The Audacity of Stupidity

Brian Cherry, Associate Editor
TheNewMediaJournal

Anybody watching the Obama campaign can’t help but be amazed by what they are seeing. We have a completely inexperienced, inadequate candidate actively running on the idea that he is going to raise everyone’s taxes while promoting the fact that he is going to be a foreign relations disaster. After saying he would bomb our ally, Pakistan, he stated he would legitimize leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by engaging in unconditional diplomacy. For those who have forgotten, Mahmoud is a person who not only has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map, but honestly believes himself to be the harbinger of Muslim doom for the western world at the hands of the 12^th Imam.

Intelligent people should be concerned at Obama’s eagerness to drop a daisy cutter on countries who are helping us in the war on terror while offering to spoon with leaders of belligerent nations where the words “Death to America” are printed on everything from tea cozies to those big foam fingers people wave about at sporting events. Based on recent statements from both Barack and his fishwife, we know the Obamas are not proud of the a nation that has provided them with Ivy League educations, unbounded opportunity, and a legitimate shot at the American Dream of becoming President, but there should be limits on the number of naïve statements and outright stupid proposals that the word “hope” is allowed to cover like a media deodorant.

If the Democrats want to be intellectually honest and put forth a minority candidate who inspires legitimate hope in their voters, they should make Flavor Flav their nominee. Hey, any ex-con crack addict who can make millions of dollars while dozens of strippers fight for the right to treat him like a Bill Clinton Cohiba cigar should be a beacon of overachieving hope to the liberal core constituency of underachieving losers.

When you get past all the fluffy rhetoric that is supposed to make Barack Hussein Obama look like the political version of Barney the Dinosaur, and actually do some research on the guy, you find that he is the most far left senator in Congress today. The National Review took a look at all the votes cast by the candidate for change, and found that the only one left of him was Karl Marx, and even that was a very close race. So, besides offering to split his 72 virgins with Ahmadinejad as a gesture of healing, and telling the Canadians that he was just kidding about opposing NAFTA, what else has the Democrat’s most cuddly Senator have planned for America?

One of the most common anecdotes that both Obama’s cite as proof that America is unfair, is the fact that they had to pay back their student loans. First of all, this very complaint is ridiculous on its face. Michelle Obama went to Princeton while Barack Hussein Obama went to Columbia. Both of them did their post graduate study and earned degrees from Harvard as well. These are some of the most insanely expensive schools on the planet. The cost of being educated at these three institutions is roughly equal to the price of a really nice, suburban house that is not unlike the one that crime lord Tony Rezko helped set Barack and his wife up in.

Nobody forced either Barack or his wife to choose Ivy League educations. If money was an issue, Community Colleges, State Universities, and waiting tables could have been part of the equation. These are options that a lot of very successful people have chosen instead of going to schools that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Living in the United States has given the Obamas the opportunity to choose those prestigious institutions, find employment, and pay off the debt that their choice of schools has left them with. Living in a free country also gives them the right to publicly complain about having to pay the bill that was the consequence of their choices. Regardless of what not wanting to live up to their commitment says about the character of Michelle and Barack, it also is launching pad for one of their more insidious plans.

Barack wants to give away money to kids who have college aspirations. His plan includes a $4000 tax credit, expanded grants, as well as the elimination of subsidies and guarantees for loans from private banks; providing a disincentive for banks to stay in the college loan business. In other words, by expanding government handouts for college while limiting private sector funding options, the government becomes a major source of college funding. This all sounds good on the surface, but when somebody is coming from the far left, there is a rather large problem with this idea. It is one that stabs directly at the Evangelicals that the liberals loath so much.

In his keynote address at the Call for Renewal, Barack said the following:

“[Conservative leaders] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland…It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religion, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith.”

Apparently that Harvard education didn’t do him much good when it comes to matters of the Constitution. Like most liberal Constitutional lawyers he misses the fact that the words “Separation of Church and State” are not found in the First Amendment. It simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion”.

I will assume that history was not his strong suit either. If it was he would know that those words were included in our founding document not as a way to discourage people from putting up a Christmas nativity scene in view of their atheist neighbor’s front window, but as a response to the persecution that occurred under the Church of England. Once England broke from the Catholics and established their own Church, people who didn’t see things their way were subject to fines, torture, and execution. In other words that statement in the first amendment means the United States will never have a law like England’s Uniformity Act of 1559; a decree that made it illegal not to attend sanctioned Church of England services.

Considering the atmosphere and blatant liberal conditioning that occurs on the campuses of most State Colleges and Universities, there has been a significant exodus from these institutions to private colleges; a large chunk of them are religious in nature. What does Barack’s program say about Federal grant money going to kids whose parents don’t want to send them to a school where Ward Churchill can blame George W. Bush for everything from 9-11 to the cancellation of Baywatch?

We already know the answer to this one. There is absolutely no chance that Barack will appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution. Like his Democrat brethren, he prefers people in tasteless black robes who want to make law, not uphold it. This means that tuition to private Colleges and Universities that expose evolution correctly as “the science of things that sort of look alike” will be branded as a separation of church conflict and probably won’t be eligible for payment with Federal grants and loans.

Those who doubt this need look no further then May 22^nd of 2007 when a Federal Court ruled in Colorado Christian University v. Baker that a tuition assistance program for low-income students violated the separation of Church and State. In a nutshell, public money could only go to schools that manage to link the combustion engine to our planets “Snowball Earth” phase, teach that Jesus is just a myth, and pretend that the questions raised regarding the Pre-Cambrian layer don’t give aneurisms to uninformed, dogmatic evolutionists.

It is hard to believe that the effects of the above mentioned lawsuit, and other ones like it would not be a consideration for somebody as far left as Obama when coming up with his proposals. The argument could even be made that since his ideas discourage private funding that he is counting on it. The Barack plan would take many of the private loan programs out of the mix (because technically that would not be federal money and could be used at just about any school) and give a huge competitive, state sponsored advantage to Schools and Universities that tow the “progressive” line; forcing many students away from colleges that uphold traditional values and true diversity of thought and into to a “place of learning” that is more interested in turning them into a liberal convert then teaching them to think for themselves.

This is consistent with “Pro-Choice” liberals who want public funding for in utero murders but don’t believe in options when it conflicts with their message. By channeling kids away from many private institutions and into the classrooms of Ward Churchill clones they will help create a generation that believes capitalism is unfair, socialism is good, competition is for warmongering Nazis, God is dead, and the Government should take care of you from birth until that fateful “progressive” day that Washington has the power to decide when your number is up. In other words they will come out more dim-witted then when they went in. Being the advocate for this sort of stupidity is audacious indeed.

Brian Cherry is an Associate Editor for The New Media Journal. He was born, raised and lives in the state of MI and from his home in the far north pursues the two passions that have driven him since his high school days, writing and the study of Scandinavian history…

                             ******************

The Two Faces of Barack Hussein Obama

By JB Williams

TheNewMediaJournal

Young voters swoon at his feet like prepubescent girls at a Beatles concert. Black religious charlatans like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan are pimping for him from the pulpit. Old guards of the American Socialist movement like Teddy Kennedy, have latched on to his Elvis-like charisma and even mass media moguls like Oprah Winfrey and the liberal lame stream press have strapped on a harness to pull the Obama campaign wagon to historic Black Power victory.

But who is Barack Hussein Obama? What is his real record? What does he really believe in? What are his past accomplishments and his qualifications for the most powerful elected office in the world? What does he mean by this enigmatic thing called “change?”

His supporters can tell you all about his “charisma,” his promise of “hope,” the need for “change” and their heartfelt belief that if Obama becomes president, the world will be all we had dreamed it could be. They will gleefully regurgitate all of his campaign talking points as if they know him personally and thought them all up on their own.

But what they can’t tell you is who the man is, what he has ever done in the past, what makes him qualified to be scout troop master, what kind of change he has in mind or why they believe he is capable of changing anything…

When asked why they support Obama, the answers range from “I have waited all my life to cast a vote for the first black president,” to “His complete lack of leadership experience makes him the perfect agent of change.” Of course, he’s not black and we seldom hire the most inexperienced individual for the most critical position, even with affirmative action in play. But hey, we’re making history here! Don’t let the facts get in your way.

FactCheck and OnTheIssues are working overtime to keep up with all the Obama campaign rhetoric. But apparently, Obama supporters never bother to check the facts when it comes to their candidate of hope and change.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact is; beyond charismatic, Barack Hussein Obama is almost none of the things he claims to be.

Time for the Real Barack Obama Record…

▪ According to Obama, he rejects campaign funding from “lobbyists,” “Political Action Committees” and “bundlers” who bundle individual contributions into blind block contributions.

But according to FactCheck, he does accept “bundled” contributions from “lobbyist groups” as well as individual campaign contributions from the spouses of well-known Washington lobbyists. He also receives tons of “bundled” funds from labor unions and Democrat 527 organizations.

When pressed on the issue, (on rare occasion), he admits “Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless” and states “Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money.” In short, Obama is funded by the same lobbyists and special interest groups as all other Democrats. He’s just slicker about covering the money trail.

▪ According to Obama and CAF, who gives him a 100% rating, indicating a strong position for energy independence, Obama will solve the problem of dependence on foreign oil and skyrocketing gas prices.

But according to OnTheIssues, Obama voted to defund U.S. domestic oil exploration, voted to ban U.S. drilling in ANWR and block all efforts to increase U.S. refining capacity, voted to force Americans to reduce their oil consumption by 40% by 2025 instead of the 5% supported by the balance of congress, voted to force Detroit to build more hybrids, voted to burn more ethanol (food) and factor the Global Warming Scam into all national energy policies. Obama takes the most liberal position in congress on energy and keeps the U.S. dependent upon foreign oil as a result.

▪ According to his campaign website, Obama is a “Child Advocate” – “Barack Obama is a committed advocate for children, – and he will protect children from violence and neglect.”

However, Obama has been an ardent opponent of every child’s fundamental right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The National Right to Life Association gives him a perfect zero rating, indicating an unwavering support for a woman’s right to kill. He voted against every child’s right to life at every opportunity, including voting against the ban on the heinous act of Partial Birth Abortion. He has staked out the most extreme left position available against children. He believes strongly in a woman’s right to kill her young, but not in a woman’s right to spend household income on food rather than health insurance.

▪ Obama claims to oppose all forms of racism, including “racial profiling” (aka criminal and terror profiling).

But he has a strong record of supporting Affirmative Action, which provides special advantage to specific citizens over all other citizens, strictly on the basis of race. He also supports treating drug dealing as a “minimum wage problem” and not a criminal activity, based on drug trafficking being prevalent in black communities.

▪ Obama claims strength in Foreign Policy, National Security and the advancement of Democracy around the globe.

But he opens his campaign rhetoric with this statement, “When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq,” a post 9/11 foreign policy initiative supported overwhelmingly by both parties in both houses of congress as a vital matter of both national security and the advancement of democracy in parts of the world important to America’s strategic interests.

Further, he “didn’t vote for war in Iraq” because he was not a member of congress when that vote took place, nor did he have access to the intelligence reports over twelve years beginning in 1991, that caused the vast majority of congress and his DNC opponent Hillary Clinton, to support deposing the Hussein regime and liberate, not invade, the Iraqi people.

Today Obama is lashing back at attacks from John McCain regarding Iraq, by stating for his blindly ill-informed followers that “Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after George Bush invaded Iraq.” This is of course an untrue statement. Al Qaeda indeed had cells operating in Iraq long before congress authorized the deposing of Hussein in 2003. In fact, Al Qaeda had cells inside Iraq before 9/11/01 and Hussein government officials had traveled from Iraq to Afghanistan for the sole purpose of seeking common anti-western interests with Al Qaeda as far back as 1996, all of which has been reported widely and recorded even in the 9/11 Commission Report that Obama often quotes on other matters.

Obama’s first promise of change comes in the form of a call for retreat and defeat in Iraq, which every international expert can tell you will destabilize Iraq’s current progress towards secure democratic reform, an idea Obama claims to hold dear, but won’t support.

He wants to bring our troops home immediately, but in defeat, not victory.

He wants to launch a new era of dialogue and cooperation with the worlds most brutal and committed enemies of the west in North Korea, Iran, and China, with folks like Chavez and Castro. He says that “China is our competitor, not our enemy,” even as Chinese spies are being brought to justice for infiltrating the most secret of U.S. national security agencies.

But he wants a U.S. Military enforced “no fly zone” in Africa, where the ancestors of his radical Muslim father live in tyranny, oppressed by African war lords and corrupt African politicians, not American slave traders.

He talks about a more secure and sovereign America as he pushes to erase U.S. borders, legalize illegal migration – including with full voting rights for illegals, and calls for “increased tax-payer investment in our relationship with Mexico” while asking for “$50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse,” not American states, third world dictatorships.

Obama is not only completely unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief, he would be the most dangerous choice available in 2008.

Do I need to keep going with the real Obama record of leadership and change? This candidate is nothing but charismatic, with an uncanny ability to sell garbage to unsuspecting young voters who have yet to make their first car payment, much less figure out what’s best for America.

If you are unable to recognize the pattern of faulty logic and flat out lies that make up the Obama campaign, listing more examples won’t help you. But maybe what kind of change he has in mind will get your attention…

Obama’s Future for America

Like his political heroes, and great agents of change Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx, Obama is a charismatic rebel rouser with an abstract but eloquent Farrakhan styled cadence in his public delivery. But like his heroes, his goods must be sold as something other than what they really are, because even the most ill-formed American voter will not knowing support Democratic Socialism under its official name.

So instead of calling it socialized medicine, we call it universal health care. It’s the same thing, but one sounds better than the other, even to college kids.

Some of Obama’s words can be taken to heart though… just not his campaign words.

Candidate Obama says he opposes gay marriage and supports same-sex unions. – But Senator Obama said – “I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.”

“My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.” – Here, he’s actually defending his given middle name, Hussein, not his first name “blessed.”

“Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.” – Yet he supports the most immoral social policies on earth, abortion, sexual perversion, socialism and affirmative action against all people not of color, and opposes the struggle for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

About the struggle for democracy in Iraq, Obama says – “We’re not going to baby sit a civil war.”

Wife Michelle Obama is right when she say’s – “Barack will not allow Americans to go back to life as usual.” Based on Obama’s positions on countless issues, I’d say life in America will never be the same again…

If Obama followers can stop fainting at his Elvis-like pep rallies long enough to actually research the man, his lack of accomplishment and experience, his insanely naïve policy platform and his Marxist ideas of change for America, Barack won’t continue to run away with the Democrat nomination, even against a weak opponent like Hillary Clinton.

For all of Hillary’s obvious faults, she’s not Barack Obama and my hope is that Obama fans take a deep breath and research their candidate before they make an error in judgment that every American will live to regret. Marx and Alinsky had hope for change too… Is this the change Obama supporters really have in mind?

For Heaven Sake…Even Rosanne Barr gets this one right!

“When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what’s wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It’s not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won’t. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn’t “hope” they can’t break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can’t break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.”

                   ***************

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. A hard hitting columnist, attacking the socialist cancer plaguing America today. He has a pragmatic “common Joe” approach to even the toughest issues facing our nation.

                   ***************

Obama: Outrageously Outrageous

Erik Rush, Featured Writer

TheNewMediaJournal

“Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration’s policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.” – From “Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas,” Reuters, March 3, 2008

Over the weekend, yet another story regarding the questionable associations of presidential hopeful Barack Obama broke. This one involved a bulletin that was passed out among parishioners at Chicago’s Trinity United Church (the church Obama attended for the last twenty years and which until recently was led by militant pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright) on Sunday, July 22, 2007.

Such bulletins, which contain upcoming activities and information from pastors, elders and staff are common to nearly every church. This one however, in its section dubbed “Pastor’s Page” contained information that is certain to deepen the concern and controversy surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Senator Obama.

At least it will if I have anything to say about it.

Reprinted from a Los Angeles Times article of July 22, 2007 entitled “Hamas’ Stand” by Mousa Abu Marzuq, the article (in the bulletin circulated by Reverend Wright to his flock) is replete with anti-Israel, anti-Semitic sentiments.

Marzuq is among those to whom I refer as “white-collar jihadists,” well-educated, well-spoken but nevertheless extremist Muslims whose mission is to insinuate their doctrine into Western minds (American minds in particular) through well-crafted, soft rhetoric. Nevertheless, Marzuq is on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. OFAC is the federal arm of the US Department of the Treasury which “administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” [From OFAC website]. He also appears in the Anti-Defamation League’s terrorist database.

Obama acted very expeditiously, pointing out that he had already addressed the Wright controversy (in having denounced the preacher’s racist, anti-American leanings) and asserted that he “wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin.”

How convenient. And “outrageously wrong?” How about “seditious?”

A couple of things I find noteworthy apropos the issues of Obama’s political ties and questions surrounding his religious leanings are:

1. Information offering deeper insight into these issues is now beginning to surface on an almost daily basis.

2. The self-righteous but decidedly feeble equivocation on Obama’s part regarding his true beliefs and on the part of pundits who have inundated media venues rallying to his defense.

These individuals have engaged in the same sort of misdirection of which I accuse Obama, singing his praises to the heavens, yet themselves acting as apologists for his associations. Their claims of “I didn’t personally hear that” and “I wasn’t there when” are starting to become a bit more than tedious, as is their apparent inability to directly answer challenging questions.

At this point in time, the Obama campaign has enacted a policy of refusing media requests for information relating to the candidate’s whereabouts that would either corroborate or contradict his statements.

So, despite Barack Obama’s eloquent but nebulous denials, once again his allegiance to America and its general well-being comes into question: Is he the candidate and would-be statesman who (like most Americans) looks upon Hamas and similar groups as terrorist organizations, undeserving of high-ranking American politicians lending their credibility to them? Is he a stereotypically duplicitous politician who for twenty years has aligned himself with and taken counsel from those who overtly support Hamas (at least) with their sentiments in order to secure political support, or is he closeting his true beliefs on the subject, those being concurrence with anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-white activists?

How many such inflammatory Trinity United Church bulletins has Obama indeed read? How many has he agreed with? The questions are the same as those which have been repeatedly asked over the last two weeks: How could Obama be so closely aligned – and for such protracted periods of time – with people whose sentiments and goals are diametrically opposed to the welfare and national security of this nation without feeling solidarity with them, and how honest are his assertions that he doesn’t?

As for Obama himself, his claim that he has already addressed this issue (a polite but shifty way of saying “shut up and move on”) is itself misdirecting and disingenuous. The fact is that he hasn’t adequately addressed the particulars as regards his intent pertaining to continued and future associations with people such as Reverend Wright and James Meeks, another controversial Chicago pastor with whom Obama has close ties. He has not addressed the incredulity of his assertions that he was not aware of the extremism of these close and long-time associates.

As I indicated last week on Fox News’ America’s Election Headquarters television program, one key factor which militates against Americans learning deeper truths about Obama is that the vast majority of the establishment press wants this all to go away as badly as those in the Obama campaign.

Let us remember that we are dealing with the presidency here. We cannot afford to gloss over the fact that this candidate is closely aligned with individuals who clearly believe that the United States is an imperialist, racist nation. We cannot afford to elect a president who might give access to such people should he become President, nor can we afford to have a president who might actually sympathize with America’s sworn enemies.

Erik Rush is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who lives in Colorado and writes columns of sociopolitical fare for The New Media Journal as well as dozens of nationally-distributed print and online news sources. He is also a Staff Writer and Acting Associate Editor and Publisher for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. Erik is the veteran of numerous radio appearances and is the author of several books; his latest, “Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation“, has just been released by Level 4 Press.

                     *****************

WfI note: Erik Rush originally exposed Obama’s unholy, racist church affiliation in February, 2007 with his outstanding article, “Obamination“, also posted on this blog. Thank you, Erik Rush, for keeping watch!

                       ******************