Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Limiting the Charter | Main | MSM gets Iraq wrong, again »

Friday, March 14, 2008

Can We Call Obama Anti-American Now?

Shall we take this moment to take stock of the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is, in some fashion, fundamentally anti-American and therefore a threat to the people of the Western world?

Let's briefly review what we know about Barack Hussein Obama.

1) He was raised by a mother who was described by her own friends as a "fellow traveller" and who expatriated herself and would later, when asked by her husband to go to business functions in Indonesia where Americans would be present, angrily denied that they were "her people."

2) Frank Marshall Davis, who Obama describes as a mentor in his autobiography was a member of the Communist Party.

3) Obama refuses to wear a flag pin because, he claims, true patriotism consists of opposing the Iraq War.  The corollary to this, of course, is that Obama must therefore believe that people who support the war are not "true patriots," a position which is, to say the least, odd.

4) One of Obama's friends is William Ayers, a man who unsuccessfully attempted to blow up an Army dance and, when asked about this terrorist activity after September 11th, said, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

5) His wife infamously recently claimed that the fact that her husband was doing well in the Presidential election made her feel proud of America for the first time in her adult life.

6) He belongs to a radical Church whose Pastor - a man who he is close to and who provided the title of his second book - says that we should sing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America" and says that America got what it deserved on September 11th.

All of this, I should add, is leaving aside the Moslem issue, his connections with radical Palestinians, and so forth.  I'm not even getting into the Islamic doctrine of al-Taqiyya, which permits the faithful to conceal their true faith from infidels.  I am simply offering facts here, not suppositions.

What do we know, then, about Barack Hussein Obama?

We know that he's the child of a mother with radical and seeming anti-American views.  He was mentored by a communist and claims that "true patriotism" consists of trying to ensure that America loses wars.  He likes to hang around with unrepentant terrorists.  His wife has never been proud of America in her whole adult life.  The man who married him, whose Church he has attended for two decades, and who baptized his children hates America.

Can we trust this man to defend our civilization?  Should we?

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on March 14, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55116a41c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can We Call Obama Anti-American Now?:

» Probably--As Long As You Don't Question His Patriotism from Ed Driscoll.com
"Can We Call Obama Anti-American Now?"... [Read More]

Tracked on 2008-03-14 9:27:52 PM

Comments

"The colliery to this..."

What does a coal mining facility have to do with this?

Corollary, perhaps? ;)

Treg

Posted by: Tregonsee | 2008-03-14 5:09:26 AM


And "where Americans would be present..." And no, I don't trust him.

Posted by: who, me? | 2008-03-14 7:08:22 AM


This is ridiculous. Obama is not anti-American. I'm tired of living in a society where someone is defined as "anti-American" because they don't fall in line with this small, narrow definition of what an "American" is. One of the things I love about America is that there IS no such thing as an American. We have libertarians and communists living together in relative harmony. There is no such thing as an American. We are all immigrants. We are so diverse on every possible level that, in fact, Obama is MORE American than if he had grown up in a "traditional" family with "traditional" ideals.
We need to break out of this mold of thinking that there is one way to be an American. America is a wonderful country because there is no such thing as "normal."

Posted by: Emily | 2008-03-14 8:29:57 AM


Adam: Just the blatant anti-white, anti-American tirade by his Pastor is enough for me to say that Obama would be a disaster for America. He has been a member of that church for 20 years. How could any non-racist stay in a hateful congregation like that for 20 years?

Obama is the worst hypocrite saying he wants change...hmmm, change like in Mugabe's Zimbabwe? With friends like Pastor Wright, Obama loses all credibility.

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-03-14 8:50:51 AM


Emily mistakes current fickled media catch phrasing for historic cultural development of our national identity.

The coin of the rhelm carries Latin words: E Pluribus Unum, From Many One.

There most certainly is such a thing as being an American, and it is entirely bound up in the desire to be a freedom loving and freedom sharing and freedom protecting and freedom promoting individual who recognizes that freedom is not free and requires the concerted effort of all.

All one need do in order to become American is possess the desire to join in that state of mind. Then the mechanical processes, involving easily accomplished acts if one is intent upon upholding-abiding by our Rule of Law (i.e. entering LEGALLY, etc.) are merely matters of form and time and place.

America's greatness is that it relies upon individual freedom (even the freedom to be ignorant and divisive as a way of life) as the ultimate engine to perpetuate our culture.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-03-14 9:04:44 AM


Emily

What you just described is the disastrous model that Canada, not the US, has adopted. No such thing as an American? Americans are probably the most well defined citizens in the world.

Adam

Even CNN is airing the insane rant from Obama's pastor. The dirt is starting to pile up, and if he gets the nomination he'll likely get buried in it.

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-14 9:11:50 AM


3) Obama refuses to wear a flag pin because, he claims, true patriotism consists of opposing the Iraq War. The colliery to this, of course, is that Obama must therefore believe that people who support the war are not "true patriots" a position which is, to say the least, odd.

----------------

Not stranger than people who claim if you are not for the war in Iraq you aren't a patriot. That logic cuts both ways. These are opinions and that's what the people who utter them believe in.

This statement only makes Obama less capabal of running the country than say McCain if you think that being American means to have to blow shit up in other parts of the world to prove that you're "The Man".

If your definition of what it means to be American in different then this is a non-starter.

BTW, Adam, why don't you make yourself a sign and start protesting outside of Obama's rallies? Maybe point people to your postings on the Shotgun so that they can read (your version of) the truth about Obama?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 9:24:27 AM


Emily said

"I'm tired of living in a society where someone is defined as "anti-American" because they don't fall in line with this small, narrow definition of what an "American" is. ":

I'm tired of living in a society where someone is tired of living in a society because they don't fall in line with this large, broader definition of what an "American" is.

I guess that makes us both tired of each other. Now what do we do about that?

My answer: Nothing. Tough luck.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 9:30:22 AM


"Can we trust this man to defend our civilization?"

That reads kind of Junior High Debate Clubbish don't you think?

All spin aside, why would you trust civilization to one elected official anyway? You _do_ know the Americans electing the head of the executive branch of their federal government, and not the head of the Justice League of America™ right?

Anyway, a Canadian questioning whether "we" (emphasis on the use of the word "we", not "they") should look to Obama for leadership looks kind of like a grown man reading Seventeen magazine and clipping out prom makeup articles to discuss with his guy friends at work.

Aside note: One could argue that it's anti-american to try to influence the vote from outside of the USA the way clowns like Chavez do.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/puzzles_toons/images/07tmate.gif

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 9:50:21 AM


While we're at it... is Illinois Senator Obama a Christian who's been a member a dangerous splinter church for twenty years, or a Manchurian Candidate Muslim? If he's a Muslim, then he's not really listening to anything that pastor's been saying all along and so the splinter-church stuff doesn't matter, and if he's a Christian then the Muslim connections don't matter. But if he's a Christian, then the Muslim talk has been a lie and that's bad. And if he's a Christian then the Muslim talk is a lie, and that's bad too because there's not telling where the lies began and ended, so who's to say the bashing hasn't all been a bunch of lies? Uh oh.

I bet the trick to lying is to go with one lie at a time.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 9:58:37 AM


PR: Right on. The only thing we know for sure is that Obama is a liar. What is Obama lying about though?

Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-03-14 10:14:27 AM


Pattern,

You are wallowing in what ifs. Yoshi put forward a list of undeniable 'facts'. The conclusion one draws from these facts is simply that Obama doesn't look like much of American and may have a malevolent agenda.

I believe all Leftists are malevolent and misguided. Certainly the results of nearly everything they have done has ended is some level of failure right on up to disaster.

You are in a sophisticated state of denial. You are not recognizing the patters at all.

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-14 10:18:05 AM


You are wallowing in what ifs. Yoshi put forward a list of undeniable 'facts'. The conclusion one draws from these facts is simply that Obama doesn't look like much of American and may have a malevolent agenda.

Posted by: John West | 14-Mar-08 10:18:05 AM

Okay, can you define to me what it means to be American? And I am not talking about Apple Pie here. What are the three main characteristics that make someone American and that Obama is lacking?

And if you have the time, what do you think Obama's Agenda is?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 10:20:22 AM


>"All spin aside, why would you trust civilization to one elected official anyway? You _do_ know the Americans electing the head of the executive branch of their federal government, and not the head of the Justice League of America™ right?"
Pattern Recognition | 14-Mar-08 9:50:21

The POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces no?

>"And if you have the time, what do you think Obama's Agenda is?"
Snowrunner | 14-Mar-08 10:20:22 AM

Nobody knows what Obamas agenda is, Snowrunner.
Mr. Obama is a stealth candidate.

Often a candidate is accused of having a "secret agenda" apart from the public agenda they espouse.

Barak Obama doesn't have a public agenda.


Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 10:33:43 AM


Posted by: Speller | 14-Mar-08 10:33:43 AM

That's all fine and well, but considering the amount of hate heaped on Obama on here I am sure you guys can at least spell out (no pun intended) why you think he is so bad for the future not only of America but the entire Western Civilization based on your opinion what his secret agenda is.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 10:50:57 AM


Snowy,

"That's all fine and well, but considering the amount of hate heaped on Obama on here I am sure you guys can at least spell out (no pun intended) why you think he is so bad for the future not only of America but the entire Western Civilization based on your opinion what his secret agenda is."

Amen. May I borrow this logic to defend against the Bush haters?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 10:54:01 AM


Snowrunner,
The "secret" part of agenda means just that.
SECRET

Why is his entire agenda secret?
Just vote for Obama and you'll get change?

If he thinks people will want his agenda and vote for him based on it would his agenda be a secret?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 10:56:50 AM


I'm not sure what Barack Hussein Obama actually is - whether he's a secret ultra-leftist, a Carter-type incompetent or what have you. I'm just quire certain that, if elected President, he will destroy American power through foolishly engaging in unconditional diplomacy with the common enemies of our civilization and through a refusal to use force in our defense.

The only question I have in that regard is whether in doing this he would be being malicious or merely stupid. I'd originally thought the latter, but now I'm beginning to incline towards the former.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-03-14 10:56:58 AM


You know, the funny thing is I don't think most of "these guys" hate Obama. That would be too easy. I think a lot of people have genuine concerns over the possibility of too much change.

American voters have shown they like things the way they are. Even with the mistakes Bush made, they were hesitant to make the minor change to John Kerry. Electing Obama would be a huge leap of faith compared to that decision.

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-14 10:59:01 AM


Snow,

An American is a person who loves freedom above all.
An American is a person who believes in free enterprise, and self reliance.
An American is a person who loves and is willing to defend his country to the death.
An American is a person who believe democracy is better than totalitarianism.
An American is a person who believes in unfettered free speech.
An American is a person who believes in his right to pursue happiness.
An American is a person who is always willing to help others in need and that has been proved many times over.
An American is person who for some unknown reason is overly tolerant of compete and utter assholes like you.

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-14 11:03:56 AM


"The POTUS is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces no?"

He is, but there are checks & balances to ensure their enemies never planted a stealth commander in charge of the American armed forces. Everyone from the SecDef to a Seaman Recruit swears to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; which authorizes them to disobey an illegal order, since an illegal order would only come (in theory) from an enemy.

And luckily for their men & women in uniform, there are court cases going back as far as 1799 that support their duty to disobey the orders of a Manchurian Candidate.

"Nobody knows what Obama's agenda is, Snowrunner. Mr. Obama is a stealth candidate."

Obama will have to run his secret agenda by Congress for funding unless he plans to throw it on his Amex card and carry it out with hired goons. Again, a check & balance. Folks who accused Bush & Cheney of being a Vader/Palpatine pseudo-monarchy always have to reconcile that with how it still required a vote in Congress to authorize force in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if Obama was to go mad one night and decide to sneak downstairs to the White House Situation Room to launch a nuclear strike on Israel, he's not authorized to go in alone, and even if he overpowered the armed marines using his Jihad-Jitsu, he'd still need his part of that day's code, and the next two active levels of authority present to personally deliver their share of that day's code, all confirmed by armed servicemen. And _that_ would have to get past the remotely stationed armed servicemen who then enact the code and launch the strike.

Heck, on a Navy vessel Marines are authorized to shoot the captain if he tries to touch "the button" without all his 'paperwork' in order. They thought this s**t though.

So basically you'd need to sneakily replace almost the entire Executive level, more than half of the House of Representatives, more than half of the Senate, more than half of the senior command of the U.S. Military, most of the important U.S. Marines, and probably a good chunk of the Air Force and Navy with very very determined bad guys.

And I know Oprah has the clout but damn, that's a stretch.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 11:10:24 AM


I don't think many actually hate Obama, but I do believe most hate what he stands for which so far appears to be very little other than he doesn't like things the way they are.

Because he has no apparent policies beyond taking a hard left, he cannot be trusted. He has very little history upon which he can be judged so he is an unknown quantity. At this time in history we need to know who is at the helm and what we can expect from him.

What we do know of Obama's background ... he ain't looking too good.

So stop the accusations of hate. It is mistrust and fear of the unknown that is driving the down with Obama thing not hate.

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-14 11:11:01 AM


An American is person who for some unknown reason is overly tolerant of compete and utter assholes like you.

Posted by: John West | 14-Mar-08 11:03:56 AM

Please elaborate how I am "utter asshole".

And while we're on it. How does Obama "jepardize" these core American values? Maybe more important. How wouild McCain protect / further them?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 11:11:08 AM


An American loves America.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 2008-03-14 11:13:57 AM


So stop the accusations of hate. It is mistrust and fear of the unknown that is driving the down with Obama thing not hate.

Posted by: John West | 14-Mar-08 11:11:01 AM

Oh well, in order to ease the pain of your soul let me take back the hate and replace it with: "Well thought out criticism of the Obama campaign and the undeniable super secret agenda to overthrow all that is good in America and replace it with a European Style Socialism"

Feeling better now?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 11:15:02 AM


An American loves America.

RG

Posted by: RightGirl | 14-Mar-08 11:13:57 AM

Nice Soundbite, but it doesn't answer what America IS.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 11:16:03 AM


PR,

"Folks who accused Bush & Cheney of being a Vader/Palpatine pseudo-monarchy always have to reconcile that with how it still required a vote in Congress to authorize force in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And they saw the same intelligence reports. In Hillary's case, she was privy to it years before Bush.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 11:19:27 AM


John McCain: "They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

John McCain: "I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope." McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities."

John McCain is an American. I have no doubt about it.

John West: "An American is a person who loves and is willing to defend his country To The Death."

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 11:19:39 AM


h2o273kk9 "And they saw the same intelligence reports. In Hillary's case, she was privy to it years before Bush."

Bit of a rabbit rail for the discussion of Obama's agenda, but I'll bite. Yep. Hillary saw the intelligence reports. So will future senators see the intelligence reports Obama will have to use in making the case for the use of force. Any secret agendas will stay secret till about Friday january 20, 2008. Then it's just a matter of time until even the most secret plans have to surface for funding, authorization, and action.

Again though, I'll concede it's possible Obama could fund a secret agenda on his Amex card, and carry it out with hired goons a la Dr. No, but really, he could do that today.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 11:26:17 AM


Perhaps Barak Obama has at various points in his life consorted with radicals. But he seems to be a normal, run of the mill Democrat. Unfortunately.

Posted by: exile | 2008-03-14 11:29:28 AM


exile,

"But he seems to be a normal, run of the mill Democrat. Unfortunately."

Succinct. Accurate. Fair.

I like it.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 11:30:56 AM


Is it easier to define what a Frenchman is? How about an Israeli? Maybe an Iraqi? What is England? Maybe Switzerland has more personality?

I read a letter to the editor in my local paper a couple months back, from a new immigrant. It totally berated Canadians for daring to believe we have some sort of claim on this country. Her assertion was that Canada is an open door that provides equal rights to anyone that steps onto the tarmack. She accused Canadians of "changing the rules once we were safely in the door". Is this how the international community really sees us?

Maybe I'm an American, because I don't see it that way.

Posted by: dp | 2008-03-14 11:32:20 AM


>"Yep. Hillary saw the intelligence reports. So will future senators see the intelligence reports Obama will have to use in making the case for the use of force."
Pattern Recognition | 14-Mar-08 11:26:17 AM


Obama won't be making a case for the use of force.
That much we know.

We also know he plans to dismantle U.S. military power and defund defence development programs.

None of those things are subject to any checks and balances.

And lastly, Mr. Obama won't attack Israel.
He also won't sell them any weapons or give them the foreign defence aid they need to survive.

In short, Mr. Obama is going to create vacuums where once there was American strength in foreign policy areas.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 11:36:54 AM


Speller: "Mr. Obama won't attack Israel. He also won't sell them any weapons or give them the foreign defense aid they need to survive."

I already said he won't attack Israel, but John West might have to rethink he definition of an American or concede that someone who told Israel to arm their own selves might meet his definition of an American ("a person who believes in free enterprise, and self reliance").

Question though. If Obama wants two terms to carry out his secret agenda, won't he need to win Florida in the 2012 general election? Thoughts on how he could carry that state after pushing Israel under a bus?

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 11:45:23 AM


>"I already said he won't attack Israel,"
Pattern Recognition | 14-Mar-08 11:45:23 AM

Nobody except you, Recog, implied that he would.

As for wanting 2 terms, who says he wants or need 2 terms to accomplish his agenda?

I say, since it is easier to wreck America than to build it, that Mr. Obama only needs 1 term to accomplish his agenda.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 11:53:19 AM


Another "American Value": Entertainment:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/03/voluntary-confinement.html

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 12:25:28 PM


This isn't a Jack Kirby comic book. Bad guys can't just sneak in to office and lower the drawbridge as easily as people here seem to be assuming Bizarro World Obama would do.

--------------------------------------------
[Meanwhile... in a secret chamber in a mansion in rural Vermont, our heroes survey the terrible scene unfolding.]

"My god Minuteman, he's lowered the shields and reprogrammed our armies to attack us! Quick, to the Minutemobile!"

"It's no use Liberty Belle, Evil Obama has destroyed the MinuteCave with his defundoblaster and hypnotized all of Congress. Look, on the monitor! By the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, is that a hypnotized Representative Pete King (R - NY) committing an unspeakable act against a yet-to-be-deployed F-22? Curse you Evil Obamaaaaaaa!"

--------------------------------------------


Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 1:03:43 PM


Well then, Recog, Mr. Obama is a liar then, because he has said he will do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/week9/index.html

http://www.thejewishpress.com/displaycontent_new.cfm?contentid=30283&contentname=Obama%20Served%20On%20Board%20That%20Funded%20Pro-Palestinian%20Group&sectionid=14&mode=a&recnum=0

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 1:57:45 PM


In the video I heard him say he'd cut money from the missile defense shield program. I thought the bad guys was firing Katyushas and those 122mm rockets, not sub-orbital missiles like the MDS program is built to stop. We aren't funding defense against Cthulhu either, does that leave our allies out to dry?

Their current arsenal of nuclear weapons didn't deter 9/11 any more than Israel's arsenal deters Hamas or the other thugs. How would not buying more more undeterring weapons weaken anyone? It's like worrying that not buying Yosemite Sam "Back Off" mud-flaps will put your family at risk of dying in a car crash.

As for Future Combat Systems, even McCain has been fighting that boondoggle since 2005.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001366.html
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_fcs_watch.html

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 2:39:14 PM


PR,

"How would not buying more more undeterring weapons weaken anyone?"

Why lock your car door? That won't deter car thieves.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 2:48:36 PM


Missile systems have a shelf life.
Not buying more means losing nuclear weapons capability.

Nuclear weapons deter weapons of mass destruction from other nation states.
Having a missile shield could actually allow the U.S. to no longer need it's nuclear arsenal.

But first you have to have that missile shield that Mr. Obama says he'll axe.

Not having a nuclear weapons capability means a nation needs a really big expensive conventional military.

Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons.
It is only assumed that Israel has any.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 2:54:47 PM


I just re-watched it. He said he'd cut investments in "unproven missile defense systems". That made me wonder if he meant a proven system would be ok.

When I searched through a few of his speeches I found this: "If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment."

Sounds like he'd sign funding to deploy hardware that passed field tests. The current testing definition for "effective" means, according to Lt. General Henry. Obering means "more effective than if it didn't exist". Take that satellite shootdown as an example. If the Koreans built a missile, and scheduled a launch with us allowing say a week's notice and would promise to scrub for foul weather if we asked... then we're ready and safe.

BTW McCain plans to cut spending on strategic nukes as well.

So McCain and Obama will cut FCS, McCain and Obama will cut strategic nukes, McCain and Obama will push for successful field tests before buying anything we'd be deploying to the front, and McCain* and Obama have crazy pastors cheering for them.

(*McCain was endorsed by John Hagee who said God will singlehandedly destroy the entire armed forces of Russia and it's future islamic allies when they invade Israel. If that's true, we really don't need to fund missile defense, it'd be an act of unfaithfullness.)

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 3:29:29 PM


In military-speak "proven" means successfully deployed in actual combat.

Go to the library after work, the one with the C-Train station by the old City Hall, go up to the 3rd Floor and you'll find Jane's All the World's Missiles or Jane's All the World's Combat Systems and you'll see advertisements by corporations who develop and sell various weapons to the world's armies/navies/air forces.

In the ads, if the system has been used in a particular conflict, they will use the phrase "proven in combat" and name the conflict and which forces unit used it.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 3:42:15 PM


"In military-speak 'proven' means successfully deployed in actual combat."

An unproven Obama doesn't approve of unproven weapons, so the people who approve of unproven weapons say disapprove of an unproven Obama, instead they approve of an unproven McCain who himself approves of unproven weapons but disapproves of an unproven Obama to the approval of the makers of unproven weapons.

If that were a drawing it'd be that Escher staircase one.

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-03-14 4:27:11 PM


Here's my prediction.

If Obama is not exposed as a fraud before election date with his pie-in-the-sky promises and actually assumes office ...

Once he sees the intelligence reports Hillary and Dubya already have seen, it will be impossible for him to act AGAINST the interests of America.

There are facts out there about the influences on him that will be dug up even before the Democratic convention that will cast serious doubt on whether he is fit to be Commander in Chief.


Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-14 4:57:46 PM


There are facts out there about the influences on him that will be dug up even before the Democratic convention that will cast serious doubt on whether he is fit to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by: set you free | 14-Mar-08 4:57:46 PM

As you seem to have seen the facts and know them, would you mind sharing them with the audience here so that we aren't totally shocked when the truth you already know about will come out?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 6:05:00 PM


Just a general comment about how these things go. Stuff is always dug up about candidates, a huge debate ensues

If I had the ability to predict the future, my stock portfolio would be worth millions.

Really, I don't know what's going to happen any more than you do.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-03-14 6:19:37 PM


Really, I don't know what's going to happen any more than you do.

Posted by: set you free | 14-Mar-08 6:19:37 PM

You write a lot of times though as if you do know things nobody else does.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 6:26:49 PM


He has enough problems with family, friends and associates to preclude him as President. As a Senator from Illonois he's just fine and can do no real harm, we can't take a chance with someone like this for the top spot.

Posted by: ronnor | 2008-03-14 9:37:01 PM


Well said, ronnor.

I might add that as President, there are certain identity groups that have expectations that I would hope if Mr. Obama became President, he would not fulfill.

The question is, as a stealth candidate, whose expectations will Senator Obama meet and whose will he disappoint?

Having asked that, who has the most to lose by being disappointed?

All we really know is that he stands for change.

There seems to be a lot of that going around these days for political candidates, incumbents or challengers, all of them say they can do better then their predecessors, even if those predecessors are their own party.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 9:56:16 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.