See other Editorial Articles
Title: WHEN WILL WE ADMIT THE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn90.htm
Published: Apr 28, 2008
Author: Selwyn Duke
Post Date: 2008-04-29 10:37:08 by IndieTX
Keywords: OBAMA THE, MAGIC, HUSTLER
Views: 1649
Comments: 204
If you interview someone for a job, you’ll expect him to tell you what you want to hear. There’ll be a façade, and his darker side will remain well-hidden. Now, let’s say a requirement for the job is that the applicant likes children, and he does his best Captain Kangaroo. But then you find out he has a job history of indifference to and perhaps even abuse of them and that, during unguarded moments, he has expressed disdain for them. What will you believe, what he tries to sell you or history and hair-down revelations? Remember this when evaluating the profound discrepancy between Barack Obama’s damage-control denials and flowery rhetoric, and his long track record. Understand that he, like the other candidates, is interviewing for the job of president with you, the interviewer. His job is to bend the truth; your job is to discern it. The only question is: Who will do a better job, he or you? Either Obama really is a savior for the third millennium, or the answer is that he is, thus far, besting many of you. Millions flock to him, registering oohs and ahs, fainting and fawning. Even critics and watchdogs heap praise upon him; Bill O’Reilly said he likes Obama and Sean Hannity proclaimed him a “good man.” But what is the truth about this applicant? Let me tell you a story. In 2002, President Bush signed into law a bill titled the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” (BAIPA). This law was necessary because, believe it or not, infants were being born alive during attempted abortions and then, ancient Spartan style, left to die. Jill Stanek wrote about this last year, saying: “As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.” The act was so vile that even staunch abortion advocates would not oppose BAIPA. Stanek tells us that it passed the Senate by unanimous vote, garnering the support of senators Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton. She then pointed out: “The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme.” But the state version of BAIPA failed for years in Illinois. Any guesses as to why? Stanek goes on to explain: I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member. Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed. In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics. If asked about this, I’m sure Obama would be a very effective interviewee; he is good with words. (Of course, one is better with words when they’re managed by a sympathetic media.) Yet, when you look beyond the rhetoric, a picture of Obama starts to emerge. There are his damnable associations. We know about William Ayers, the college professor and “education advisor” who, as a Weather Underground terrorist in the 1970s, planted bombs in a campaign against our government. You might point out that this was three decades ago, but know that Ayers is unrepentant and wishes that he had planted more bombs. What does this piece of history teach us? For starters, it is one thing to understand something is wrong; it is another to feel it. Emotion is a stronger motivator than logic (Captain Kirk had the passion, not Mr. Spock). My point is, given Obama’s cordial dealings with Ayers – a man with whom many wouldn’t break bread – I’m left to wonder how much terrorism really bothers the senator on a visceral level. If his tolerance for the Weatherman is any indication, we have to ask: As president, would his zeal match that of our Islamist foes? Or will Osama bin Laden be a department chair in the Ivy League? Then there is the now infamous Reverend Wright, the man of the cloth poised to move into a house with a 10-million-dollar line of credit. His bigoted, virulently anti-American bile has received enough press so that I don’t have to provide a complete run-down, but this is a man who equated America with al-Qaeda, said we deserved 9/11, made anti-white statements, and called our nation “the US of KKKA.” This prompted, as you know, a well-crafted and rendered speech on race by the interviewee (as the infanticide story, should it receive enough play, may inspire a speech on the sanctity of life), but, again, what is the reality behind the words? Advertisement Obama called Wright a friend, mentor and uncle; he had a 20-year relationship with him, during which time he attended Wright’s church; he was married and had his child baptized by the reverend; and last year he donated $26,000 to the church. Yet some would give Obama credit for not casting his friend to the winds. After all, the interviewee said that he “cannot disown him.” But my question is: Why, Mr. Obama, did you ever own him in the first place? So we again have to wonder about his emotional constitution, his heart. Even if he doesn’t share Wright’s passion for the hate, he certainly was tolerant of it – and I suspect sympathetic to it. And a man is known by the company he keeps. The woman he marries is some indication, too. Michelle Obama vigorously advocated partial-birth abortion (which is also infanticide) in 2004, and we all know about her notorious pronouncement: “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country.” As for the comment, it has caused many to question her patriotism and apologists to counsel against rash judgment. But the truth is plain. As I’m sure Jesse Lee Peterson – a black minister and the president of B.O.N.D. – would tell you, anti-American sentiment typifies leftist blacks (it’s quite common among leftist whites, too). Think about it: How many blacks on the left can you think of who don’t fit that mold? It’s a consequence of imbibing the philosophy of hatred and bitterness dispensed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other racial hustlers. Then we have Obama’s moment of honesty in San Francisco. As a refresher, here is what he said: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years . . . . And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Many have labeled these comments elitist, and Obama has been trying to explain them away. But, again, the truth is plain. Apologists have asserted that Bill Clinton expressed the same sentiments in 1992; in other words, the best they can muster is that Obama is just like Clinton. And that is the point. Obama is a leftist, Clinton is a leftist, and that’s what leftists believe about “flyover country,” just as Michelle Obama’s statement reflects what they believe about the whole country. You needn’t be a clairvoyant to discern it. To understand what is most striking about those comments, though, you have to look more deeply. Notice he mentioned “religion” in the same breath as “guns” and “antipathy to people,” sandwiched right in-between the two. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that he draws an equivalency among those things, which speaks volumes. If you’re a person of faith, you understand that we’re supposed to cling to religion. After all, if you are serious about your faith, you must believe it is the Truth and that it is God’s will that you should practice it. And why wouldn’t you have the Truth at the center of your life? The only kind of person who wouldn’t have this perspective is one who has little or no faith. That certainly wouldn’t make Obama unique, but remember that he has often masqueraded as a man of faith, just as he now touts his support for second-amendment rights (in 1999 he supported a law that would have eliminated gun stores from virtually the whole country). But this bespeaks of a reality: There is Obama the myth, and Obama the man. If you want to know the former, listen to what he says; if you want to know the latter, accept what he is. And what is he? What is the truth about Barack Obama? You won’t hear it from the Sean Hannitys of the world, who will tell us that he is a “good man” with bad ideology. Such people are simple telling you what they’re supposed to believe; it’s what “fair and balanced” commentators do, the stuff of “acceptable” conservatives. The truth about Obama is that he is not a good man. He is a bad man. Good men don’t turn a blind eye to unrepentant ex-terrorists; support vile, anti-American bigots; lie about their core beliefs; and look down on traditional Americans. Most significantly, good men don’t allow beautiful babies – the least among us – to be discarded like refuse and die miserable, lonely deaths in dark utility rooms. In fact, if we cannot call Obama a bad man, there is no such thing as a bad man. And calling him a good man doesn’t just strain credulity, it puts it in the hospital in traction. Ah, yes, hope, change, unity, infanticide, bigotry, terrorism, Obama . . . good? We all know what is wrong with this picture. © 2008 Selwyn Duke - All Rights Reserve
Poster Comment: Here's some more red meat.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-89) not displayed.
.
.
.
#90. To: Arete (#86)
Then don't listen. That's no reason to go with ANY of the quislings...
Intellectual dishonesty or stark stupidity. They're too informed to claim the latter...
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
They're too informed to claim the latter... I totally agree with that. And there's more to it. We'll get there.
Maybe, in their slits for eyes, the Clintons...of the Bush Crime Family...weren't quite the neocommies like these folks like...they're neocons in their eyes. What they don't get is that neocons ARE neocommies and neocommies ARE neocons...or maybe they DO get it! Hillary is "attacking" him becasue he is her opponent. The GOP is "attacking" him becasue he is the likely Dem nominee. The main stream media has given Obama a free ride for a long time. They have managed to keep secret his 8 year employment by Ayers until now. They are still keeping secret his opposition to the born alive infants protection bill. How any good person can support such an evil person is beyond me. Even Hillary was not in opposition to this bill.
God is always good!
That's probably what Ron Paul is thinking too. /s
Or the greater puppet to usher in more fascism. Since we have scrutinized his record, we have been called racists. When we say, why not ask him the same questions as you harped should be asked of RP, we heard silence. Then, well, he'd get his head shot off if he did. Why the double standard then... when you know............ Point for point, any standard layed at the foot of RP, was ignored as one that should apply to Obama. Using those as multiple examples of dishonesty right here in this forum... you really can't tell me that having Obama as president would not deliver the same sort of insanity on a national scale, with the media decrying every question to him as coming from those GD clingy relgionista's and gun goobers. Every thing will be viewed through the prism of racism. WE've been living with that crap for 30 years or more. Now Rev Wright just confirms that is their truth. This was pumped into Baby Docs head for 20 years, not counting his influences prior to that 'madrassa'. Stick to your guns.. You've just turned yourself around again to reveal, you really aren't quite able to decide who you are. What your principles are, and which of those are most important to our own survival. Actually, I do think you benefit from globalist policies, with helping illegals stay in the country. Take a hard look at Zbig and his bookend Kissenger...if you care to see where we are being herded. As Zbig stated, the war has to stop--- it's giving a bad face to imperialism. Not that imperialism should stop, but we need someone to put a new face on it. And you guys fell head over heels for the tripe.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Kissenmyzbig bump
So I gotta go with half a loaf if I can get it. The others are certainly ops for the (Progressive World Orderist) Establishment. American Traitor OBL-dog might just be a useful idiot...
Funny. FOH posted a thread about Warren Buffett's economic views yesterday, and he has told us he recently had lunch with the man. Warren Buffett supports Obama. I wonder if FOH told Buffett that he is a "traitor." FOH once got mad at me for suggesting the idea of a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket. Afterwards, he kept calling me a "Kucinich Commie." He told us he was at a breakfast with Ron Paul a few months ago. Ron Paul and Kucinich are friends. I wonder if FOH told Ron Paul he is a "Kucinich Commie." Or does he restrict that kind of talk to his postings on the Web?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Am I off your filter now, pussy? Because I commented on that thread...
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I've had him on Bozo for weeks. And yes, it is a relief.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
We all know you CFR-D-Commies got some of your people too close to the campaign.
And yes, it is a relief. Of course it's a relief. Relatively guilt-free Liberal Establishment shilling...pussies.
I knew he was Establishment elitist back when I did my first deal with him. I will take from the wealth of the wicked at every turn and gleefully...
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Come on you shill, you pinged me. Let's go! I have a few minutes before I have to head out, let's do this !!
Sigh. What a dick. pussy
LOL...nonsense, McCain was as bad as it gets for the GOP nomination, you bigoted anti-Mormon!! I'm not proud that I voted for an ex-Taxachusetts Governor, but he was the least-objectionable of the GOPers with a chance to win. George "Macaca" Allen ROCKS...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, You know, I didn't keep a list of who said what, but of the 4 lead dogs, it was one of you. You have some other little helpers that show up from time to time... I do have a list. As far as the Muslim 'crap', I'm not so sure it's all crap. But that's not my hang-up with the good Doc. One thing for sure, he is no Christian. And having studied the theology of his church and some of his friends involvement in the reparations movement, and his support of them, says to me the intrigue with Africa is not something the rest of us made up out of thin air. Enough has been posted here for you to read and discern that on your own. As well as what 'social gospel' and 'social justice' means. How stupid to you take us for? When Ron Paul was accused of being racist because some skinhead donated to his campaign, I said that was bullshit. When he was called racist because somebody put something racist in his bulletin from years ago, I called bullshit. When people said he's a racist by association because of David Duke liking him, I said that was bullshit. When I object to the same kind of "guilt by association" crap being pointed at Obama, I'm suffering from white guilt, obviously... Well good for you.. you should've slapping around the folks on the Otrain for that. There is some guilt by association when the man speaks the language of his madrassa. The way he spoke about white people in his books, on his tapes and in his speech, did not come forth from the evil talking point center at the Earths core. Come ON... Get real. As for "getting his head shot off" I always sort of figured that if Ron Paul actually won the GOP nomination, he'd be in a lot more danger of getting his head shot off than Obama. Do I think Obama is in line for an assassination? I don't think it's unlikely, for no other reason than I think Hillary wouldn't hesitate to have it done, and it would play nicely into other folks' martial law plans. My point was, you ophiles said it was fine for Obama to duck the question, but the standard was different for Ron Paul. That's EXACTLY what happened here. No spinning it. As for Zbig's association with Obama and the war giving a bad face to Imperialism, I don't really care what the motivation for stopping the war is if the war stops. Without Ron Paul in the White House, or a bunch of Ron Paul surrogates in congress, Imperialism ISN'T going to stop, period. Yes, we all know this.. However Ron Paul can simply refuse the fund the war.. Ron Paul's position on domestic issues, is sane rather than commie insanity. So I gotta go with half a loaf if I can get it. Of course.. it's in your interest.
How interesting that you have a list! Are we supposed to be scared?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I told you the other day I never said any such thing. Funny if you still haven't been able to determine who said it. If anyone said it, that is.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
American Traitor OBL-dog might just be a useful idiot... No doubt. Global tax?? Oh, he's useful. For now. He'll take VP to Hillary. No doubt Sharpton, Wright, Jackson will help the nation heal............/s
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Yeah, life was better as a guilt free Commie RAT...wasn't it?
If you want to be, however your cover is blown here along with your gang...
Funny if you still haven't been able to determine who said it. If anyone said it, that is. I told you to check with you worm leader. I'm not your paralegal or your secretary or your grunt. Do your own homework. You act like I'm the only one that saw it. No.. others read too.
bump for the road
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
It will make you unhappy, I promise. Worm busting is fun!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
You're the one who made the claim. If you can't back it up, I think it's reasonable for us to believe you're talking through your hat. After all, another one of the people you suggested might have said has now also denied ever saying it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Maybe there's a thread I missed or something. Check with your worm leader.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I added him a day or 2 ago. Apparently calling people commies is the most intellectual response he can muster to anyone on just about any issue on the table.
Comments (131 - 204) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe very thought of having to listened to Hillary Clinton for the next 4 (8) years makes me want to vomit.
#91. To: Peppa (#88)
This is not a lesser of 3 game. None of the 3 are acceptable.
#92. To: Peppa (#88)
#93. To: FOH (#91)
Intellectual dishonesty or stark stupidity.
#94. To: Peppa (#93)
And there's more to it. We'll get there.
#95. To: Arete (#89)
Deduction from the way the corporate media, Hillary and the GOP is now attacking him.
#96. To: ghostdogtxn (#92)
Do I think Obama will do a good job as president? Categorically the answer is a resounding NO. I think he'll probably be hobbled and remarkably ineffective. That makes him the least dangerous of the dangerous 3.
#97. To: ghostdogtxn (#92)
Do I think Obama will do a good job as president? Categorically the answer is a resounding NO. I think he'll probably be hobbled and remarkably ineffective. That makes him the least dangerous of the dangerous 3.
#98. To: FOH (#94)
...or maybe they DO get it!
#99. To: Peppa (#97)
#100. To: Peppa (#97)
Point for point, any standard layed at the foot of RP, was ignored as one that should apply to Obama.
#101. To: ghostdogtxn, Peppa (#99)
As for Zbig's association with Obama and the war giving a bad face to Imperialism, I don't really care what the motivation for stopping the war is if the war stops. Without Ron Paul in the White House, or a bunch of Ron Paul surrogates in congress, Imperialism ISN'T going to stop, period.
#102. To: ghostdogtxn, FOH (#38)
Because you're effing traitors
#103. To: aristeides (#102)
#104. To: aristeides (#102)
#105. To: ghostdogtxn, FOH (#104)
#106. To: aristeides (#102)
FOH once got mad at me for suggesting the idea of a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket. Afterwards, he kept calling me a "Kucinich Commie." He told us he was at a breakfast with Ron Paul a few months ago.
#107. To: aristeides, bluedogtxn (#105)
I've had him on Bozo for weeks.
#108. To: aristeides (#102)
I wonder if FOH told Buffett that he is a "traitor."
#109. To: aristeides (#105)
#110. To: aristeides (#105)
#111. To: ghostdogtxn (#109)
Apparently he's fishing around to find out what handle I use to post on DU. Since I've been posting subtle pieces to support Ron Paul over there for a while, I suspect the idea is to "blow my cover" and try to get me banned.
#112. To: ghostdogtxn (#82)
"Mitt Romney was always the worst of them all."
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
#113. To: ghostdogtxn (#99)
I'm not sure who you are talking about. I've only called "racist" the stuff that's plainly, in my view, racist. The "he's a muslim" crap, the "white guilt" crap, the countless comparisons to Africa crap, and a lot of other stuff along those lines.
#114. To: Peppa (#113)
You know, I didn't keep a list of who said what, but of the 4 lead dogs, it was one of you. You have some other little helpers that show up from time to time... I do have a list.
#115. To: Mudboy Slim (#112)
#116. To: Peppa (#113)
My point was, you ophiles said it was fine for Obama to duck the question, but the standard was different for Ron Paul. That's EXACTLY what happened here. No spinning it.
#117. To: FOH (#101)
The others are certainly ops for the (Progressive World Orderist) Establishment.
#118. To: Peppa (#113)
#119. To: ghostdogtxn (#115)
Sadly, I have been exposed to Ron Paul.
#120. To: aristeides (#114)
Are we supposed to be scared?
#121. To: aristeides (#116)
I told you the other day I never said any such thing.
#122. To: Peppa (#117)
#123. To: Peppa (#113)
#124. To: ghostdogtxn (#118)
I do have a list. Do yourself a favor and rip it up.
#125. To: Peppa (#121)
#126. To: Peppa (#124)
#127. To: Peppa (#121)
#128. To: ghostdogtxn (#123)
guess I don't know what question you are talking about, then. Israel? 9-11?
#129. To: aristeides (#127)
#130. To: aristeides (#105)
I've had him on Bozo for weeks.
.
.
.