Blatant Reality

As you might have already noticed, I am going in a somewhat new direction with the website by mainly focusing on Environmental, Energy, and Global Warming issues because I feel these topics will have great significance in the coming years. However, there will be times like this were I just can’t help but post an article about another topic.

This really just makes my blood boil to even think that some of these liberals who have been hooting and hollering for the past year that the surge isn’t working to finally admit that it has worked and that it was there idea the whole time. I refuse to even publish the outright lies that these liberals are saying on my blog but you can read all about it with commentary here.

I will republish this part of the commentary that highlights Obama’s foresight into the whole Surge situation.

And yet the Democrats whined, “We need more troops” in mantra like fashion, meaning not that the surge would be a success but that the additional “surge” troops in Iraq would be insignificant. Barack Obama’s comment at the time captured the prevailing lefty sentiment rather well: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

 

Wow! What judgment!

Obama seems to be in a little conundrum about whether or not to support ethanol subsidies. Better yet, he still hasn’t decided who these subsidies help: the nation which he wants to represent or corn-growing Illinois (my emphasis).

Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”

 

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family has criticized Barack Obama for distorting the Bible’s teaching for his own political gain. Take a look at the article here:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama

It seems that Obama really doesn’t know what he wants to do about the whole Iraq situation. To the American public, he is sending the signal that he will get us out of Iraq. However, while he is telling us that, he is telling the Iraqi’s that he will stay there until the mission is completed. Mixed signals? I think so.

You can read more here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/12141

He took his sweet time in deciding who to endorse but now Gore has finally paused to take a moment from his crusade to endorse Obama.

In a letter to be e-mailed to Obama supporters, the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner wrote, “From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected president of the United States.”

 

(…)

 

“Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action,” Gore wrote. “With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country’s most pressing problems.”

 

The former vice president also asked for donations to help fund Obama’s effort - the first time he’s asked members of his Web site AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign.

It really does make me cringe to think of all the mayhem Gore is going to be able to accomplish with a Democrat President and a Democrat controlled congress.

A Boston Globe article today claims that such a phenomenon could exist.

“Barack Obama is no conservative,” Bacevich starts his article. “Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives — and the state of the conservative movement — they could do worse.

 

“The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home,” Bacevich continues. “The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.

 

“So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival.

 

“For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one,” Bacevich concludes.

What? I can’t see how a conservative would be willing to trade in every other issue just to get us out of Iraq. Sure McCain is going to try to tax us on the Global Warming phenomenon but Obama would be worse. In fact, for a conservative, Obama is worse in everything.

McCain may not be a “true conservative” but he certainly isn’t the most liberal senator of 2007. Come on conservatives, we aren’t going to be happy with whatever the election results are but at least McCain has the potential to do something right once in a while.

In a recent poll conducted by CNN, Nader received 6%!

Ralph Nader’s campaign is trying to capitalize on his showing in a new national poll to argue that he might be on the stage for presidential debates and to seek more money needed to get on ballots.

 

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted June 4-5, Democrat Barack Obama had 47 percent, Republican John McCain had 43 percent, and Nader had 6 percent — “with virtually no mainstream national press coverage,” the consumer activist’s campaign told supporters today. (Without Nader in the race, Obama leads 49 percent to 46 percent.)

 

The 6 percent is an important threshold, Nader’s camp notes, because most debate organizers require at least 5 percent to invite a candidate.

Why is this such great news? Well it means that Nader could possibly be invited to several presidential debates which would boost his popularity even more! More votes for Nader would most likely mean less votes for Obama!

Another added benefit would be that we get a Ron Paul-esque candidate in the debates to spout out crazy ideas while the other two candidates completely ignore him. I might actually watch the debates if he is in them.

According to a CNN article, Obama is accused of having ‘hijacked’ his own press followers. (My Emphasis)

What seemed to be a routine evening waiting for Barack Obama aboard his campaign plane turned into anything but when the cabin doors closed and the passengers were informed the aircraft would be taking off immediately — without the candidate.

 

The first sign something was amiss on the Thursday flight came when the pilot told those aboard — about 25 members of the media, a smaller group of Obama staffers and only a handful of Secret Service agents — that everyone was on board and that the plane would be departing for Obama’s hometown of Chicago, Illinois, momentarily.

 

The press soon noticed there were far too few people aboard for a standard campaign flight. Something was different. It’s fair to say that the term “everyone” was used a bit loosely — especially when the presumptive nominee appeared to be missing.

 

As the plane taxied, communications director Robert Gibbs admitted that Obama was remaining behind because he “wasn’t going to be back in D.C. for a while” and had “scheduled some meetings” before he left.

 

Obama staffers, including Gibbs and Linda Douglass, a newly appointed senior adviser and campaign spokeswoman, didn’t ask the reporters on board if they’d prefer to wait on the runway in Washington until the meetings concluded. They were going to Chicago. Without Barack Obama.

Personally, don’t think ‘hijacked’ was the best choice of words. Kept in the dark, yes. Intentionally misled, yes. However, ‘hijacked’ seems a little to harsh plus has some very negative overtones in light of September 11th.

With all the rumors about Obama being a Muslim and such, I don’t think reporters should be throwing around the word ‘hijacked.’

Then again, if Chris Welch was on the plane, he might just be pissed enough to compare his situation to being hijacked. Just a little way to get back at Barack for keeping those who can either be your best friends or your worst enemies in the dark.

Barack Obama seems to be pissing off everyone in the world that he has pledged to meet with without “preconditions.” This morning, the Palestinians voiced their anger over Barack’s stance on Jerusalem being strictly an Israeli capital and now Iran believes that Obama’s ‘elimination’ threat is ‘unacceptable.’ (My emphasis)

Iran’s foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s pledge to work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Tehran as “unacceptable” and biased.

 

“It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful,” foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.

 

“These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme and thus unacceptable,” he added.

 

Obama vowed on Wednesday that he would work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran to world security.

 

“The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” he told the influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

Man, I sure hope Barack wasn’t expecting the election to get any easier now that he is the presumptive nominee.

Now the Palestinians are outraged at Barack Obama’s promise that Jerusalem must remain solely in Israeli hands. (My emphasis)

President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the U.S. presidential candidate’s pledge to American Jewish leaders and he repeated his demand for a Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.

 

“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank administrative centre of Ramallah.

 

“The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”

 

Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Palestinian negotiators engaged in U.S.-sponsored peace talks would continue to insist on securing East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as their capital. He said of Obama: “He has closed all doors to peace.”

Wow, “all doors of peace.” And people think Bush hasn’t done enough to end the violence between Israel and Palestine. At least he didn’t close “all doors to peace” before he was even elected president.