Twitter Trends

Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up

The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.

Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.

While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.

So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.

Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.

In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.

As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.

However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.

Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?

Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.

Related Blogs

• Survey Obama is Google; McCain is AOL; and Palin — yg0818.com
• Chris Rock about John McCain ,Barack Obama and Flava Flav | home equity debt consolidation loan
• Dick Gregory Refutes Rev. Jeremiah Wright Controversy 6 of 9

Michelle Obama plays unique role in campaign

Campaigning for Barack Obama

Although Michelle Obama has campaigned on her husband’s behalf since early in his political career by handshaking and fund-raising, she did not relish the activity at first. When she campaigned during her husband’s 2000 run for U.S. House of Representatives, her boss at the University of Chicago asked if there was any single thing about campaigning that she enjoyed; after some thought, she replied visiting so many living rooms had given her some new decorating ideas.

In May 2007, three months after her husband declared his presidential candidacy, she reduced her professional responsibilities by eighty percent to support his presidential campaign. Early in the campaign, she had limited involvement in which she traveled to political events only two days a week and traveled overnight only if their daughters could come along. In early February 2008, she attended thirty-three events in eight days. She has made at least two campaign appearances with Oprah Winfrey. Obama writes her own speeches and speaks without notes.

In 2007, Michelle gave stump speeches for her husband’s presidential campaign at various locations in the United States. Jennifer Hunter of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about one speech of hers in Iowa, “Michelle was a firebrand, expressing a determined passion for her husband’s campaign, talking straight from the heart with eloquence and intelligence.” She employs an all-female staff of aides for her political role. She says that she negotiated an agreement in which her husband gave up smoking in exchange for her support of his decision to run. About her role in her husband’s presidential campaign she has said: “My job is not a senior adviser.” During the campaign, she has discussed race and education by using motherhood as a framework.

The presidential campaign was her first exposure to the national political scene and even before the field of Democratic candidates was narrowed to two she was considered the least famous of the candidates’ spouses. Early in the campaign, she exhibited her ironic humor and told anecdotes about the Obama family life. However, as the press began to emphasize her sarcasm, which did not translate well in the print media, she toned it down. A New York Times op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd, wrote:

I wince a bit when Michelle Obama chides her husband as a mere mortal—comic routine that rests on the presumption that we see him as a god … But it may not be smart politics to mock him in a way that turns him from the glam JFK into the mundane Gerald Ford, toasting his own English muffin. If all Senator Obama is peddling is the Camelot mystique, why debunk this mystique?

Asked in February 2008 whether she could see herself “working to support” Hillary Rodham Clinton if she got the nomination, Michelle Obama said “I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.” When questioned about this by the interviewer, however, she stated “You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.”

Despite her criticisms of Clinton during the 2008 campaign, when asked in 2004 which political spouse she admired, Obama cited Hillary Clinton, stating, “She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public—someone who’s managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child.”

On October 6, 2008 Larry King Live Obama was asked if the American electorate is past the Bradley effect. She stated that Barack’s achievement of the nomination was a fairly strong indicator that it is. The same night she also was interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show where she deflected criticism of her husband and his campaign.Her first Daily Show appearance came after her husband had made three such appearances.

The Obamas enjoy a victory fist bump upon his winning the Democratic nomination. (2008-06-03)

Obama was involved in two of a trio of references to Barack Obama by Fox News that were controversial. On June 11, 2008 during an interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about whether Michelle Obama had been the target of unfair criticism, the network flashed a chevron that showed the message “Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama’s baby mama,” which implied that Michelle Obama was not married to the father of her children. Because Barack and Michelle Obama are lawfully married to each other, the network recognized the poor judgment of its own producer in an official statement made to The Politico. Earlier on E. D. Hill’s Fox News show America’s Pulse, Hill referred to the affectionate fist bump shared by the Obamas on the night that he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination as a “terrorist fist jab.” In June 2008, Hill was removed from her duties on the specific show, which was then canceled.

Throughout the campaign, the media often labeled Obama as an “angry black woman,” and some websites attempted to propagate this perception, causing her to respond: “Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we’ve developed a thick skin along the way. When you’re out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory.”By the time of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August, media outlets observed Obama’s presence on the campaign trail had grown softer than at the start of the race, focusing on soliciting concerns and empathizing with the audience rather than throwing down challenges to them, and giving interviews to shows like The View and publications like Ladies’ Home Journal rather than appearing on news programs. The change was even reflected in her fashion choices, with Obama wearing more and more sundresses in place of her previous designer pieces. The View appearance was partly intended to help soften the perception of her,and it was widely-covered in the press.

Criticism for “For the first time in my life” comments

On February 18, 2008, Obama commented in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Later that evening she reworded her stump speech in Madison, Wisconsin, saying “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” Several commentators criticized her remarks,and the campaign issued a statement that “anyone who heard her remarks … would understand that she was commenting on our politics.” In June 2008, First Lady Laura Bush commented on Michelle Obama’s words, indicating that they had been misrepresented in the media: “I think she probably meant I’m ‘more proud,’ you know, is what she really meant,” adding, “I mean, I know that, and that’s one of the things you learn and that’s one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is, everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued.”

2008 Democratic National Convention speech

Michelle Obama was regarded as a charismatic public speaker from the very beginning of the campaign. She delivered the keynote address on the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention on August 25, during which she sought to portray herself and her family as the embodiment of the American Dream. Other speakers that night included Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Edward Kennedy, who some expected to steal the limelight. She described Barack as a family man and herself as no different from many women; she also spoke about the backgrounds that she and her husband came from. Obama said both she and her husband believed “that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond, and you do what you say you’re going to do, that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.”She also emphasized her love of country, in response to criticism for her previous statements about feeling proud of her country for the first time. Her daughters joined her on the stage after the speech and greeted their father, who appeared on the overhead video screen.

August 25, 2008 speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention

Obama’s speech was largely well received and drew mostly positive reviews.A Rasmussen Reports poll found that her favorability among Americans reached 55%.Political commentator Andrew Sullivan described the speech as “one of the best, most moving, intimate, rousing, humble, and beautiful speeches I’ve heard from a convention platform.” Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, described it as a “beautifully delivered, and smartly crafted, speech”and described Obama as “coming off as wholesome and, frankly, familiar.” One U.S.News & World Report commentator described her speech as one that embraced the crowd and that put Obama in her element.Meanwhile, another noted that the speech presented a formidable case for the Obamas as an All-American first family.Arianna Huffington and Howard Wolfson both lauded the speech. The speech made Juan Williams tear up over the thought of the significance of her presentation as a representative of Black America. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described the speech as fearless for bringing family issues to the forefront.Chris Cillizza wrote at The Fix, a political blog from The Washington Post, that the speech helped America relate to the Obamas.

The speech had its detractors. Katherine Marsh of The New Republic, however, said she missed “the old Michelle … not the Stepford wife fist-bumping Elisabeth Hasselbeck, but the sassy better half who reminded us that while Barack was the answer, he was also stinky in the morning and forgot to put the butter away. She both affirmed his promise and humanized him.” Jason Zengerle, also of The New Republic, said Obama should have emphasized her professional and educational achievements as well as her mother, daughter and sister qualities; Zengerle wrote, “It almost makes you long for the days when politicians’ wives were seen but not heard. After all, if they’re not permitted to really say anything, what’s the point of having them speak.” National Review also had a host of articles that pointed out negative aspects of the speech while noting praiseworthy points. One derided “Isn’t She Lovely”, the musical selection used following the speech as she walked off the stage with her daughters, even though it praised her speech and wardrobe. Another by Amy Holmes led with the fact that Karl Rove felt the speech was impersonal, although it compared favorably to speeches by Karenna Gore and Teresa Heinz-Kerry at previous DNCs. A pair of articles, including one by Byron York, noted that although the speech presented America as the land of opportunity, it conflicted with her campaign trail speeches that described dark aspects of the country.Despite all these articles, National Review editor Rich Lowry summarized why he felt the speech was a success.

Congratulations, Mr. President. -Lyrics- It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as…

Related Blogs

• ‘Choosing presidential candidate for pact will spell doom’ | LusakaTimes.com
• Scott Won’t OK Jacksonville Debate Without Audience | The Jacksonville Observer
• P.m.j. trevelyan, approximating the large time asymptotic reaction zone solution for fractional order kinetics anbm – Michelle Obama plays unique role in campaign | EXCELLENT AMERICA

Barack Obama – Myths, Facts, and Obfuscating (bloggers Beware)

Is guilt by association fair?  Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations.  Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort.  These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns.  Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized. 

Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.

(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 – Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. 

Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone.  I am not even sure I remember them all.  Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:

Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.

Samantha Powers – (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 – Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )

Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)

Robert Malley -  (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)

Merrill Tony McPeak -   (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 – US Jews Hinder Peace)

Zbigniew Bzrezinski – (see American Thinker – January 16, 2008 – Barack Obama and Israel)
Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:
The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.
Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through   Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 – Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)

And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko – Wikipedia article.)

Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual. 

So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask?  The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.  
 (see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?)   and

 (see Jpost – June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)

ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt)   (The Free Dictionary)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.

It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama.  It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world.  Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity. 

In fact, call it reverse guilt by association.  It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a hate filled, anti-Muslim or racist agenda is underway.  Some, they may say are just plain crazy.  But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth – just another one of those “myths”. 

This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly.  The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud. 

Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team.  If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency. 

Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.

The Barack Obama Prophecies (humor)

by Josh Greenberger

(August 17, 2008) Legend has it that Migel Nostrildamous, a seer of the 1500s, could smell the future. He predicted the 2008 U.S. Presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Nostrildamous claimed there were two parallel universes, one in which McCain would win and one in which Obama would win. Although he could not clearly see which universe was ours, he gave an amazingly detailed account of the outcome of the Obama presidency.

What Nostrildamous saw was startling. In 2015, after winning a second term, Obama will find himself in a large room being grilled by angry senators ready to impeach him.

This was Nostrildamous’ vision:

Senator: President Obama, you were supposed to be the President of change. What happened?

Barack Obama: Well, I believe I did give you change …

Senator (interrupts angrily): … Mr. President, we’re missing New York! It got nuked right out of our midst. That’s not the kind of change we were looking for!

Obama: Senator, I’ve been saying for years, Canadians have been slipping through our northern borders …

Senator: … Canadians had nothing to do with this! Iran was the culprit!

Obama: Is there a basis for this allegation?

Senator: The plane was highjacked by Iranian nationals, the nuclear weapon was carried on board by Iranian diplomats, the bomb’s components were manufactured in Iran, Ahmadinejad took responsibility for the attack, and, a day before the attack, the highjackers were invited to Columbia University for a robust debate on the ethics of dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated city if it has an impact on the environment and the caribou reindeer in Alaska.

Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. You see, Ahmadinejad assured me his nuclear program was strictly for peaceful purposes.

Senator: And you believed him?

Obama: I had no reason not to. In our last meeting he articulated how much he loved the caribou reindeer.

Senator: Mr. President, we can’t afford more catastrophes.

Obama: We could’ve avoided this one.

Senator: And how’s that?

Obama: Well, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires …

Senator (bangs down angrily with his gavel): … What on earth does this have to do with inflating tires?!

Obama: If you’ll let me finish, senator … (pauses for a moment) I thought you were a Democrat.

Senator: There are no more Democrats and Republicans. There’s only one party now — the Damnangrycats (pronounced damn-angry-cats). What’s your point, Mr. President?

Obama: Well, as I was saying, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires, they laughed at me. Ahmadinejad wasn’t laughing. He had his people inflate their tires. With the windfall profits from saved money on gas, they were able to speed up their nuclear program by leaps and bounds. Had we inflated our tires first, we wouldn’t be in this situation today.

Senator: With all due respect, Mr. President, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. How would inflating our tires first have saved us from this situation?

Obama: Well, while we were busy laughing, they were busy building. While we were busy stagnating, they were busy progressing. While we were looking back, they were looking forward. While we were accepting a bleak future, they were beaming with optimism. While we were …

Senator: Okay okay, I get it.

Obama: It seems absurd to judge a presidency on only one act.

Senator: We’re not. We’re judging your presidency on several acts. Have you forgotten about your wide open border policy on the south?

Obama: Of course not. My strongest voter base is from Tijuana.

Senator: Don’t you find that a little disturbing?

Obama: Disturbing? I’ll tell you what’s disturbing. When Americans drive around on flat tires …

Senator: … stop with the tires already …

Obama: … you’re not letting me explain my position.

Senator: I’ll wait till you flip-flop on that position another fourteen times, and then I’ll listen to the final explanation.

Obama: When you attack my people …

Senator: … they’re not your people. They’re Mexicans.

Obama: I’m President to all people. All people have the right to dreams. All people have the right to equal comfort zones. All people …

Senator: … they overwhelmed Texas and California, seceded from the union, and renamed the two states The United States of Juanitos. Is it me or is there something wrong with that picture?

Obama: I’ll say there’s something wrong with that picure. The “Runners Republic” would’ve been a more appropriate name.

Senator: Mr. President, under your watch we’ve lost three states.

Obama: Three? (laughs) Senator, aren’t you making a mountain out of a molehill?

Senator: Am I?

Obama: What’s the big deal? We still have fifty four states.

Senator: We only had fifty to begin with.

Obama: When did we lose the other seven?

Senator: We never had fifty seven, Mr. President. Can you name all fifty seven?

Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. This country was founded on unity, not numbers. Washington never counted states. Lincoln never counted states. I may not look like all those presidents on the dollar bills, but I’m not going to count states either.

Senator: Washington and Lincoln also never flipped-flopped an issues the way you do. Your energy policies have been disastrous.

Obama: I lifted all drilling restrictions.

Senator: After how many flip-flops?

Obama: Why didn’t the oil companies drill between flip-flops?

Senator: Because your flips were shorter than your flops.

Obama: The coast of Florida has been open for drilling for a long time now.

Senator: By the time our oil companies were allowed to drill, the oil was gone. China pumped it all. They’re selling gas all over China in ninety-nine cents stores. Chinese farmers are driving around in stretch limos.

Obama: I’m not denouncing China, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce China. It’s not a China worthy of denouncing.

Obama: Thank you for that insight, Mr. President, but this isn’t about China. It’s about your waffling on all positions. You even flip-flopped on drilling in the “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” in Alaska?

Obama: We had to stop. After drilling began, a caribou reindeer slipped on an oil slick and fractured an antler. The animal-rights people threatened to bring me before a tribunal for crimes against humanity.

Senator: But they’re not human.

Obama: I know, but they’ve got a lot of clout in Washington.

Senator: I was talking about the reindeer.

Obama: Ah … look, caribou have the same feelings we do.

Senator: And how would anyone know that?

Obama: The reindeer with the fractured antler recently developed social anxiety disorders. He no longer sucks ice with the rest of his family.

Senator: Your record of not standing up to environmentalists is absolutely unforgivable.

Obama: Gentlemen, you’re forgetting, Congress now has three chambers: The Senate, The House or Representatives, and the Environmentalists. And the Environmentalists can overrule the other two chambers and the President.

As Nostrildamous’ vision began to fade, he saw the environmentalists eventually lifting drilling restrictions on the east coast, but only if all equipment are driven by solar energy and all fish within a 20 mile radius of drilling sites are moved deeper into the ocean.

Consequently, oil companies will drill during the day and catch fish at night. On heavy overcast days, instead of using heavy drilling equipment, oil companies will send down skin divers with fork hoes.

By 2030 oil companies will realize that selling fish is more profitable than drilling for oil and halt all oil exploration.

By 2035 all cars will be replaced by horses, buses will be replaced by stagecoaches, and hay will become the hottest commodity on the stock market.

As companies compete to improve the quality of hay, it’ll open up a new multibillion dollar “Hay Tech” industry. Most of these companies will be concentrated in an area in California called Fertilizer Alley.

One company will develop a breakthrough process that will improve many different types of plants. The process, called Multi-Fertilizing, will make a trillionaire out of it’s CEO, Gill Bates, and make his company, ExtraSoft, the most profitable in Hay Tech history.

Nostrildamous tried looking into the future of the McCain presidency, but his “communications” broke down. So he called tech support. His remains are still on hold.

by Josh Greenberger

Find More Obama Articles

Look Here..is Barrack Obama the Antichrist? Read This Biography About Barack Obama

Ofcourse its fathomable that people all over are curious to learn  the facts about newly elected US president Obama.The masses wish to know where was barack obama born, what nationality is barack obama (duh)? whether obama birth certificate paobama birth certificate forgery obama fake birth certificate are indeed situated on reality or just semipolitical mudslinging? They want to see supreme court obama birth certificate attesting to his true citizenship? Barack obama age old beliefs and extra-curricullar involvements in the past? The citizenry want to decipher other records of obama, voting records,religion or is barack obama muslim as it is rumored? Obama-Antichrist-Nostradamus( some people forcibly are attempting to make those connections),Comparisons between Obama-Kennedy-Reagan. Obama gun control upcoming policies for the US etc.

It may possibly not shock you that much that there have been large demands for memorabilia such as Barack Obama wallpaper, barack obama cartoons, obama tax calculator as a way perhaps for the supporters to have an emotional contact- barack obama. You can see that support and adulation in many barak obama web internet sites, where not only his info is available but about Michelle Obama biographical information? How tall is michelle obama? The Michelle Obama election night dress are also of vast interest to women and fashionistas  wide! Some not so fitting searches are also being typed on the internet searching for michelle obama nude pictures? I can not and will not get into that today but let me just post some key facts about barack obama background on this article.

President Barack Obama Biography:
1961 – at the age of 25 Barack Obama Senior senior and Ann Dunham married in Honolulu, Hawaii. August 4,1961, Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii.

1963- Barack Obama senior is received at Harvard University. He departs from his family and child to live in Massachusetts.

1967 – Ann Dunham aged 25 at the time encounters Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia at the University of Hawaii, and later on they decide to get married the same year. They also decided to move to Lolo’s hometown in Jakarta indonesia while the lttle Obama goes to school there in the following few years.

1971 – Just Barack Obama, mother was left in Indonesia and he decides to live with his grandparents in the original Obama birthplace (in Hawaii) to attend the prestigious Punahou School.

1979 – Obama graduates from Punahou School and relocates to Los Angeles to study college (liberal arts) at Occidental College

1981 – Obama enrolls in Columbia University to learn Political Science. Hes presently 20 at this time, and is inhabiting in new york.

1983 – He starts working at Business International Corporation after graduation from Columbia.

1985 – At Present 24 years old, he decides to move to Chicago. He becomes a director of DCP, or  Developing Communities Project.

1988 – He travels back to Massachusetts and begin studying at Harvard Law school. He becomes the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and subsequently on became the president of the Harvard Law Review. He also worked at various Chicago law firms where he ran into his wife Michelle.

1991 – At Present 30 years old, graduates with Juris Doctor, magna cum laude from Harvard Law school. He is tendered a fellowship at the University of Chicago Law school. During this year Obama marries Michelle.

1992 – Now teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law school. During this time he served as civil rights litigation lawyer while functioning in the board of directors for divers philanthropy organizations.

1995 – He publishes his first volume, Dreams of my father.

1996 – He is elected to the Illinois State Senate. He’s presently 35 years old at the time.

2004 – Makes-up his mind to run for the U.S. Senate and won over a 52% of the votes.

2005- He is sworn to  the US Senate. He was  44 years old at this time.

2006 – His following volume, The Audacity of Hope gets printed.

2008 – Declares his candidacy for president of the United States, acquires the party nomination versus Hillary Clinton.  he wins the 44th US presidential  constituting him the 1st Black-American president of the United States of America.

OBAMA LIES – About every thing he tells you-Check IT OUT!

      Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.

                                  Cap and Trade Sold under False Pretenses

Obama’s health care is just misdirection — the administration doesn’t want you to focus on what’s really happening. While everyone is focused on the propaganda charges with ABC — they won’t notice that Cap & Trade has been jammed down our throats. Now, with Governor Sanford’s debacle, you can bet the White House is cheering on yet another distraction taking eyes away from Cap & Trade.

The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:
* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.

A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day

A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–5 per household in 2020.[1]
But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.
In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was 1 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into ,870–more than 10 times the size of the 5 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was 3 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to ,790 per family of four.
Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop billion in 2012, billion in 2024, and over billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.

It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill

President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.
The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:
1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.
Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.
The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.

Less Renewable Energy

The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]
Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.

It Will Not Save the Planet

The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.
According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]
A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.

Moving Forward

Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.

Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate CALL 1-212-224-3121 or http://www.usa.gov/ Email, Fax , Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.
                                STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!

Related Obama Articles

OBAMA LIES – to voters

OBOAMA’S LIES

 Stop the Cap & Trade vote – NOW in the U.S. Senate. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW.

The 1,500-page cap-and-trade climate legislation, also known as Waxman-Markey, passed by a narrow margin late in the day on June 26. Members of Congress added 300 of those pages early in the morning on the day of the vote. It is safe to assume that hardly any of the 435 Members of Congress read the bill in its entirety, meaning one of the costliest bills in American history was rushed through so politicians could enjoy their 4th of July recess.

Cap and trade is nothing more than a massive energy tax, which is why its chief alternative is a carbon tax, and it has been sold under the following false pretenses:

* It will not cost anything;
* It will increase jobs;
* It will increase green investment; and
* It will save the environment.

A Lot More Than a Stamp a Day

A commonly quoted cost estimate of Waxman-Markey comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which claims that cap and trade will cost the equivalent of a postage stamp per day–5 per household in 2020.[1]

But CBO admittedly ignores economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill[2] and the fact that consumers and business will change their behavior as a result of higher energy prices. This is a serious oversight that has significant economic consequences.

In The Heritage Foundation’s economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP loss in 2020 was 1 billion (in 2009 dollars).[3] For a family of four, that translates into ,870–more than 10 times the size of the 5 CBO claim.Furthermore, the Heritage analysis found that for all years, the average GDP loss was 3 billion, or more than double the 2020 loss. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage), the inflation-adjusted GDP loss works out to ,790 per family of four.

Energy-intensive industries will also suffer significant losses. For instance, farming is very energy-intensive, with fuel, chemical, electricity, and fertilizer costs; since cap and trade drives up the cost of energy prices, farmers’ losses will undoubtedly outweigh any money they collect from offsets (the money businesses would pay farmers to reduce carbon emissions by either not farming or using more efficient technologies). The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that farm income (or the amount left over after paying all expenses) is expected to drop billion in 2012, billion in 2024, and over billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively. The average net income lost over the 2010-2035 timeline is billion–a 57 percent decrease from the baseline.

It Is a Jobs-Destroying Bill

President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of “green” jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth.

The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons:

1. Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and
2. People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices.

Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment.

The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline–without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of “green jobs” created as a result of the bill.

Less Renewable Energy

The final House bill contained many renewable energy investments in an effort to attract votes. The Waxman-Markey proposal even requires that more electricity come from so-called renewable sources, chiefly wind energy but also others like biomass and solar. Ironically, according to an analysis of the bill by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Waxman-Markey would actually result in less renewable energy produced than without the bill because of the overall decline in electricity use.[5]

Green projects do not pay for themselves; it is the taxpayers who fund the research and development of renewable energy and the cost of the subsidies that are required to make renewables competitive. Yet renewable energy still only provides a small fraction of America’s energy needs, and it is more expensive per kilowatt hour than traditional, reliable sources of energy. Consumers lose doubly, paying more as taxpayers and as ratepayers.

It Will Not Save the Planet

The alleged benefit from cap and trade is that the regulations will reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to slow warming and reduce global temperatures.

According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[6] Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson concurred, recently saying, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”[7]

A multilateral approach would not fare much better. In the case of international cooperation, India, China, and the rest of the developing world would have to revert to their 2000 levels of CO2 emissions by 2050. On a per-capita basis, China would backtrack to about one-tenth of what the U.S. emitted in 2000. India and most of the developing world would have to drop to even lower levels. This scenario, in addition to being highly unlikely, would de-develop the developing world.

Moving Forward

Now that the bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, it will likely move to the U.S. Senate this fall. It is important to remember that everything policymakers have promised this bill will do will in fact do the opposite. Cap and trade will drive up energy costs for years to come, resulting in economic pain and higher unemployment. All of these points will be equally important, if not more so, in the Senate debate.

Stop the Cap & Trade vote- NOW in the U.S. Senate  CALL 1-212-224-3121 or http://www.usa.gov   Email, Fax ,  Call State Local Phone Number SEE Gov. Website For Info.

                                         STOP THE SENATE VOTE NOW!

http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies

Obama and his lying team are telling the people exactly what they want to hear. The people are getting half-truths or down right lies, after they tell them what they want to hear. Obama and his lying team must be STOPPED NOW.

Obama’s plan to give all U.S. citizens one thing, that is LIFE TIME BONDAGE TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY PART OF YOUR LIFE WILL BE UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT, check it out for yourself. Read all the bills that have been passed and sign in to law, go to http://www.usa.gov/. Or  http://www.heritage.org/ Read the book of REVELATION in the Holy Bible and looking at 2 Timothy 3:1-5. DO NOT BE A NAIVE PERSON it is time to be a RESPONSIBLE  PERSON for yourself, family, other people and the United States and the world. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A VOTER and a citizens of the U.S.A. and the world.

http://www.squidoo.com/obamalies

 

Get the DVD @ infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people. The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery. We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order’s plans. It’s not about Left or Right: it’s about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation. Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you. Watch the Obama Deception and learn how: – Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law. – Obama’s handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force. – International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government. – Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the …

More Obama Articles

I read where Obama will allow for no medical treatment for a baby who survives a botched abortion. In other words, despite the abortionists best attempts to kill an unborn citizen, the baby does not die. Yet Obama would deny the surviving baby ANY medical treatment. He’d rather set the baby aside on a closet shelf and let it die.

Somehow Barack Obama was able to get three people booted from the ballot, allowing Obama to run for the job unopposed.

Hey, check out these auctions:

BARACK OBAMA – US President- T-SHIRT – Size LARGE

US $19.99 End Date: Saturday Oct-03-2009 2:28:44 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $19.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

BARACK OBAMA – US President- T-SHIRT – Size LARGE

US $19.99 End Date: Saturday Oct-03-2009 2:36:07 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $19.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Cool, arent they?