Posted on 04/24/2008 4:09:22 AM PDT by Renfield
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 kids 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. Barack Obama Obama launched his campaign for the state senate with a fundraiser at the house of Ayers and his fellow terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn.
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 Weathermen is any indication, we have to ask: As president, would his zeal match that of our Islamist foes?
Then there is the now infamous Reverend Wright, the man of the cloth poised to move into a 10,000 square ft. 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?
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.
Vote Obsama!
He is the best ally.... of McCain
Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act is one area that has yet to be really exploited. I think it will be a HUGE issue in the fall, which is why McCain has highlighted his pro-life views recently in VP discussions.
This is an excellent article about Obama but there’s also a second article here, which the writer only hints at, but which badly needs to be written: an article about Fox News and how it’s zeal to be “fair and balanced” ends up with results so much like the New York Slimes, CNN and the rest of them that there’s not a dimes worth of difference between them.
Fred for VP would give McCain, who had publicly opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some pro-life street cred.
Bumpitttt.
Great read; I think the more American knows about Barack and Amarosa Obama the better McCain looks warts and all.
“badly needs to be written: an article about Fox News and how it’s zeal to be “fair and balanced” ends up with results so much like the New York Slimes”
Very true. It disgusts me to hear the excuses and “giving the benefit of the doubt.”
I suspect McCain is gambling for Black votes if Hillary gets the nomination. He’s trying to avoid negative campaigning in order to avoid antagonizing them.
I don’t see that as being all that important. The pro-life issue, as a voting issue, has faded precipitously (last week’s poll of “important issues” had it down there with global warming, at near zero as a ‘voting issue’).
That is an interesting take on it. I must confess I did not think that angle. I guess I just think negatively with that guy.
Agree. I don’t look at foxnews anymore. I’m losing faith in bloomberg too because of junk being reported like fact such as this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afoaNpuF4BcM
You are missing the point. Being pro-life as a separate deciding issue in the campaign to differentiate the candidates is why it was on the bottom of the list issues. The article was very important in laying out existing known negatives about why Obama is not suitable to be near the White House (and the Senate for that matter as well, but standards aren’t as high for that office), let alone be President.
Obama’s opposition to a piece of legislation that received unanimous support in the Senate that would not protect babies born in the abortion process is a key into his character. Along with the people he hangs out with (anti-American crowd and racists), his elitist comments on people in PA which are like most of the middle part of the country and his wife’s bad attitude, his position on life is completely out of any mainstream view and puts another nail in his chances of getting acceptance as a candidate.
Obama is not fit to be dog catcher. At least dog catchers value the life of the dog. His extremely liberal stance and his lack of support for our country, our military and life in general make him completely undesirable and dangerous for our country. Don’t vote for him.
That is great article, and if that message gets out to the voting public, Obama will be unelectable. (He already is, but not enough people know that yet.)
The Rev Wright preached “hate whitey”, and Obama and his family went there for 20 years. Obama was given free private education from grammar school through law school. As he was being raised in Hawaii in non-black surroundings, He still managed to come up with anti-white racist feelings, to the point that he reverse-psychologied himself into believing that blacks were superior to whites. It’s in his book.
Speaking for myself, I see many indications, some obvious and some not, that he is as racist a politician as we will ever have. He’s had these feelings since childhood, all through his years at Trinity church. I actually thought he was a refreshing young candidate, and I had no problem by the fact that was black. Until the Rev Wright stuff turned up.
That’s the reasoning I use to label him “unelectable”, because any man, no matter his color, should never even come near the presidency of our country with that kind of bias saturated into his heart, mind, and soul.
He is a “bad man” because he’s trying to pull a fast one on the country. Obama is a racist, pure and simple.
I checked on some voting figures this evening, looking for tallies up to March 11, just about the time Rev Wright revelations popped up.
As of March 11, 2008, 39 states had held the primaries without their voters (or anyone else, I guess) knowing anything about the “hate whitey” church, etc.
Obama led with 50.26%, Hillary having 49.74%. Obama led by approx 500,000 votes out of about 28 million total.
Now, that’s really close, but a half-million votes does give a measureable figure, and the delegate margin reflects that, I suppose.
The PA primary the other day, after the church issue had been much discussed, and Obama had made some dumb statements and got hacked up in the last debate, resulted in 45.3% of the voters going for Obama, and 54.7% voting for Hillary.
My much-belabored point concerns whether the vote percentages for the 39 primaries conducted BEFORE the church mess was made public, might have more closely paralleled the PA results, if those voters had been aware of Obama’s racist principles before they voted. (I’m ignoring all the important demographic tendencies, etc.)
The rest of the primary results could show a trend like that of PA, and wouldn’t that mess up the Dem convention?
Recall it was not John Kerry's "vote" on the Iraq war that caused him such trouble, but the perception that he was a flip-flopper when he said he voted for the funding before he voted against it. I just think too many conservatives, especially the pro-life sort, see something like this and go "AHA." It doesn't work that way. Portraying Obama as being a "liberal," even an anti-life one, has limited effect.
Portraying him as being hostile to ordinary, working-class Americans has terrific effects.
The American Civil Rights ‘industry’ intimidates all of them
And it's a totally different thing to say "pro-life is gaining ground" as a general principle than to assert (wrongly) that it is the voting issue this season. It ain't. No one supported McCain, for example, because he was pro-life, and large numbers opposed him primarily because of his other positions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.