Why Didn't Obama Punch Rev. Wright in the Face?

Leave me a comment on this, please? I think that it's a great point-- and if it makes sense, email it out, please.

Okay-- imagine that the week after the worst terrorist attack in world history, in which almost 3,000 of your countrymen were murdered you were in church and the pastor began telling the parishioners that the United States brought it on itself. That we deserved it. That America deserved to be damned by God.

Imagine he's saying this, complete with foul language, in front of your young children. He's saying that your country deserved the vicious assault and that your countrymen just got in the way.

Wouldn't you punch that pompous asshole in the face?

I'm not being sarcastic here. If you were in church and you heard that from the pulpit, wouldn't you calmly get up, roll up your sleeves and punch him over the altar?

Or at least walk out?

Why didn't then-State Senator Barack Obama do this to Reverend Jeremiah Wright? He would have been hailed as a hero and had the self-satisfaction of sticking up for the murdered. Why didn't he at least gather up his family, give the preacher the finger and walk out, never to return again?

Or at least demand an apology?

Yet Obama did none of that. Instead, he mumbled some comments to the news about how we had to understand the al Qaeda terrorists and how poverty was partly to blame.

So once again, and I'm asking you the reader to answer and get your friends and family to answer:

Should Obama have punched Wright in the face?


Originally posted September 11, 2009

Obama Received $1 Million From Goldman Sachs

Then-candidate Obama witnessed the financial crisis firsthand towards the end of 2008, personally exploiting it to get the final push into office. Now while he was doing that, it now appears that he was receiving a pretty good share from Goldman Sachs-- one of the catalysts causing the collapse.

There's an article from Drudge linked on his site from Open Secrets-- but wouldn't you know it, the link is down:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638


Heck, even Michael Moore is complaining about it. Goldman contribution represented the NUMBER ONE private contribution to the President's campaign. Conviniently he also voted for the TARP bailout giving billions to firms like Goldman.

"I point out in the film that Goldman Sachs is his No. 1 private contributor," Moore answered. "But I voted for the guy. I'm still hopeful that he's going to do the right thing and side with us, and not Wall Street. But the jury's out on that."

I know that Michael Moore isn't credible, but when the left is eating its own, it's kind of fun.

Vote in Our Poll: Who Would You Vote for in 2012?

The reasoning of a sane individual.

Situation :

Conditions in the War of Afghanistan are not great, we need an Iraqi like surge to defeat the forces of evil in Afghanistan, and to claim victory. Though, we have helped the Nation of Afghanistan over the past eight years, our mission of defeating the forces of evil which are our enemy, needs to be forced into hyper drive.

Solution :

According to our General's on the ground, we need 40,000 to 60,000 additional troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Simple enough.

Reasoning of an insane individual :

We need to send 10,000 troops less then what we need, and push welfare instead of warfare.

Reasoning of a sane individual :

Listen to our Generals, send in 40,000 to 60,000 additional troops, kill all of the forces of evil, and win the war.

The reality is, the insane individual is the Commander in Chief of America as it stands, meaning we are not doing what needs to be done, to win this war. I want to win this war, not end it. What is in ending the war, if we don't win the war?

-- Tim K.

57% of Americans would not vote to re-elect Obama.

All across the Conservative blogosphere and Fox News, the headline "Fox News Poll : 43 Percent would vote to re-elect President Obama" is being touted, however, I believe that headline is incorrect, rather the headline should be "Fox News Poll : 57% would not vote to re-elect President Obama". Barack Obama is in trouble, his agenda is going against the will of the American people, his administration is one of the most corrupt we have ever seen, and his foreign policy is of appeasement, not strength.

Americans do not like what Obama has to offer, and thus they are feeling buyers remorse. With three years to election day, it appears Obama is in worse shape to be re-elected then President Bush ever was leading up to his re-election. I guess that proves who was more popular over the long run, however, we must not get ahead of ourselves, election day is in three years, and the American people are like the wind....they change at a seconds notice, especially Independents.

I believe the approval/disapproval of Congress is even more revealing, as 66% of Americans disapprove of the job the United States Congress is doing, this should also be relevant to Obama, because the job they disapprove of, is his agenda being pushed through Congress. If only Americans had this attitude last year about Obama, if only they we're more attentive to the facts of what Obama believed, we could have avoided this altogether.

Then again, perhaps the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" will resonate with the American people in 2012, hopefully they will not be fooled by the sham that Obama is a "moderate" again in 2012, and will elect a real Conservative to office.

-- Tim K.

Yo Obama, it's either victory or defeat!

As the Generals report is becoming a true waste, caused by the lack of attention by the supposed Commander in Chief, the ignorance of the Democratic party, and the disgusting lack of support from the American people, it is becoming clear that there are only two paths in regards to the Generals report ; Victory or defeat.

The situation in Afghanistan is at dire levels, a massive Iraq-like troop surge is needed as soon as possible in order to secure victory, however, with a supposed Commander in Chief who has a problem with the term "victory" , I question whether or not America has a Military leader which will do what is necessary to secure victory for America, and defeat for our enemies.

The Riehl World View has a very depressing article posted on their website this morning, in which it appears that Obama is choosing politics over the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan, who need reinforcements ASAP from their government, instead.....their government appears to be leaning towards a "middle ground" approach to the war in Afghanistan, which would mean no new troops, and perhaps no new hope.

I am in no way, shape or form calling for any of Americas troops to be called home if Obama does nothing, because I realize the cost if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Afghanistan against the greatest Military on earth. It would mean Afghanistan would return to a state of Islamo-Fascism, terrorism would skyrocket, and the United States would no longer be a world power which can defeat any enemy. Former Secretary of State, Condi Rice warned Americans about this a few weeks ago, correctly stating that surrender in Afghanistan, would mean another 9/11 in America.

Mr.President, demand that our Generals get the troops they need, or resign!

Riehl World View - http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/10/obama-chooses-politics-over-soldiers-lives-in-afghanistan.html

-- Tim K.

Obama does not understand the Russian threat.

After Russia invaded the Nation of Georgia last year, Senator John McCain quickly condemned the action by the Russians, and declared that we are all "Georgians" today. Considering we have had at least two freedom movements in the past eight months which have been ignored by Obama, that should have been reason enough to support McCain in the Presidential election.

Obama at first blamed both the Russians and the Georgians in an utter disregard for the Nation of Georgia, a small yet staunch ally of the United States, after several days of being called out by John McCain, Obama quickly changed his position on the issue, making John Kerry very proud, and did you know that he served in Vietnam?

This leads me to conclude that Obama just does not understand the Russian threat. What do I mean by Russian threat, in a time when Iran is becoming more dangerous, North Korea is as always spiraling into lunacy, and Obama is waffling on the terror threat overseas. I mean that Russia will never be our ally, Russia is a committed foe, and their goal is to control their former satellites at all costs.

Why do you think Russia launched a invasion into Georgia? It was to display their military muscle to the world, and the Nations of Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, among other Nations which have escaped the grasp of Russia, and are looking at possibly joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which would ensure that Russia would never be able to touch their former slave states again.

When John McCain characterized Putin as "KGB" he was 100% accurate, Putin is a evil man by trade, it appears he will continue his reign of ruling Russia, such as a mini-dictatorship, Russia appears to be the only Nation that is winning when it comes to United States foreign policy, and they have even conducted war games close to American waters in the Atlantic.

Russia is a threat. A threat which Obama is ignoring, something that can only lead to problems for American and our allies.

--Tim K.

John McCain would be better then Obama.

Glenn Beck, a Conservative talk show host who I have become a fan of over the past several years, was on Katie Couric's CBS television show the other night, and he had the audacity to say that John McCain would have been twice as worse as Barack Obama, if elected into the Oval office, and that he would consider voting for Hillary Clinton over John McCain!

Excuse me?

John McCain had his many flaws, I disagreed with him on numerous issues, however, I agreed with McCain nearly 70-80% of the time on all issues (according to various "who do you agree with most" political surveys on the Internet, I was of course more Conservative), he has a 82% Conservative rating from the American Conservative Union, and he was the only man for the job in terms of foreign policy.

John McCain is great on foreign policy, most economic policy, on pro-life issues, on wasteful spending he is excellent, and he is a strong man, something that Obama is not. While McCain is awful on numerous issues, I would rather take the man who will do good 70-80% of the time, then someone who does bad 100% of the time.

So Glenn Beck, you would rather Van Jones, ACORN scandals, growing government, wasteful spending, the wussification of our foreign policy, more death via abortion, and the pushing of socialized medicine down our throats, not to mention liberal appointments to the Supreme Court? I think not, so John McCain would have been twice as worse?

Also, Theodore Roosevelt was horrible on the size & scope of government, he was a progressive, but when Republicans & Conservatives praise Teddy Roosevelt, we think of his brilliant history as a war hero, something that all Americans admire, that is what McCain meant went comparing himself to that.

I would support John McCain everyday to Sunday against Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Dean, Dukakis, and every other liberal Democrat you can throw at me, because that 70% of Conservatism (while I would rather 100% Conservatism) is better then 0% Conservatism, every day of the week.

-- Tim K.

Was Obama Ever Popular?

This might come across as a strange question for those on the left and the right. On the left, he was seen as a transcending figure whose popularity was due to America's sudden shift to "progressive values." Yeah right. To conservatives, it was a sign that a lot of Americans really didn't know what was going on.

But there are factors to show that Obama was perhaps less popular than Al Gore, John Kerry, or even George W. Bush in the 2008 election.

Factors:

1. Bush was very unpopular, and Obama couldn't even reach 55%.

Take a look at Bush's approval ratings. Around election time in 2008, he was lucky if one pollster placed him above the 40% mark. Not to mention that about 60% of the nation disapproved. Under these circumstances, Obama should have easily peeled off those that disapproved-- instead he faced a tough fight among members of his own party.

2. McCain was disliked by many conservatives. Many stayed home.

The winner of the 2008 Republican nomination was someone who was demonized worse within his own party than by the Democrats. Hundreds of thousands of conservative and libertarian voters stayed home due to this fact. Would they have swung the election the other way? Probably not. But swinging a couple of states and reducing the margin from 7% to 4% would show the lack of Obama's true popularity. Keep in mind that voter turnout declined in 2008.

3. Obama's celebrity status couldn't even make him popular.

Obama was lauded for commanded millions of followers, and getting over 500,000 people to listen to a speech in Berlin. For all of this, Americans largely stayed immune to the celebrity bug. Despite showing up on SNL, the Daily Show, Leno, Letterman, and WSJF's Billing's Model Railroad Hour, Obama gained little traction among those not already disposed to him.

4. Many, if not most, of the Obama supporters never entered the real world.

Look at who Obama's top supporters were: college students, professors, and union hacks. Many of these are used to hefty praise and things handed to them. It was only too popular to support Obama and put up that trendy "change" poster in your room. Yeah, you don't pay taxes or ever voted before, but he was on Jon Stewart! (see #3)

If Bush's approval rating was 45% and McCain hammered on Reverend Wright, we would probably have a different President. So much for Obama's popularity.

Obama = idiot.

I have written numerous times on how Obama & National security are and never will be friends in any demeanor, he is a pacifist liberal jackass, and if he could leave Afghanistan & Iraq today, he would.......

Obama has just made another idiotic National security mistake, or should I say another way to 100% piss off our last European allies which actually give a damn about security, as Obama is sending officials in the Czech Republic & Poland to tell them that the missile defense system promised under the Bush administration, will be scrapped.

How this just pisses me off in so many ways, not to mention makes absolutely no sense to someone who is as worried about National security then me, as I care very deeply about the lives of Americans and our allies overseas, as there is real evil and real danger out in the world, and you must take all precautions to defend your Nation & alliance, not to leave a giant insecurity hole for a missile to fly right through into Poland!

Security. Precaution. Prevent attacks. Alliance. Strong missile defense. Stronger Air Force. Better protection against possible attacks.

The reasons for missile defense is endless, all I know is that we need it, the liberal folks of Hawaii really wanted it after North Korea threatened to attack, I thought that would teach the Obama administration something about National security, I guess I was wrong.

The Obama administration - still wrong, still weak, still putting American lives at risk, not to mention our allies lives as well.

-- Tim K.

Obama's Finest Moment as President

Barack Obama, nine months into his Adminstration has finally made a statement that all patriotic Americans can agree on.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were united behind a statement which Obama made off the record to ABC news in which he calls Kanye West a "Jackass."

This may be the first time that I give the President a positive job approval rating. If he keeps trashing stupid stars-- especially those which support him, he might reach 95% approval by October 1st.

Good job, Mr. President. Keep it coming.

Bush Never Did That

President Barack Obama came out with one of the most divisive, angering speeches in the history of the office of the President of the United States. He may have been attempting simply to rally the left, but he wound up attacking opponents of his plan viciously.

Remember George W. Bush, who many called incredibly divisive? Yeah, that guy. Turns out that his sense of decorum and decency actually made him into a halfway decent speaker after all.

And Obama, who was hailed as the best public speaker since Scipio mated with Aristotle, is just coming across as an abrasive jerk.

Let's take a look at what he said:

The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

That's right. They're liars! Let's turn to Bush. Do you remember during his eight years as President, how the Democrats regularly covered up evidence of Saddam Hussein's ties with terrorism and his stockpile of chemical weapons? Did Bush ever call them liars? No. He should have, but he had too much of a sense of decency.

And what makes what Obama did even worse is that he did it during a speech in which his people said he was trying to unite the country behind health care. It didn't seem like that to me-- he was basically trying to call Republicans and Conservative Democrats liars and terrible people.

I'm halfway surprised he didn't call them racists, too.

What Obama doesn't realize is that he was elected by accident. Yes, he received almost 53% of the vote, but the votes that put him over the top were those who were dumb enough not to take him at his word, along with other idiotic portions of the country: college kids, many first time voters, and effete leftists. Obama's pool is getting smaller and smaller as college kids are becoming more reserved with politics and many of the working-class, voting people are getting pissed off.

And you know what? Good for Joe Wilson. I remember Bush getting heckled by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, and that was for stating his opinion. Obama lays out a massive whopper to America, and he should be checked for it-- right there on the floor. That's the job of the legislature, to check the power of the President.

Bush-Cheney '04, dammit.

FACT CHECK: Distortions Rife in Health Care Debate

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.

The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.