About Me

Name: Cary Wesberry
Email: carywesberry@sbcglobal.net Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Messianic Bombshell To Be President of the World!

I keep returning to the same question when analyzing The New Messiah's crash-course in foreign policy:  Does this guy know he's running for President of the United States?  Frankly I'm not sure he does.  It seems to me Barack Obama is campaigning for President of the World instead.  Maybe he lost his way home.  Then again no one really knows what sort of sparks are firing-off in Obama's head at any given time, including Obama himself.  We were all taken back by John Kerry's flippety-flopping across the country in 2004, now Kerry appears almost steadfast and consistent compared to the daily changes in Barack Obama's policies.

The New Messiah claimed the Surge would never work, then after being faced with overwhelming facts in Iraq he was compelled to admit the Surge did in fact succeed.  Obama added some conditions on that however.  According to Obama, we will never know what would have happened had we followed his ingenius plan rather than committing to the strategy of a proven military professional and vastly experienced leader like General Petraeus.  The same victorious Commander who Obama simply shrugged-off as being able to only see the narrow picture of his mission while unable to understand the broader context of how the situation effects America.  General Petraeus was spending too much time focusing on victory and battling al-Qaeda to grasp the massive responsibilities resting on the shoulders of such a man as Barack Hussein Obama. 

These pompous and naive assertions about military operations are coming from an individual who refused to visit wounded soldiers at hospitals in Iraq because he wasn't allowed to bring along his entourage of reporters.  Due to his inability to obtain photo ops, Barack Obama left Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible.  Visiting our military on the ground in Iraq, and facing General Petraeus, was too much of a reminder for Americans that the Democrat's nominee is an embarrassing failure in foreign policy and matters of the military.  Besides, The New Messiah had to quickly arrive at the real destination of his campaign for President of the World.  Europe.

So off he flew to mix and mingle with people who could appreciate The New Messiah, travelling in a fleet of jetliners filled with his close minions and loyal media.  Off and away to Europe!  Where assorted Communists would be able to sympathize with Obama's ongoing battle against working-class Americans, unintelligent cattle who know nothing aside from their Bibles, guns, and infernal vehicles.  Finally, after having to accept the challenge of his opponent and waste time visiting the "distraction" that is Iraq, Obama's fleet landed safely in Europe... even escaping the obvious danger of at least one jetliner falling to Earth due to severely exceeding its weight limit with the amount of press onboard.
 
In Europe, Barack Obama was greeted by hundreds of thousands of socialized and refined "citizens of the world" ready to bask in the glory of The New Messiah doing what he knows how to do best; speak in front of a large crowd and repeat words he never wrote which scroll slowly across a teleprompter.  That will show those stupid soldiers fighting in Iraq who the experienced leader really is!  Soldiers by the way who are only in the military because they are poor and didn't do good in school.
 
How will this look to those who can actually vote after the Obama World Tour is done with Europe?  And more importantly, shouldn't he have visited Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America as well?  Surely there are many more millions of lost souls on the planet who can benefit from the enlightment enemanating (yes I spelled that correctly) from the irrefutable Son of God. 
 
Even with what appears to be an unstoppable rival sent from Heaven itself, John McCain should look on the bright side.  He engineered some truly exciting edge-of-your-seat campaign stops.  One standing in front of a table with an assortment of coldcuts and another one shocking a full thirty people at some restaurant, I forget where.  With all the grandstanding and complete media attention for Barack Obama, John McCain and the Son of God are still tied in the polls.  No, not the polls in Germany; the polls here at home where it counts.  In fact, Obama is now down one percent.  If nothing else this shows how leery the voters are when it comes to electing liberals who want to raise our fuel prices. 
 
Regardless of what the good shepherds in the media say, I'm not too sure the speeches in Europe will have a positive outcome for the Obama team.  When push comes to shove, I still believe the American People will not appreciate a candidate trotting off to Europe and lecturing us on how to appease the rest of the world.  It's one thing to bad-mouth our country here at home, but it is quite another to run away and talk down to your fellow Americans in front of a few hundred thousand Germans who generally dislike everything we stand for. 
 
A miscalculation from Obama's handlers?  Perhaps.  We will know if there is any effect in a few days.  It is not uncommon for liberals to get an idea in their heads then attempt to shift reality to fit that idea versus changing to meet reality's demands.  Make no mistake, when Barack Obama talks about "change" he definitely does not mean to change himself, learn, and grow as a leader.  He means to change all of you to fit into his vision of the world, whether you like it or not.  Freedom becomes obsolete when others deem a greater ideology is necessary for a nation to evolve.  Remember that when you see our soldiers today, victorious in Iraq.  Remember that when you pay ever-increasing fuel prices so you can still be productive and employed.  Remember that when you hear a liberal making-fun of your values.  Most of all, remember that when you think of Barack Obama lounging in Europe while reprimanding America for the woes of the world when in fact America is its savior thanks to our money, our hard work, and our blood.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bringing Light to the World!

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers...
 
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
Continue reading this wonderful piece by Gerard Baker from the Times Online at the link above.  Well worth your time.  Baker's description of Barack Obama's offensive campaign for President of the World is disturbingly accurate. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq Banned from Beijing Olympics

I find this just a tad bit absurd considering China's Communist leaders have murdered upwards of 60-million people under Mao alone, with about 20-million still slaving in forced labor camps as I type these words.  The IOC banning Iraq from the Olympics in Beijing is the very definition of hypocritical.  Chinese Communists have murdered more people than Hitler's and Stalin's combined result of national socialsim, but God-forbid Iraq participates while still having some sectarian disputes.  The IOC didn't ban Iraq in 2004 before the Surge when al-Qaeda and various militias were gleefully butchering people to-and-fro across the desert!
The International Olympic Committee confirmed its decision to ban Iraq from taking part in the Beijing Olympics because of the government’s interference with sports by disbanding the country's National Olympic Committee, Reuters reported.

The IOC had warned of sanctions against Iraq after the country disbanded its Olympic committee and other sports in May.

"In spite of all the joint efforts of IOC and OCA (Olympic Council of Asia), over the last months to find a positive solution with the Iraqi government authorities, we regretfully inform you that the decision of the IOC executive board dated 4 June 2008 to suspend the National Olympic Committee of Iraq is confirmed," AFP reported the IOC letter to Iraq said.

"We deeply regret this outcome which severely harms the Iraqi Olympic and Sports Movement and the Iraqi athletes but which is unfortunately imposed by the circumstances," the letter said.

The IOC decision culminates a drawn-out internal feud in Iraq that many see as an extension of Shiite payback to Sunnis who once held a cozy niche in Saddam Hussein's regime.
This backwards lunacy is the IOC interfering with internal affairs in Iraq while standing on the graves of 60-million Chinese, as guests of those who murdered them no less.  The United States Military has achieved victory, and Iraq is the most civilized it has been since the start of the war.  After going from chaos and failure to victory over Islamic terror in just four years, this is the encouragement Iraqis receive from the blessed and utterly infallible world community.  Due to an internal fued among Iraqi bureaucrats which is most likely impossible for them to understand, ingenius masters of Sunni-Shiite politics otherwise known as "the Commie-loving jerks who rule the Olympics", proclaim Iraq unfit to compete.
 
How can the IOC decide to allow monsters who have mudered (and are still murdering) unthinkable numbers of people to host the Olympic games, and at the same time forbid one of the greatest success stories of the past sixty years from attending?  The IOC verdict legitimizes socialized mass murder.  Is George Soros running the damn Olympics now too?  The only reason I don't call this madness a complete outrage is because the Olympic games have become a farcical gathering made up mostly of America's enemies.  In a very real sense, it is a compliment to Iraq for the IOC to ban their athletes this year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Betrayed! - The Party's Over for John McCain

In a column by Ann Coulter published yesterday, the issue of our media's over-extended one night stand with John McCain.  Interesting how McCain was possibly the greatest politician still living and in politics for so many years, but now he's nothing but a Bush-supporting hack.  It's almost as if the media has found a new hero.  Surely not!
Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee, The New York Times called him "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." The paper praised him for "working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation" and predicted that he would appeal to "a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."
Saddled with John McCain?  Foisted upon us horribly is more like it!  Amazing how The New York Times' "small angry fringe" has morphed into nearly half the voters in America.  The point Ann's making though is that the Times professed their love and adoration for our little Democrat spy inside the Republican Party every chance they got.
 
Then something unforeseen happened.  Miraculous even!  The New Messiah rose from the Senate and poured out His light over America as if He was literally sent from Heaven to save us all from ourselves:
And on MSNBC's "Hardball," from the way Chris Matthews carried on about McCain, you'd think he had caught a glimpse of Obama's ankle. Matthews said that McCain was "the real straight talker ... a profile in courage ... more seasoned than the current president, a patriot, of course ... honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero."

I guess the party's over.

Now the Times won't even publish McCain's op-ed. I wouldn't have published it either -- I've read it twice and I still can't remember what it says -- but I also wouldn't have published McCain's seven op-eds in The New York Times since 1996.

Since McCain has gone from being a Republican "maverick" who attacks Republicans and promotes liberal causes to the Republican nominee for president, he's also gone from being one of the Times' most frequent op-ed guest columnists to being an unpublishable illiterate.
Another offensive rebuke from The Times as they were refusing to publish McCain's op-ed was sending his column back and asking for a re-write.  After publshing all those columns from McCain over the years it just wasn't good enough without making some additions and adjustments courtesy of The Times' editorial board.  Just because McCain wasn't being nice enough to Obama.  The New Messiah's now invisible opponent was simply too competitive in his writing to deserve publication.
 
To John McCain's great credit, he declined to re-write his column thereby appeasing The New York Times and Barack Obama.  For that I am eternally grateful because as conservatives know all too well, McCain can often go either way.  For once McCain actually stood-up to The Times and behaved like an honest Republican instead of a lying Democrat.  Out of all this nonsense, that could be the real story.
 
As for The Times, how obviously in the tank for Obama can they possibly get?  To go so far as to ban Obama's opponent by refusing to publish his response to The New Messiah's op-ed is beyond pathetic.  Is Obama so flimsy he cannot allow his only opponent to publish a counter-piece to his brilliant column?  There's apparently no reason to ask that question anymore.  It's not as if The Times was being asked to publish counter-pieces from Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain.  This was one lousy op-ed from the nominee who also happens to be the most low-key and liberally tolerant candidate the Republicans had to offer!  If Barack Obama had an ounce of character he would have publicly demanded The Times not discriminate against John McCain and condemn their refusal to publish.
 
Looking on the bright side, John McCain's opposing column could have quite possibly embarrassed conservatives.  So in the end The Times might have done us all a favor.  McCain already spends way too much time admiring and complimenting Obama as it is.  The last thing we need is McCain gushing over Obama in The New York Times, and in doing so encouraging voters to support his opponent by default.  The entire mainstream media, with the slight exception of FoxNews, publicly supports Barack Obama.  They don't need any help from John McCain.
 
Funny how the one time a newspaper decides not to publish some lunatic liberal's column slamming conservatives, it also happens to be the one time they have a full-blown Communist to support for President.  This was the one time conservatives had even the slightest chance of a New York Times op-ed by John McCain helping our cause instead of attacking it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Hits Opponent on Iraq Again: "Obama Would Rather Lose a War In Order to Win a Political Campaign"

John McCain hits hard at the core of Barack Obama's true philosophy on politics and campaigning.  The accusations made against Obama are truly damaging to the character of the man, not to mention his experience and judgement.  It is interesting to me how a man who is praised by supporters and himself over an amazing ability to make judgements, seems to revel in making the worst of choices.  Barack Obama can quickly judge between taking one path or the other, but he always chooses the wrong one.

When it comes to the War, John McCain has shown that he can make the right choices and do so in a timely manner.  This is an extremely important ability for our next Commander-in-Chief.  Barack Obama makes choices quickly, and every one of them is based on winning an election instead of American winning the War.  McCain describes this poor quality best:
by Shushannah Walshe 
Rochester, NH–

John McCain returned to his second home of New Hampshire today, holding his trademark campaign event, a town hall. The crowd was very enthusiastic breaking into a standing ovation when he walked on stage. He quickly went after his rival making a pointed attack on Barack Obama’s stance against the troop surge in Iraq compared to his own initial support, “This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

He continued attacking his rival on Iraq and the troop surge, even bashing Obama’s initial plan to have all troops withdrawn by now, even though the presumptive Democratic nominee has switched to a 16-month withdrawal policy, “You might recall that Senator Obama, my opponent said the surge would not succeed. That he wanted us out. If he had his way we would have been out last March. We would have never done the surge. We would never have succeeded and we would have had defeat and my friends that would have been catastrophe for he United States of America,” McCain then went after Obama’s comments yesterday that he would still be against the troop surge, “He was wrong then. He was wrong now and he still fails to acknowledge–he still fails to acknowledge that the surge succeeded.”

The Republican nominee-in-waiting told the crowd that the improved situation in Iraq is “fragile,” but that Obama’s withdrawal plan “refuses to acknowledge the conditions on the ground. “

While Obama visits the Middle East, McCain has not only been hammering him on his Iraq policy, but that this is his very first trip to Afghanistan trying to make him look inexperienced. He also said today that the combination of more troops and using the same strategy of “clear, hold, and build” as in Iraq will help improve the violence and instability in the country.
It is unfortunate for a nominee who could soon become President to be so completely disconnected from reality.  This flaw becomes extremely dangerous for the country when applied to the War within the context of Barack Obama.  His entire adult life has been lived for the purpose of winning elections.  We have are shown time and again that creating war strategies based on opinion polls gets America one thing: defeat.
 
I have detailed how Obama is attempting to distort reality in order fit his liberal campaign.  John McCain is speaking the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan.  So are the soldiers and Commanders on the ground.  At the moment none of it seems to matter unless Obama can somehow warp facts into an ever-changing twisted vision.  When our soldiers defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, Barack Obama will claim it was because of his call to transfer troops.  It certainly won't be due to our victory in Iraq.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Still Silent on Choice of Running Mate

For the sake of conservatives and our terribly disenfranchised Republican voter base, McCain must choose a Vice President who compliments his faults.  A devout man of faith possessing a brilliant mind in economics would be the best choice.  Mitt Romney.  The McCain campaign however is not giving away any hints.  They have been very careful in treating all prospective running mates equally.
Speculation swirled Tuesday that McCain might name his vice presidential partner within the next few days - right in the middle of Barack Obama's overseas tour.

McCain aides were not helping tamp down the speculation with their comments, often made late in the afternoon, of "no announcement today."

But what about tomorrow? Or where? On Tuesday, McCain campaigned in New Hampshire, not all that far from a lakeside summer home of vanquished GOP rival Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor. Romney was nowhere to be seen. Well, it wasn't really that close to his lakeside home.

One member of the audience told McCain he seemed like a very "forgiving" man. "Have you forgiven Mitt Romney?" he asked the senator.

Amid laughter, McCain said, "Mitt has been of tremendous help to my campaign. ... He does a better job for me than he did for himself."
 
[...]
 
All questions about the process of selecting a running mate are quickly shot down.

"It's the one subject we've been forbidden to talk about," said senior adviser Mark Salter. He promised to come to the press area of McCain's plane, "but I won't tell you anything." That is, unless it's "what's wrong with Barack Obama's judgment," Salter joked. Actually, he wasn't joking.
There are obviously other possibilities, but Mitt Romney fits the mold of a perfect choice for the McCain team.  For the few people living in caves or dumpsters; John McCain is not the most conservative Republican nominee we have had the pleasure of supporting.  My candidate is such a little Democrat that he is receiving no support from me, aside from my vote of course, until after he picks a running mate.  The horror of an Obama Presidency will only get McCain so far without a much stronger conservative by his side... and I mean other than his lovely wife.
 
Romney unleashed as McCain's running mate upon the witless Obama would be both a treat and a winning strategy.  Romney and McCain each have a keen sense of understanding the threat of Islamic fascists and Romney would rip to shreds everyone in the Obama camp on economics, especially The New Messiah himself.  McCain can continue pulling in the so-called "moderates" while Romney gives conservatives a glimmer of hope for the future besides our possible rise from the rubble left over after President Obama finishes with America.  A McCain\Romney ticket is a much more pleasing prospect than having to pick up the pieces of our country four to eight years from now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Hits Back at Obama on Iraq and Fuel Prices

While Barack Obama has been attempting to pass a crash course in foreign policy along with campaigning for President of the United States in Europe, back here in America John McCain had some fairly harsh words for The New Messiah.  McCain focused on Iraq, Afghanistan, and our high fuel prices.  Even for an unforgiving critic of John McCain like myself, the differences between the two candidates is stark where foreign policy and fuel prices are concerned:
The Arizona senator disparaged Obama as "someone who has no military experience whatsoever."

"When you win wars, troops come home," McCain said. "He's been completely wrong on the issue. ... I have been steadfast in my position."

On Afghanistan, McCain said, "I've always said it's long and tough and hard."

As to Iraq, "We've succeeded. We're not succeeding, we've succeeded,"
Indeed we have succeeded.  I could not agree more with John McCain on any issue.  Reports from the most credible sources in existence support the fact we have won the war in Iraq thanks to General Petraeus' Surge tactic, thanks in part to pressure from McCain.  An operation Barack Obama said would not achieve victory even if it worked.  Classic liberal idiocy.  Well the Surge did achieve victory for our soldiers and our country, though Obama and the Democrats will never admit this small counterpoint to their defeatist policies.  Of course we should expect nothing less than complete denial from the likes of Obama.
 
Now that we have won the war in Iraq, one of many battlefronts in the War Against Islamic Fascists, the Democrats' beloved European candidate for President swoops into Iraq with a monsterous gaggle of operatives from the liberal media and declares the Surge a success militarily but denies the political progress afforded by that very same tactic.  If Obama had no possibility of becoming our next President this would be comical.
 
With little note of our victory, Obama points his finger at Afghanistan blaming those challenges on the fact we have soldiers in Iraq.  So he demands we withdraw forces from Iraq and move them to Afghanistan, behaving as if we were not already moving more soldiers into Afghanistan while also massing on the Pakistan border to defeat the Taliban.  What Obama is trying to accomplish is the creation of a perception that nothing was happening until he swooped in with his entourage and liberal media horde to take credit for the work of greater men.  Men like John McCain who helped provide this new path for success in Afghanistan to begin with!  The only reason Barack Obama is able to call for more soldiers in Afghanistan and actually have it occur is because of our victory in Iraq.
 
As the Obama campaign travels around the Middle East and Europe with a flying carnival that fills three 747s with complete jerks, John McCain also decided it was a good time to blast The New Messiah on fuel prices in a new TV ad:
In a TV ad on national cable and in 11 states, McCain pushed his support for offshore drilling as the remedy for rising gas prices.

And even though McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and during his 2000 presidential run opposed lifting the offshore drilling moratorium, his ad clearly tries to blame rising prices on support for the moratorium by Obama, a first-term Illinois senator.

As the price readout on a lonely gas pump rolls over to $5, the announcer asks, "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" Rising from the background is the sound of a crowd chanting: "Obama, Obama, Obama." A smiling Obama appears on the screen with a pump rising over his right shoulder.

Finally the announcer says: "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don't hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain."
The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on the huge problem of ever-increasing fuel prices is that McCain has been brought around to accept sanity and reality.  This is very simple, even for me.  We have two candidates.  Both of them have seriously contributed to our rising fuel prices by resisting new exploration and drilling.  One of the two has decided he was wrong and is now attempting to do what's right by increasing oil production.  The other candidate hasn't changed one bit!  In fact, the candidate that refuses to change is the same candidate whose entire campaign is based upon change.
 
McCain wants to drill for more oil to lower costs while Obama demands we increase taxes directly at the pump and increase taxes on those who produce the fuel as well.  The lunatic freely admits you should be paying much more for fuel than you are today.  Obama has been quite clear in stating that fuel prices were supposed to rise, just not at the rate of increase he would have liked.  Obama simply wanted to ease all of us into more and more outrageous fuel prices.  That way you could adjust to personal bankruptcy more slowly.  Isn't he thoughtful?  Amazing judgement.
 
The New Messiah prefers his herd of cattle, otherwise known as the American People, writhe and soak in the financial destruction which he believes to be our only hope of survival.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Document Forensics Expert: Obama Birth Certificate "a Horrible Forgery"

Those who claim Barack Obama was not born in the United States have just dramatically raised the stakes for the Obama campaign.  There's not much I will add to this one.  The entire report from the Israeli Insider:
Barack Obama may be on a world tour surrounded by a fawning media, but Sunday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate -- actually a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB -- claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horribly forgery," according to the analysis published on the popular right-wing Atlas Shrugs blog.

The purported birth certificate was published by the left wing Daily Kos blog on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president. Israel Insider has followed the story in five previous articles (the previous one here) and uncovered evidence, most recently, of admitted forgery among Daily Kos bloggers, tolerance of electronic forgeries on the blog site, as well as efforts by a blog administrator to conceal the admission of forgery.

The latest examinaton of the purported documents is by far the most detailed and technically sophisticated to date.

Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller reports that the expert analyst, who goes by the screen name "Techdude", is "an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association -- the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer-based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then."
 
The pseudonym was apparently inadequate to prevent Techdude's identity from being exposed. He reports that last week one or more persons "decided to track me down and vandalize my car and hang a dead mutilated rabbit from my front door in a lame attempt to intimidate me from proceeding with releasing any details of my analysis. They did succeed in delaying the report by a few days but instead of deterring me they just really pissed me off. To their credit, if I had not taken a few days off from the analysis I would have missed the most damning piece of evidence -- the remnants of the previous security border."

Techdude's detailed report, which runs more than 3000 words and 20 pages with extensive magnified illustrations and comparisons, reaches the following conclusion about the documented that was first published on the Daily Kos extreme left-wing blog and subsequently publicly endorsed by the Obama campaign, both in statements by official spokesmen, and featured on its "Fight the Smears" website. Here are some of conclusions:

"The (Daily) KOS image security border pattern does not match any known specimen from any known year. It does not match the pre-2006 nor does it match the post-2006 certificate patterns. The placement of the text in all of the pre-2006 and post-2006 certificates are almost identical pixel location matches while the image?s text placement does not match any known specimen from any known year. The shape and kerning of the fonts used in the 2006 through 2008 certificates are identical while the shape and kerning of the fonts used in the image does not match any known specimen. The KOS image shows clear signs of tampering such as the mismatch in RGB and error levels, visible indications of the previous location of the erased security border, easily detectable patterns of repeating flaws around the new security border, EXIF data that says the image was last saved with Photoshop CS3 for Macintosh, and finally a technician from Hawaii who confirms it just looks wrong."

The evidence, he says, allows for two possible scenarios by which the document was fabricated:

"There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border."

The purported birth certificate was published by the Daily Kos on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president.

After more than a month of controversy and demands that the Obama campaign produce a paper birth certificate for analysis, this damning new evidence raises the stakes for the democratic party and its front-runner.

Will Obama and his people continue to stonewall in the facing of the mounting evidence of forgery, and provide paper proof of an authentic, original birth certificate or even a genuine secondary Certificate of Live Birth? And will the mass media and mainstream pundits -- which so far have hesitated to touch the hot potato -- finally address the loaded issue of his possible unfitness to meet the basic Constitutional requirement for a President?

Perhaps the outspoken Israeli press corps will be able to do what their fawning American counterparts have failed to do so far. Obama's visit this week to Israel will be an opportunity to begin asking the tough questions -- however unpolitically correct -- about his apparently forged birth certificate and what that means for his citizenship status and Constitutional fitness to be the next leader of the free world.
You can find all previous reports on this topic and more by following the link at the beginning of this post.  If this is all nonsense, why doesn't the Obama campaign simply produce an authentic birth certificate?  It seems to me that would put an end to any credible speculation on the matter. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama to Speak at German Monument of Hitler's Military Domination Over Europe

The audacity of being just plain stupid.  The Obama campaign sure has an ability to inspire horror, whether it be driving the American enconomy into the ground where we should instead be drilling for oil or speaking at a monument placed by Adolf Hitler to symbolize Germany's military domination of Europe.  Ed Morrissey accurately explains:
Obama will speak about “historic” US-German relations, but once again, Obama’s own grasp of history has been proven deficient. Not only does the site contain a monument to Prussian victories over other American allies in Europe, its placement was decided by Adolf Hitler — in order to impress crowds in his idealized version of Berlin called Germania.
 
[...]
 
Hitler didn’t just move the monument to its more central location. He had a taller column built for it as well, to emphasize its message of German military domination over Europe. He saw it as a message to Germans of their destiny — as well as to other Europeans as their destiny as well. It was never meant as a symbol of peaceful, multicultural co-existence.
 
Team Obama has outdone themselves on symbolism with this choice. They’ve managed to make their hosts uncomfortable for a second time with their choice of rallying point, and perhaps more so this time. If one wanted to talk peace, what worse location could one choose than Adolf Hitler’s favorite monument to militaristic domination? One has to wonder how France, Denmark, and Austria will feel about Obama rallying German masses under the Siegessäule. Deja vu?
 
Obama could be excused for his gaffe, except for two reasons. His team certainly understood the historical weight that the Brandenburg Gate would have lent his event, so why didn’t they bother to ask the Germans about the Siegessäule? Quite obviously, the Germans understand the meaning and subtext of the monument, and most of them wonder why Obama does not. Maybe this is a better example of clueless Americans traveling abroad than those who can only say Merci, beaucoup.
Follow the link above to read all of Ed's post where you also find the original news report.  I very much hope there is wide-angle video footage of this speech.  The McCain campaign won't use it, but I will.  The opportunities this footage would provide are countless for conservatives.
 
I don't believe Obama chose Siegessäule because it had anything to do with Hitler.  The Obama campaign chose it because they have no understanding of history whatsoever, and what's worse is that they don't care to learn.  This is an example of the foreign policy of an Obama Presidency. 
 
My only question is:  What's next, a policy speech at the stadium where Hitler conducted rallies in Nuremburg?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan Signs Another Treaty With The Taliban

Pakistan, supposedly one of our greatest allies, has caved to The Taliban once again.  Our ally works with our enemies much more than they work with us.  It is for this reason American soldiers have masses along the Afghan-Pakistan border to stop Taliban and al-Qaeda forces from crossing at will.  From Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal:
The Pakistani government has negotiated yet another peace agreement with the Taliban in the tribal agencies bordering Afghanistan. The latest agreement was signed in the Orakzai tribal agency, Geo TVreported.

The agreement mirrors other peace deals that have been signed in the tribal areas and in several settled districts in the Northwest Frontier Province.
The fact is the Pakistani government has no intention of removing Taliban terrorists from their country.  Taliban and al-Qaeda forces have taken over an entire region of Pakistan and they operate there without any restraint other than from our own military.  Without waging an all-out war Pakistan cannot defeat The Taliban, and it is obvious at this point that Pakistan is not willing to do what it takes to put a stop to Taliban and al-Qaeda activity.  Pakistan has had what is rapidly approaching a decade to adequately address the issue of increased terrorist control of their country.  Nearly every time Pakistan backs down.  The most telling part of Bill Roggio's report:
Orakzai is the sixth of seven tribal agency agencies where the government has negotiated peace agreements with the Taliban. The western border region with Afghanistan is now virtually under Taliban control. While the Pakistani military operates outposts along the border and maintains garrisons in some agencies, the Taliban are free to establish and maintain their shadow governments and surge forces into Afghanistan.

The security situation in northwestern Pakistan and in Afghanistan has rapidly deteriorated since the government initiated its latest round of peace accords with the Taliban and allied extremists in the tribal areas and settled districts in the Northwest Frontier Province. Peace agreements have been signed with the Taliban in North Waziristan, Swat, Dir, Bajaur, Malakand, Mohmand, and Khyber.

Negotiations are under way in South Waziristan, Kohat, and Mardan. The Taliban have violated the terms of these agreements in every region where accords have been signed.

The Taliban, al Qaeda, and allied terrorist groups have established more than 100 terror camps in the tribal areas and the Northwest Frontier Province, US intelligence officials have told The Long War Journal.
All we get are peace agreements which are repeatedly ignored along with what has now become complete Taliban control of the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan.  If you want something done right, do it yourself.  And that is exactly what our military has begun to do.  Our soldiers have my full support in their mission, as always.  I pray they kill every Taliban and al-Qaeda member with whom they come in contact.  It is well past time for our military to hurt The Taliban even more so than we did when we first entered Afghanistan.  If we do not at least come near to completely destroying our enemies across the border into Pakistan we will never be rid of their interference with Afghanistan's reconstruction and creation of a peaceful state.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gen. Petraeus: Al-Qaeda Could Be Shifting Focus from Iraq to Afghanistan

FoxNews reported yesterday that General Petraeus believes al-Qaeda in Iraq could be shifting their focus to Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This coincides with dramatic drops in violence in Iraq and more political progress being made by the Iraqi government.  Al-Qaeda is not achieving any success in Iraq after the Surge and the cooperation of tribal leaders with American forces.  The terrorists are on the run from Iraq, and are now setting sights on Afghanistan where there is little stability thanks to the Taliban being protected by the Pakistan border.
 
With American soldiers massing on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past week, the Taliban and al-Qaeda could be in for a major defeat.  Here are some excerpts from the report at FoxNews:
BAGHDAD — After intense U.S. assaults, Al Qaeda may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are running higher than in Iraq, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday.

"We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of Al Qaeda's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview at his office at the U.S. Embassy.

Whatever the result, Petraeus said no one should expect Al Qaeda to give up entirely in Iraq.

"They're not going to abandon Iraq. They're not going to write it off. None of that," he said. "But what they certainly may do is start to provide some of those resources that would have come to Iraq to Pakistan, possibly Afghanistan."

He said there are signs that foreign fighters recruited by Al Qaeda to do battle in Iraq are being diverted to the largely ungoverned areas in Pakistan from which the fighters can cross into Afghanistan. U.S. officials have pressed Pakistan for more than a year to halt the cross-border infiltration. It remains a major worry not only for the war in Afghanistan but also for Pakistan's stability.

Discussing Al Qaeda in cautious terms, Petraeus said he is not certain of the reliability of the intelligence information about the terrorist network's latest thinking. He was adamant, however, that until now Al Qaeda has seen Iraq as its best opportunity for establishing a militant Islamic state closer to the Persian Gulf.

"That could be under review," Petraeus said. "We do think they are considering what should be the main effort."

He offered a mostly upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq just weeks before he is to make a recommendation on whether to further reduce U.S. troop levels. Petraeus said the country is showing fresh signs of promise not only on the security front, where insurgent attacks are down sharply, but also politically.
This offers us a hint as to what General Petraeus will decide in his upcoming report about Iraq.  A reduction in troop levels in Iraq will most likely mean a surge in troops for Afghanistan, especially along the Afghan-Pakistan border where the Taliban and al-Qaeda are most active. 
 
Regardless of troop levels in Iraq, a military surge in Afghanistan is long overdue.  In the recent years the Taliban has increased its power within Pakistan and caused serious problems for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.  Their attacks have become bolder and more frequent.  Pakistan's unwillingness to address the Taliban within their own country has made matters worse.  Even when the Pakistani government does act, they are usually unsuccessful and their military winds up in retreat.  If Pakistan will not stop the Taliban incursions into Afghanistan then we must.
 
General Petraeus will soon be promoted to Commander of U.S. operations in the Middle-East, overseeing both Iraq and Afghanistan.  That more than anything else will ensure us victory in Afghanistan.  General Petraeus will adapt his brilliant surge tactic for operations in Afghanistan with initial focus on the border regions and put a stop to Taliban and al-Qaeda attacks.  I have every confidence in this man's ability to bring us success where others have failed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Talks With Iran Fail, U.S. and Israel Will Attack

It appears Iran's last chance for a peaceful resolution which will halt their nuclear weapon's program is ocurring over the next couple of months.  One way or another, President George Bush looks as though he will keep his promise to the American People of not allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.  Either from an assault from Israel alone, or through a joint U.S.-Israel attack, Iran's days of playing political games with nuclear weapons is over if they do not accept a peaceful compromise.  This from Admiral Mullen:
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Fox News he is convinced the Iranians are seeking to building an atomic bomb, “a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world.” He stressed the US had the capacity and the reserves to attack Iran as a last resort

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources stressed the special significance of Mullen’s statement on Sunday, July 20. The night before, a senior Israeli security official said that if the US-Iranian talks failed, President Bush planned to use the three-month period between the November elections in America and his exit from the White House in January for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
When you read Admiral Mullen's statements in context with this article, the picture becomes more clear: 
Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack between November and January. This assessment was reported by Israeli national radio Saturday overnight quoting a high-placed “security-political” official.

The source predicted that President George W. Bush would order Iran attacked between the November 4 presidential election and his exit from the White House in January. The quote was aired shortly after the six-power talks with Iran in Geneva – with US official participation for the first time – failed, and just before Israel chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi set out for Washington. He is to spend a week there as guest of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

DEBKAfile’s political sources describe the disclosure as a step aimed at slowing down the collapse of Israel’s stated policy of relying on international diplomatic pressure to thwart Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms. It is expected to raise a furious outcry from the powers spearheading the diplomatic effort and prompt extreme reactions from Tehran.

Our sources report that the unidentified Israeli “security-political” source sought to achieve three objectives:

1. Underlining the signal that the US military option had not been taken off the table after the state department spokesman said Iran must choose between cooperation with the international community and confrontation.

The official was also giving Israel’s answer to the latest evaluations making the rounds in Washington that the Israeli Air Force does not have enough warplanes to strike Iran’s nuclear sites without American military support.

2. A signal that the presence at the Geneva talks Saturday, July 19, of Under Secretary of State William Burns, far from being a concession, was an implicit ultimatum. Tehran was being told that no more than three months remained for it to suspend uranium enrichment before Bush made good on his pledge to resolve the issue before he left the White House. No member of the Bush administration is saying this directly, whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates or the president himself. Israel will not doubt be rebuked for its disclosure.

3. As a high-risk step to derail the accommodations Washington and Tehran are on the way to reaching in their secret talks on a wide range of issues, with the exception of the nuclear controversy, as revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly and DEBKAfile. Israel fears being abandoned and left out in the cold on all its fronts against Iran by these accommodations.

Tehran may well seize on the Israeli disclosure as a pretext to ditch the nuclear negotiations on all levels, unless all six powers offer guarantees against their pursuit of military initiatives.
Time is almost up for Iran's Islamic fascist rulers.  If they stay on this track of refusing a diplomatic solution, Iran will pay a high price.  Israel, regardless of any other nation's support, will not allow such a hostile country like Iran to possess nuclear weapons in close proximity to their own people.  Iran has repeatedly threatened to blow Israel off the face of the world when their nuclear program gives them the ability to do so.  With or without U.S. support, Israel will act.  Our only decision is: will we stand with Israel in the face of annihilation or will we leave them to fight Iran alone?
 
In my opinion, the United States military should have been allowed to attack any and all Iranian bases and government buildings when we learned for a fact that Iran was killing American soldiers in Iraq.  That alone should have been enough to make Iran a non-issue through the use of force on our part.  Apparently it was not.  We as a nation cannot allow Iran to continue killing American soldiers while also sending officers, money, and weapons to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria along with directly threatening to attack Israel.  Iran has gotten away with enough.  They have to give in on one of these issues, and their nuclear weapons program is the most pressing of them all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain!

   
   
   
   
 
How many of you will need to get completely wasted in order to vote for John McCain?
 
                                     

Ann Coulter's new website,
Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain, is the place to find all your infuriating, depressing, and utterly mindblowing news about the exploitations of the Republican nominee for President, Senator John McCain.  Ann's new site is also a great place to find a whole lot of pictures of drunk people.
 
Here are two articles at Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain to start you off:
 
McCain Respects Chuck Hagel’s Iraq Views  -This one got a rating of "four martinis".
 
McCain Gets Bouquet From New Republic  -This article got a rating of a whopping "five martinis"
 
 
I don't drink.  However, after reading the articles posted on Get Drunk and Vote 4 McCain I am seriously considering taking the sport back up again.  At least on election day if nothing else.  It seems only appropriate under the circumstances.  In fact, it is quite possible there will be Republicans and conservatives who have never even touched alcohol that will be swaggering up to the voting booth, drunk out of their minds, just so they can manage to not throw their vote away in favor of Barack Obama.
 
Conservatives are drunk with support for McCain!  Without the votes of conservatives who can barely stand, McCain cannot defeat Obama.  Only by killing as many brain cells as humanly possible on election day can we ensure a McCain victory.  So make sure you stock up on your favorite alcoholic beverage of choice before Nancy Pelosi shuts down every liquor store in America!
“The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises — at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties.” — Ann Coulter
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congress Considers Raising Taxes on Gasoline

Unbelievably, the lunatics in Congress are debating whether or not to raise the gasoline tax.  With an approval rating at 9%, perhaps now is not the best time.  Is Congress attempting to literally send the American People into uncontrollable rage and madness?  If that is indeed the case; they will have achieved success with this one.
WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — far from dropping — will have to go up if they go anywhere.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for road construction and repair and mass transit. Depriving the 52-year-old Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.

[...]

Senate Democrats in May tried to add $5 billion to an aviation overhaul bill to replenish the highway trust fund next year; Republicans objected. Democrats tried again in June, but this time for $8 billion; Republicans objected to that, too.

Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "I'm not going to let the Senate spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks."

[...]

Among other revenue-raising possibilities, the commission recommended gradually increasing the current federal fuel taxes to 40 cents a gallon.

Other ideas that will be on the table when lawmakers write a bill next year including more toll roads and public-private partnerships, congestion pricing and user fees where drivers pay a tax based on how many miles they drive.
I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say, "No!"  It appears our Congress is so depressed over 91% of Americans wanting to terminate their employment that they are attempting mass political suicide.  After two years of Speaker Pelosi, this blubbering hysterical insanity is what the Democrats concoct instead of doing their jobs.  Our representatives cannot possibly believe the American People will accept higher gasoline taxes.  Can they?
 
At first I was shocked.  Now I am outraged!  This Congress has to be the most out-of-touch group of complete imbeciles ever to stink up the Capital.  It feels like blood and flames are about to shoot out of every hole in my head!  That's not good considering all the extra holes in my head already blown into existence thanks to previous infuriated tantrums set off by our politicians.  I suppose from Congress' standpoint, if we haven't thrown the bums out