Tag Archives: radical

ANTI-OBAMA GREATEST HITS HITS

The Page says:

PAC TV ad hammers the Democratic presidential nominee with the kitchen sink and more: pledge of allegiance picture, Cuban flags, Palestinians, Hamas, and — of course — Reverend Wright.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under democrats, obama, Videos

Obama is Hiding a Radical Past

Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party?  Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

  1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
  3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
  4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
  5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on voter education and voter registeration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

more………

4 Comments

Filed under obama

Barack Obama is ‘aloof’ says British ambassador to US

Barack Obama is a “decidedly liberal” senator “who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions”, according to a frank verdict delivered to Gordon Brown by the British ambassador to the United States

Sir Nigel Sheinwald, ambassador in Washington since last year, delivered his unvarnished assessment of the White House front runner in a seven-page letter to the Prime Minister, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, just before the Democratic nominee’s visit to Downing Street just over two months ago.

The candid letter, marked as containing “sensitive judgements” and requesting officials to “protect the contents carefully” gives a remarkable insight into how the Foreign Office views the political phenomenon who stunned Mr Brown’s inner circle by defeating their favourite, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.

Although the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one – Mr Obama’s speeches are “elegant” and “mesmerising”, he is “highly intelligent” and has “star quality” – he also judges that his “policies are still evolving” and that if elected he will “have less of a track record than any recent president”.

The letter’s contents suggest that Mr Brown could initially find it difficult to deal with a President Obama because he remains a largely unknown quantity who “resists pigeon-holing” and the leak is likely to complicate relations.

Last month, the prime minister was forced to backtrack after an article written in his name broke with convention by showering praise on the Democratic candidate at the expense of his Republican rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Sir Nigel traces the ambition of Mr Obama, 47, to reach the White House right back to his 20s or before. “He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency.”

He also identifies several political vulnerabilities that Sen McCain will seek to exploit in the last month of his campaign against the Illinois senator. The leaked letter will provide him with welcome ammunition.

Mr Obama “can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons”, Sir Nigel wrote, and “does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset”. Charges of elitism “are not entirely unfair” and he is “maybe aloof, insensitive” at times.

“He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments [in April] about small-town Pennsylvanians ‘clinging’ to guns and religion.”

Mr Obama’s Democratic primary victory over the former First Lady showed that “he is tough and competitive. This is of course the Chicago school.

You don’t beat Clinton without being resilient” but “his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates”.

Curiously, there is no mention of his wife Michelle – a central figure in his rise and his closest adviser – and little examination of his time in Chicago, where he had radical associations, or his background in Hawaii, essential to understanding why “Obama is cool”, as the letter puts it.

Sir Nigel detects a potential clash between Downing Street and an Obama administration over Iran.

“If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for ‘unconditional’ dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]’s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin.”

But Sir Nigel – who described the Iraq war as “the Iraq expedition” and “Bush’s Iraq adventure” – briefed that Mr Obama’s Iraq policy gelled with Britain’s.

“Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama’s likely approach. Obama’s ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking.”

He wrote approvingly of Mr Obama’s “mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials [who] approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions”, his “progressive position on climate change” and his ‘pragmatic realism” and “balanced approach to the big security issues”.

Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is “unlikely to be a top priority for Obama” and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has “repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade”.

British officials said that since it became clear that Mr Obama would overcome Mrs Clinton, Sir Nigel had worked hard to dampen down what he viewed as “Obamamania” within Downing Street that had become so strong that he feared it might alienate the McCain campaign.

Sir Nigel’s letter, though initially drafted by his political staff, is an intensely personal assessment of Mr Obama and is based largely on the ambassador’s owns observations from the campaign trail.

He has travelled to rallies as far afield as New Hampshire and South Carolina – where he had a personal meeting with Mr McCain – and to the party conventions in Denver and St Paul, Minnesota.

Although he has the lowest public profile of any recent British ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel has won respect for his range of contacts within the Bush administration and the campaigns.

The letter quotes Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader and Obama confidant who is hotly tipped to become White House chief of staff should Mr Obama be elected, from a private meeting with Sir Nigel.

There is a strong indication Sir Nigel also consulted Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who has worked with Mr Obama on legislation and travelled abroad with him.

“Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving,” Sir Nigel wrote.

“His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office.

“In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005.

“His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions.”

Sir Nigel later reiterates the point: “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to.”

He highlights luck as a key factor in Mr Obama’s rise. “He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama’s threat.”

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

1 Comment

Filed under obama

Sick

Jay Nordlinger

I am no violet, and I know that politics is an ugly business. But I must say: The attempted destruction of Gov. Sarah Palin — by some of the worst forces in this country — is making me sick. You? For most of our lives, we have heard squawks from the left about civil liberties. Also about the “politics of personal destruction.” I know they hate her, politically and personally. But won’t some of them stand up against what is happening now? Just for the sake of a semblance of integrity?

And, by the way: The argument that Sarah Palin is less prepared than Barack Obama is laughable. It basically comes down to: “I think Barack’s smarter than Sarah. And cooler — less country.” A few days after the Republican convention — before talking points really gelled — I went on Irish radio (from the comfort of my home in New York). A man on the other end was not able to say that Obama had more experience. So he said, “He has a more rounded intelligence.”

This was after he had heard one speech by Sarah Palin. And the obvious core of his objection was: She’s a conservative.

As usual, what is rotten is all the pretending: all the pretending about experience and censored books and whether she has traveled widely enough. If they’d only say, “She’s a conservative, and that is intolerable,” that would be fine. It would even be welcome. But they have to go into all this other, and destroy the woman personally.

And once they stigmatize and caricature a person, that person usually stays stigmatized and caricatured — as with Quayle, as with Bork. Reagan, somehow, managed to escape the noose. How about “our Sarah”? In reality, she is a reformist governor and a heartwarming American success story. Will they — you know: “they” — succeed in making her an extremist dunce?

Stay tuned . . .

2 Comments

Filed under Intolerant Left

Something About Sarah

  Jay Nordlinger

Earlier this morning, I wrote that the attacks on Governor Palin — particularly the breaking into her e-mail — were making me sick. (Here.) One reader wrote, “I, too, have been feeling a physical revulsion over the Left’s determination to destroy Sarah Palin, by any means necessary.” That reader spoke for many.

One of them said, “What would be the general media reaction if Obama’s e-mail were hacked and disseminated? It would be a lot stronger.” That, too, is a common sentiment.

In my earlier post, I wondered whether Palin would be permanently stigmatized and caricatured — à la Bork, Quayle, and Thomas. Or would she escape the noose, like Reagan? Many readers thought she would — given her communication skills, and given the multiplicity of media now: We have websites, talk radio, etc.

Yes, but there were plenty of outlets in the 1980s and ’90s. And no one’s communication skills are better than Bork’s or Thomas’s. Quayle isn’t bad, either — you don’t rise that high in politics without knowing how to communicate.

Other readers said that Palin was finished, done: “I see that the polls have dramatically switched in Obama’s favor within just one week. I guess that the Borking — the destruction — of this governor is complete.” Another reader said, “I thought Sarah Palin would be a superstar. Now, she’ll be nothing more than a national joke. The Republicans haven’t fought back. The MSM has won.”

Then there is continuing amazement over the sheer hatred that Palin has aroused: “I am almost 60 and come from Massachusetts. In all my years, I have never seen anything like this, and don’t want to see it ever again. I have a friend who is both feminist and left-leaning. I asked her why they hate Palin so much. She said, ‘Because she’s had it all: family, career. And she did it without a man like Bill Clinton helping her. She did it on her own.’”

I have said it before: Hillary Clinton’s husband was president of the United States. Sarah Palin’s works the night shift in an oil field. Who is the feminist hero? Bien sûr.

 I myself have a tale to relate. An episode left me kind of shaken, honestly. Last week, I was talking to a friend of mine — a very warm and humane woman. We’ve been friends for years. I had been away, and we hadn’t talked politics — but then, we never do. We never had. She’s a liberal, of course — virtually everyone here in NYC is. And I never, ever bring up politics (with pretty much anyone — not worth the trouble) (and, of course, I do it professionally).

But she said to me, out of the blue, “What do you think of Sarah Palin?” And while I was drawing breath to answer, she said, “I hate her.”

That kind of took my breath away — because this friend of mine is no hater. But she said it with firm, horrible conviction. She said it with true emotion in her eyes. Frankly, I was too taken aback to reply, other than to say, “Well, my feeling is the exact opposite.”

I can see how you might disagree with Governor Palin — she’s a conservative, after all. I can see how you might find her unprepared even for the vice-presidency. But hate? Hate a woman who rose from a modest background to be governor of her state? Who is obviously a warm, civic-minded, talented mother of five?

Hate?

It must be abortion, religion, and culture. If she were pro-choice, went to a mainline church (only on Christmas and Easter), and didn’t hunt, she’d be okay. At least less attacked. But then, she wouldn’t be herself, would she?

I consider myself a very patriotic person, and I have been teased or damned all my life for my pro-American views — particularly in academic settings. But, I’m sorry, this is, in many ways, a sick country.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Intolerant Left

Sarah Palin’s Feminists for Life Membership Points to Pro-Woman, Pro-Life View

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 29
, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Most Americans heard the name Sarah Palin for the first time on Friday as Senator John McCain named her as his running mate. They’re getting a glimpse of the fact that the Alaska governor is pro-life on abortion, but what they may not know is she takes a unique approach to her position.

Palin is a member of Feminists for Life of America — a venerable but little known pro-life group that focuses on the pro-woman reasons for opposing abortion.

The organization is considered an expert on understand how abortion hurts women and the complications abortion involves from a medical, physical and mental health standpoint.

Beyond that, Feminists for Life has championed the notion that one of the best ways to reduce abortion is to do the kind of work abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood should, but aren’t doing — namely, providing pregnant women with resources they need.

Feminists for Life has spearheaded efforts to make sure pregnant and parenting college students, who have the highest abortion rates in the nation, get tangible help like medical referrals, child-care and assistance in completing their education.

Palin, a mother of five, recognized the need to do more than say she opposes abortion and joined the organization.

In August 2006, she told the Anchorage Daily News, she recognized the struggle young women face in an unplanned pregnancy saying, “no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child.”

For Palin, there is no inconsistency between advocating for women and taking a pro-life position.

“I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,” she said.

Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, told LifeNews.com “there is a certain excitement” about Palin getting the nod as the second woman on a major party ticket to run for vice president.

She said that, for Palin to join her group, she must recognize the practical ways it is helping women find life-affirming solutions to unexpected pregnancies.

“Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion—primarily lack of practical resources and support—through holistic, woman-centered solutions,” she said.

“We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion,” said Foster.

Though Palin’s pro-woman, pro-life agenda makes sense, she has already come under some attack.

Shortly after McCain unveiled his selection of her as his running mate, CNN anchor John Roberts went after Palin’s parenting in a question to conservative commentator Dan Bash.

“She has a child with Down’s Syndrome, and care for children like that can take a lot of time. Is there any concern about the balance of that?” Roberts asked.

Bash retorted: “The McCain camp is probably wondering if she were a man, whether you would be asking the same question.”

For Palin, as a pro-life woman and “feminist” she’d like say she can accomplish both.

Related web sites:
Feminists for Life – http://www.feministsforlife.org

2 Comments

Filed under Feministsforlife

Feminists don’t speak for women, says Dominican cardinal in blistering reply

.- Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo, responded to criticism by radical feminists this week who accused him of pressuring the country’s legislature not to legalize abortion, saying these groups do not represent the interests of women.

“Women have always had all of my respect,” the cardinal said, “but I have never agreed, nor will I ever agree, with feminists of the bad kind, who are given over to everything except helping women.”

According to the cardinal, feminists, together with the United Nations, are the ones pressuring the governments of the world to legalize abortion.

Feminist groups, he explained, do not fight for the dignity of women, but rather they bring women down with the help of some sectors of society.  “Only an imbecile, a moron, someone ignorant of everything, could defend that position,” he said.

I can’t agree more!  The feminists DON’T represent the real women or our interests. Get a job femicommie’s. Join us in rebelling against the feminists who destroy families, women, feminity, marriage and men.

Leave a comment

Filed under News