get elected president in
this nation, you have to have experience, credentials and accomplishments.
What credentials
does Obama bring to the table others than being a bright young senator
from Chicago who is eloquent and
looks good on camera? The Democrats have tried to sell him as another JFK, but
there is no comparison. JFK had a degree from Harvard, he had won a Pulitzer
and he had on-the-ground combat experience as commander of PT109. Obama has ONLY the Harvard degree.
He is little more
than a walking advertisement for president.
An advertisement
created by the Democrats and the liberal-leaning mainstream media.
He can get
nominated because he is black, but he can’t get elected simply because he is
black. He’s got to have accomplishments. Substance. Something he can put his
finger on and say to the world: ”Here are my accomplishments. This is what I’ve
done in my life and this is what qualifies me to hold the most powerful position in the
free world.”
I see none of
that.
As they say in
football, he has proven he can talk the talk, but he has not provided credible
evidence that he can walk the walk.
Now that Saddam Hussein--the most destabilizing figure in
the Middle East--is six feet under, Iraq has a Democratic government and talks are underway to withdraw American troops,
where are all the leading Democrats who opposed the war and the troop surge
which engendered the current situation.
To wit….where are Sens.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and John Murtha?
If we had listened
to them, Iraq would still be involved in civil war and the gains we see today would not have
been achieved.
It appears that
they were either mistaken in their judgement OR they didn’t have the best
interests of the American people at heart OR they were media pawns who took
those positions for flashy sound bites and headlines.
If they made a
mistake, why haven’t they come forward and honestly said: “I’m sorry, I
misjudged the situation. I'm glad America is winning in Iraq now.”
But I guess that
would be expecting too much decency from a critter called a politician.
I suspect that the
true motivation behind their positions against the war was that they didn’t
truly have the best interests of the American people at heart.
They opposed the
war because it was being sponsored and promoted by a Republican administration.
It was more
important for them to promote the Democratic party--by taking the side opposite
the Republicans--than it was to stay the course and call for an American
victory in Iraq.
Gen. Wesley Clark is anybody’s dog that will feed him
He’ll even go that extra “Bow-wow” if the feeder is a
Democrat.
Apparently,
because he is a military man, he thinks he can credibly help Barack Obama overcome his
lack of military experience by belittling John Cain's military service.
In
a recent interview, Clark stated:
"The
experience that he (McCain) had as a fighter pilot isn't the same as having
been at the highest levels of the military and having to make ... life or death
decisions about national, strategic issues.”
“Bow
wow-wow!”
Asked
whether he felt he owed McCain an apology, Clark responded, "I'm very sorry that this has distracted from the message of
patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out."
Bow
wow-wow!
In
2004, when Sen. John Kerry was the Democratic presidential candidate, Clark was barking for the Democratic candidate again when he said Kerry had "heard the thump of
enemy mortars. He's seen the flash of tracers" and could lead in a time of
war.
Bow-wow-wow!
"I
think that you can always cite a candidate's (McCain's) service in the armed forces as a
testimony to his character and his courage,” Clark added,
“but I don’t think early service justifies moving away from looking at a
candidate's judgment.”
And
the dog barks on.
Down
deep, Clark is a wanna-be politician.
He
doesn't have the charisma or eloquence to be a major
political candidate so he hangs hungrily on the periphery
and plays suck-egg dog to those who do have those qualifications.
Andy Warhol said all of us get our 15 minutes on the world
stage at one time or another.
Scott McClellan,
author and former White House press secretary who wrote the Bush-bashing
best-seller “What Happened:Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s
Culture of Deception” is getting his, even as we speak.
In the twinkling
of an eye, McClellan transformed himself from being a staunch, long-time Bush ally into a lapdog for the left-loving
American media.
Essentially, he
verbalized all the propaganda the left-loving American press has been trying to
shove down the throats of the Americans since the invasion of Iraq.
In McClellan,
they found a stooge for their political agenda,
After doing what
he did, he has to gall to say that he was seeking “truth”.
That “truth” was
spun to match the Bush-bashing tastes of America’s
liberal-loving media.
And for what? Money!
Dinero! Geetus! Bread!
In the Bible,
there is the story of a guy named Judas. He was a man who followed his benefactor to the top of his profession. Hanging on to the benefactor’s coattails, he
rode to personal heights he could never have achieved on his own. He believed in his leader’s teachings and
supported him vociferously in all of the leader’s life endeavors. Then, one day
when he was bored and was in need of monetary enrichment, he turned his back on
his benefactor and betrayed him to his crucifiers.
Like a true
gentleman, George Bush wished McClellan well when he resigned from his White
House post and even reminisced about their future rocking chair days when they
would fondly recall their days in the Oval office.
McClellan shook
his hand and offered a faint smile.
Little did Bush
know he was shaking the hand of his Judas.
Scott McClellan
collected his 30 shekels just as surely as the guy in the Bible.
The guy in the Bible
handed his benefactor over to the Romans.
Scott McClellan
handed his benefactor over to the left-loving American press.
The Democrats
are doing everything in their power to make another JKF out of Barack Obama.
First there is the thing with Teddy.
Now Caroline is being pulled into the mix.
It’s going to take a lot of doing to
transform Barack Obama into another JFK.
Is Obama's father the founder of one of America's most famous and powerful families. A long-standing scion in American business and ecnomics? A clever mover and shaker in international politics?
Has Obama ever won a Pulitzer?
Did Obama (although he did get a degree) graduate cum laude from Harvard?
Has Obama ever written a “Profiles in Courage”?
How
are they going to get him a PT-109?
And his wife Michelle, is she REALLY another Jackie?
The Dems have really go their work cut out from them.
Recent Comments