Obama is playing the American Public for fools and the media is falling for it. Just look at what he says and what he does. It is absolutely stunning that he is getting away with this. I think its a game for him to see how far he can push things:

First, the Messiah, puts on a document on a White House web page saying that he will ” … will ban earmarks from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that will soon go before Congress.”

Then he goes to the Democratic retreat and all but brags about the pet projects in the bill:
“Then there’s the argument that this is filled with pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one (Applause)” (we posted the video here)

Then, Yesterday, he talks to some folks in Indiana and “… bragged about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills”.

A liberal friend of mind said “it just symantics”. that’s right. This is flat out playing loose with words to trick the American public into buying the idea that Pelosi’s plan to spend unprecedented amounts of money is the right – and only – course to take.

This guy is playing us for fools; and this is just one small issue.

This is cool,

Read this, then watch this at abount 1:46. What a fool the American people were to buy into this idiot’s rhetoric and lack of leadership.

If you are still undecided in this election and are even considering Obama … watch this video. I would like to call it propaganda but its not. Its reality.

So you have watched the video. if you still support Obama, you deserve what you asked for.

A Christian, an Islamofascist, and a Hare Krishna all wanted to go bowling. The Islamofascist turned to the Hare Krishna and says, “Let’s cut off the infidel’s head and use it for a ball.” The horrified Hare Krishna says, “But that would violate all my beliefs!” So the Islamofascist turns to the Christian and says, “Let’s cut off the infidel’s head and use it for a ball.” The Christian says “You just wanted to cut off MY head!” The Islamofascist says “Yeah, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides, his head is already shaved!”

Okay, so it’s more gruesome than funny. But it says that Islamofascists will use any alliances possible to achieve their goals. There are many fine people in the world, across all religions, cultures, and nations. There are relatively few bad ones, but a few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel.

The threat posed by Islamofascists, led by such luminaries as Osama Bin Laden, and their ultimate goal, is to destroy everything opposed to their philosophy, which is derived from their particular reading of the Koran. Such goals are diametrically opposed to all other organizing principles, including capitalism, socialism, democracy, social-democracy…any –ism, -ist or –cy you can think of. We may not all agree on the best organizing principle, but we tend to want to influence and negotiate rather than completely destroy.

Islamofascism is the forgotten man in the recent struggles with the financial crisis, which has apparently spread throughout all countries whose financial companies bought lousy U.S., Congressman Barney Frank-inspired paper and its derivatives. You can bet the farm, equity-lossed though it may be, that Bin Laden and his henchman are looking for ways to take advantage of it. A separate bet can be made that they will find it. Hey, isn’t a separate bet what a “hedge fund” is?

Barack Obama, whose first name means The Messiah Whose Middle Name Is Unspeakable, probably means to “negotiate” Bin Laden out of the hills. He must think this is the modern-day version of the Hatfield’s and the McCoy’s. The result will likely more closely resemble the Munich meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler.

As I understand, diplomacy isn’t too different from making a really big business deal. You want something, so in consideration, you offer the other guy something he wants in return. Supposedly, Lyndon Johnson was said to have remarked that he could end this Vietnam thing if he could just sit down with Ho Chi Minh and make a deal! Johnson’s conduct of that war indicated he didn’t understand someone committed to an idea, odd for the Lord of the Senate and the consummate politician.

If anyone understands an ideologue, it is surely the Senator from Illinois, socialist sympathizer and healer. But in the face of a man who will cut another man’s head off over a difference of opinion, what is likely is that Obama will give away the store, the sign, and free advertising to the illusive Sheik and receive “peace” in return. He will return to a fanfare of triumph from an obsequious press, beaming “Peace in our time”. Extortion payments will be periodically expected, and violence will resume when the payments are not on time. Can anyone say “West Bank” or Lebanon”?

What might the mighty Sheik demand other than cash (in Euros, please, or maybe Chinese Yin by that time)? Some kind of concessions. A free hand to scrape Israel off the only miserable piece of sand they have on the whole planet?  Let’s table that, at least for now. A don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding the acquisition of nuclear technology? Iran just won’t share…well, they’re Shia, ya see, and we just don’t…anyway, what else ya got? How about those cute little tykes you brought with you singing that “Hope” song? They would make wonderful additions to our family here. Well, do you really have something to offer or is this another infidel trick?

They likely want the permanent partition of Jerusalem, for starters. Neither the establishment of Madrassas in the U.S. nor those ridiculous “hate speech” courts like in Canada would be a surprising request. Obama would think those are great ideas, but it would take a concentrated marketing effort of rhetorical misdirection to set them up in a short time…and he would get people on it quicker than a Bedouin can saddle a camel.

Demanding removal of all American presence from the soil where Mecca is situated is a given; that’s Bin Laden’s beef with his native country. So, maybe there is something to this “alternative fuels” push. The guys who can’t make enough gasoline while sitting atop an ocean of oil don’t inspire confidence in their production efficiency. If we leave from the whole area, bye-bye Mideast oil, hello, Canada and Russia. What do you mean, you’ll have to up the price? What does supply and demand have to do with anything? I thought we were friends?

If the Islamofascists have free reign, Saudi Arabia will turn into a domino set on a slant. The House of Saud is “sympathetic” (read: open to bribery) to U.S. interests, but plenty of that country’s citizens are sympathetic to Bin Laden, and don’t even need a bribe. They might even take the money and cut your head off for insulting their honor over the offer of one. Doesn’t Bin Laden see the House of Saud as corrupt? He’s right, of course, but that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to do business with them.

Obama would be amenable to removing all U.S. presence, and could do so with military personnel as soon as they could board the ships (just leave the other stuff…that’s right, we’ll take the tanks and aircraft). Removing civilians the locals might want there to keep up oil production, provide oil well services, and so forth…that might be another matter. It would be problematic under democracy, but we seem to be heading away from democracy. Under a socialist Obama regime, assuming Arabians would want civilians and all removed, it would be less problematic; have the military put American civilians under arrest and put them aboard the ships. That is what socialist states do.

No? If the Commander is Chief orders the Joint Chiefs, it will be done. Resistance is futile. The White House Chef might as well refuse to make POTUS a sandwich if he asks for one.

What else would Bin Laden want? Departure from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and anywhere else us infidels might be defaming Muslim soil. Normally, all this would be subject to nuance, but these are no longer normal times. If the U.S. Treasury can’t back the dough we’re printing, bases and troop presence everywhere will likely reviewed for need, meaning maintaining security. But, Obama will bring the world together, right? What is there to fear in a peaceful world? Security for everyone is the overarching promise, right?

Hmmm…tell you what…let’s just sacrifice the bald guy and call it day.

Bill Clinton, once hailed as America’s “first black president,” has been disavowed by a once adoring black community. Geraldine Ferraro has been accused of being a secret racist.  Oprah Winfrey is labeled a feminist sell-out. The major campaigns eagerly pander to racial and socioeconomic groups, and try different combinations of divide and conquer strategies.  Black Americans are for Obama, and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote based on race, women are for Clinton and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote on gender. The two campaigns eagerly fight to curry favor with Hispanics. The wealthy are targeted for income redistribution, the poor are promised free medicine, and free-market capitalism is under full-scale assault.  A party who once railed against supposed voter suppression now openly practices it in key states, and a party whose name is synonymous with ideals of populist governance adopts a delegate system reeking of undemocratic elitism. For those who have long understood the American left, none of the bigotry, racism, divisiveness, extremism or elitism that is emblematic of the 2008 Democratic Presidential contest is surprising.  To understand the modern Democratic Party, one must recognize that it is a party built on racial, economic and socio-ethno-centric divisions.  It is a cynical party; a party that depends on a culture of victimhood and division that in turn generates the demand for governmental redress. Without division, without racism, without inequality, there can be no government programs to remedy them, no election year pledges to change society, no mission or great societal crusade to endlessly fight for – no modern Democratic Party. Change is the undeniable, mechanical, political nature of a so-called “progressive” party, and the disharmony wrought from a perception of inequality is its engine.

Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a purveyor of disharmony, and sadly, far from atypical. Like the Democratic Party itself, he is a man dedicated to ginning up racial hatred, to sowing societal discord, and fostering ignorance as a means of creating a willing and motivated following. Like the liberal establishment at large, for Jeremiah Wright, race is both a spear and a shield. It provides cover for his own bigotry, hatred and apparent anti-American paranoia while at the same time supplying the very weapon to denigrate his country and foster the societal division needed to drive his wayward flock.  Jeremiah Wright’s message is not the message of Christ, it is not the message of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not a message of peace, of reconciliation, or of hope.

The footage of Wright spewing hate-filled anti-American rhetoric was not the product of undercover video, or hidden cameras, they were excerpts from DVDs sold in his church gift shop. Far from slips of the tongue, or misconstrued remarks, they are messages Wright thoughtfully constructed and powerfully conveyed with all his rhetorical might.  These are messages that Wright is proud of, that he wanted others to see and hear, that he believes with conviction. Jeremiah Wright, believes that the United States government created the HIV virus to perpetrate genocide on people of color. He believes the U.S. government conspired to allow the Japanese to destroy Pearl Harbor. He believes that our country is controlled by “rich white people,” and describes his own nation as the U.S. of AmeriKKKa.  He is a man who curses and asks God to “damn America.”  On the Sunday following the 9/11 tragedies he used his pulpit to blame America for the crazed acts of 19 Saudi terrorists, claiming it was America’s “chickens coming home to roost” – an infamous line of the radical, black Muslim separatist leader Malcom X, and a forerunner of the virulently racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Wright honored with a lifetime achievement award.  Wright even traveled with Farrakhan to Libya to meet with terrorist leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. Wright has devoted his life to building a church committed to the “Black value system” and with a stated policy of commitment to Africa, not America. He has asked his followers to “pledge allegiance to black values” and proudly displays a document entitled the “Black Value System” that is so thoroughly racist that were one to substitute the word “black” for “white” it could have easily been authored by Josef Goebbels.

Wright’s is a message of victimhood, paranoia and racism wedded to Marxist concepts of class warfare and societal struggle, it is born of the radical Liberation Theology of the 1960s and it has dominated much of the left and black America for decades. To the many however, who are ceaselessly fed a diet of anti-Americanism and division by their preachers, their political leaders in the Democratic Party, and a hopelessly biased entertainment industry and mainstream media, it is not even viewed as remarkable. So pervasive is this kind of divisive rhetoric on the left, and within the black community, that Donna Brazille, longtime Democratic strategist, admitted on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, “I’ve known Jeremiah Wright and actually Jeremiah Wright is one of the more moderate black preachers.”

Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult for Obama to distance himself from Wright, but once the deep connection between Wright and Obama is understood, it is impossible. Jeremiah Wright is Barak Obama’s self described “mentor!” Wright has been Obama’s pastor for twenty years, the man who married Michelle and Barak Obama and baptized their children. Obama credits Wright with leading him to Christ, and indeed, it was from one of Wright’s “sermons” that Obama borrowed the title for his best-selling political book. In a final elevation, Obama even appointed Wright to an all-black religious leadership committee for his campaign for President of the United States.

Attempting to distance himself from Wright was inviting the press to dig further into the murky relationship between Wright and Obama and the radical teachings of their organization. On Tuesday, an uncharacteristically unsure Obama took the stage before an overt display of American flags, designed to pay silent testament to Obama’s true love of country, a country his wife described as “downright mean,” populated by a people whose “souls are broken,” and a country in which she has admittedly never had pride until her husband’s late candidacy.  Obama himself reversed his earlier statements that he had not been present during any of Wright’s diatribes, and admitted to having personally heard controversial comments. Obama condemned the now publicized and indefensible statements of Wright, but far from distancing himself from Wright, Obama reaffirmed their close connection, saying he could no more “disown” Wright than he could the black community. In what could be dubbed the race-bait and switch speech, Obama delivered hackneyed platitudes on racial disharmony in America, and sought to parlay the issue into credentials for why he alone could solve America’s racial and socioeconomic inequities.  Obama’s attempt to refocus the media spotlight away from his own apparent bigotry by imputing racism to all of America was pathetic. Indeed, Obama even stooped so low as to criticize his own white grandmother for her alleged bigotry, a woman he admitted, greatly loved and sacrificed for him.

Far from saving Obama’s political hide, the speech was a pitiable smoke and mirrors show that unmasked the real Obama.  Inescapably, one must come to the conclusion that Obama either agrees with the teachings of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, or alternatively that he joined the biggest church in his community for the sake of pure political advancement despite its overt radical racism and anti-Americanism. Obama is therefore either a radical, anti-American bigot or a man of pure political ambition, lacking significant conviction who continues to embrace a mentor with repugnant and indefensible views. In either event it is a devastating indictment of his personal beliefs and political ideals, a thorough evisceration of the core message of his campaign, and a political circumstance that makes Barack Obama both unelectable and unfit to serve as President of the United States.