The Right State

This story is incredibly hard to believe and yet this article is well researched. It must be true. Now for the hard to believe part: Barack Obama lied when he defended his pastor of twenty years. (Okay Obama gals, now you can faint)

Obama, in his race speech after the MSM broke the Wright story, said that his fiery pastor blames America for everything bad in the black community because of the racial discrimination, humiliation and the lack of opportunity he suffered at the hands of white people as a poor black kid growing up in a black neighborhood. According to Obama, Jeremiah Wright overcame so many things including Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, legalized discrimination (where blacks were prevented from owning property in white neighborhoods), and were not allowed to accumulate wealth. And that is not all:

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened….

This is the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

But the truth… is much different. The Reverend Wright grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood and went to a mostly white school as the son of a middle class couple. Wright had the best in everything! He has done well for someone who grew up with no opportunity.  Read the entire article.

Barack Obama obviously knew Wright’s history and made up a good lie for the MSM to swallow. The liberal media like good obedient camp followers swallowed the bait with glee.

Obama has shown himself to be a typical politician who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, say or do anything to win. What is really surprising is Obama was naïve enough to believe everyone would take his word on his fiery Reverend without doing a little research. In the end, the words of Jeremiah Wright will hang about the neck of Barack Obama like an albatross and sink his presidential ambitions. (Yes, Obama, words do matter)

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

Texas Congressional District 17 (TX-17) finally has a candidate who is willing to challenge Chet Edwards for his seat in Congress.  The challenger, Rob Curnock, is a businessman from Waco. 

Can we finally rid ourselves of the Kool-aid drinking liberal who supposedly represents us?  Chet has not serve this district very well.  And yet time after time Edwards somehow manages to convince his conservative constituents to vote for him.  This man is a chameleon.  Note Chet’s voting record here and here. While running for office, our favorite liberal projects himself as a fellow conservative, but when he arrives in Washington, Chet Edwards votes with the ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi most of the time.  The straw that broke the camel’s back occurred in February of this year when Chet Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.  And we all know how liberal Barack Obama is.  This is the same guy who sat in a pew for twenty years while his preacher taught his parishioners to hate America.  This is the same guy who castigates Middle America for their belief in God and the Second Amendment.  This is the same guy who haughtily refuses to wear a US flag lapel pin and whose wife is just now proud of her country.  This is the same guy who is friendly with domestic terrorists.  This is the same guy who marched with the ultra racist Louis Farrakhan.   And this is the guy Chet Edwards wants to be our next President!?  The fact that Edwards would even associate himself with Obama, much less endorse him, lets me know that he is not fit to represent central Texas.

TX-17 can do better than to elect someone like Chet Edwards.  In fact, they can do much better.  I believe Rob Curnock is the man to unseat the liberal who has been a thorn in our side for the last several years.  It is time to elect someone who has the same values as we do, someone who is the same in Washington as they are here.

According to his website, Rob Curnock clearly sees his mission in Congress as:

…he’ll go to Washington to work with those who want to stand up for freedom and traditional American values…and against the Nancy Pelosi San Francisco socialism.

Amen to that.  If elected to Congress, Rob promises to

* Protect our Borders and Control Illegal Immigration
* Support our troops as they achieve victory in the War on Terror
* Work to cut taxes and federal spending
* Overhaul the Federal Tax Code
* Preserve and Secure Social Security/Medicare

Notice, these are all things Chet Edwards and the other liberal Democrats in Congress have refused to do.  If Chet Edwards can not or will not do the job he was sent to Washington to do, then it is time to replace him with someone who will.  I believe Rob Curnock can and will stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the other liberals who constantly denigrate our troops and our country. He will stand up for small businesses against job killing tax hikes.  Well need more people like Rob Curnock in Congress who will do what he says he will do.

Tags: Texas // Add Comment »

Apparently Barack Obama, fresh from his poor performance at the Pennsylvania debate covered by ABC, has decided to take his ball and go home.  After such a dismal performance, the Democrat front runner has decided enough is enough.  The Clinton camp is accusing Obama of trying to “duck” the North Carolina debates.  Until now, the media treated the Illinois Senator like a rock star.  Therefore inquiries which questioned his character and judgment were off limits. 

Until now, the MSM has given the Illinois Senator a complete pass, both in the debates and in the press.  The kid glove treatment by the mainstream media ended abruptly when both moderators made it clear after just a few questions that the love affair was over.  ABC moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos took pains to make sure no stone remained unturned.  The questions Obama was asked were fair game as was Hillary’s. 

Afterwards, Barack Obama complained that no relevant questions were asked for 45 minutes.  Sorry, but questions about his character and judgment are relevant.  I guess since whining about the questions did not help, Obama has decided to quit playing ball with Hillary Clinton.  (Cry baby)  I do not think skipping the debates in North Carolina will help now.  The cat is already out of the bag, Barack Obama is damaged good and is unfit to be president of the United States.

To be perfectly honest, Obama is much better speaking in a large group where the audience can feed off of each other’s energy than he is in answering questions in a debate.  It is not that Barack has performed particularly bad in early debates, its just that he never had to answer anything remotely difficult.  His main problems were questions concerning his character and judgment. 

My hat is off to ABC for finally coming to their senses and making the debates something real and informative rather than playing footsie with Barack.  It is about time.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

The left wing blogoshere is going nutsoid over how the moderators and ABC conducted last night’s Democrat debate in Pennsylvania.  I notice how they said absolutely nothing about the extremely poor moderator the Republicans were dealt in New Hampshire by the schoolmarm.   Or how about the CNN-UTube debate, that was horrible.  But that is typical of libs who ignore double standards which favor them. 

The following is just a few of the more entertaining snippets. 

… it was probably the worst performance by “moderators” in a presidential debate.  Ever.  It really was that bad, and we cannot let that happen again where Democratic positions are under relentless attack by the moderators without a Republican candidate on stage.  It wasn’t a debate, it was an interrogation.  The only difference between the ABC interrogation and an interrogation perpetrated by the Bush administration was that ABC probably never considered waterboarding.  

We all agree that last night’s so-called debate was execrable. We all agree that the nation should collectively hold ABC’s feet to the fire. We all agree that ABC and George Stephanapoulos and Charlie Gibson colluded to carry water for the other side, generally, and Sean Hannity in particular.

We all agree. But we’re not talking about what actually happened last night. What it all means. What ABC’s performance underscores in spades.

Others thought ABC was trying to ‘swiftboat’ Obama.  Others are calling for the boycott of ABC. 

Bob Cesca at the Huffington Post calls ABC the

“wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America.”  Then he goes on to call out the moderators: “George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers.”

 I love it!  Finally, liberals are getting a taste of what Republicans have put up with for years.  Turnabout is fair play in politics.  Keep tuned, the frothing at the mouth by the moonbats is just beginning. 

Tags: Democrats, Moonbats, National Elections // Add Comment »

Tonight the Democrats conducted their last debate before the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.  There were several aspects of the debate which stood out.

First, the Democrats debate in Pennsylvania was an exercise in who can out Bush the other as Bush Derangement Syndrome was on full display.  In this debate the President was blamed for everything from high gas prices and a stagnant economy to global warming and a lost war on terror. 

Second is how ABC has apparently lost their infatuation with Barack Obama.  He received most of the difficult questions which ranged from his comments in California about the people who live in small Pennsylvania towns, his fiery racist pastor Jeremiah Wright, his association with terrorist leader of the Weathermen William Ares, and his failure to wear the American flag lapel pin.  On all of these issues, Barack Obama stumbled badly.  He obviously felt uncomfortable with the questions and his answers lacked substance and conviction.  These are all issues John McCain will use with great effect. Hillary showed no compunction about nailing Obama to the wall with his gaffs and judgment which was done with great effectiveness several times.

Hillary only received one difficult question which concerned her comments about receiving sniper fire while in Bosnia.  Her response was surprising; Hillary apologized saying it was a mistake.  (Wow!! Hillary admitted she made a mistake.  Wow!!)  Then she blames the mistake on a lack of sleep.  (Okay, so much for the Wow part)   Barack Obama gave Hillary a complete pass on this issue.  She attacked him again and again on his gaffs and he says nothing on hers.  Big mistake.

There was a ‘poor Hillary’ moment when Hillary cried about her mistreatment by Republicans for sixteen years.  Oh, wahhhh.  The question I have is, what was it about her eyes.  Every time she was searching for words, her eyes were moving all over the place.  Really weird. 

On policy issues, the answers of both candidates were far to the left.  Both would pull troops out of Iraq within sixty days with no consideration of what the commanders on the ground stated.  (Really stupid answer)  Both were concerned with the ‘moral authority’ of the United States.  (Why don’t we just turn the country over to the UN)  Both would raise taxes.  On this issue, both muddled their answers, but said they would raise both income taxes and capitol gains taxes.  And both support the gun ban in Washington D.C.  Again, their answers on gun control were muddled as both obfuscated their answers. 

In the end, both candidates have shown their true colors.  Both are socialists whose answers to all problems in America is the government.  Most people want the government out of the way, not to solve every problem.  Both want to raise taxes which will destroy small business which are the backbone of the US economy.  Both will say and do anything to win the election.  Both will pull US troops out of Iraq, even when the terrorists even say Iraq is essential to winning their war against the United States.  It is extremely naive to believe the terrorists will not once again attack the US homeland once we leave Iraq.  Both made promises they could not keep, like being able to bring down the price of gas. (Huh?)  Both support going after the oil companies even though millions of Americans own stock in big oil.  Both support a windfall profits tax to be placed on the oil companies.  And lastly, both support gun control.  Both are only concerned with pandering to the left. 

For the survival of this great country, it is imperative that neither Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton become President of the United States. 

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

Barack Obama has seen his presidential ambitions rise meteorically after his speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention and he has seen his fortunes fall precipitously after the news of his twenty year relationship with his bigoted separatist church pastor was released.

Obama’s historic rise began when he ran for the Senate while he was still a state legislator of Illinois.  Invited to give a major speech at the Democrat National Convention, he did not disappoint the delegates or the American people by giving a memorable speech called the “Audacity of Hope.”

Not long after winning his Senate seat, Obama began seeking the presidential nomination of the Democrat Party for President.  Barack Obama was the perfect candidate—he was highly intelligent, a gifted speaker, and delivered a populist message.  The fact that he was black was not an issue.  Obama’s oratory skills would rival those of the famed Silver Tongued Orator, William Jennings Bryan who unsuccessfully ran for president several times on a populist platform.  Although he is running as the candidate who is against the war, these particular words of Obama’s stand out (from the Convention) because they do not signal that he is against the war.  Rather they show he believes we should pursue our enemies wherever they might be found.

When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.

Now — Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated.

All during his run for the Democrat nomination for President, Barack Obama ran on the twin slogans of hope and change.  At no time was he the ‘black’ candidate.  Most of America cared less about the color of his skin, only the character of his heart.  He took on the presumptive nominee and one of the most powerful political machines in the country when he ran against Hillary Clinton.  Barack Obama was a powerful speaker and he had a powerful message.  He was a very good candidate (for the Dems) who just happens to be black. The Clinton team tried multiple times, unsuccessfully, to remind the American people of Obama’s skin color, but most of the electorate did not care.

Then the Obama train jumped the track.  Word began to circulate about Obama’s fiery pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  Over the next several days, both he and his campaign tried to deflect questions by feigning ignorance of his pastor’s racist statements.  The wheels came off the Obama train as he tried to explain a twenty year relationship with the bigoted pastor.  CNN among others are calling this the pastor disaster. 

Finally after much deflection and equivocation, Barack Obama went on to redefined himself as the black candidate.  The question is, why?  Why after running a highly successful campaign in which race was never an issue does Barack Obama redefine himself in this way?

To me, the answer is obvious and threefold.  By defining himself as the black candidate, Obama shores up the black vote, many of whom did not believe the Senator was ‘black enough.’  The second reason was ‘white guilt.’  Believing they would alleviate their guilt from slavery and Jim Crow laws, many whites, especially liberals, will vote for Obama believing it will in some way make them feel better about their pasts. 

The third reason Obama redefined himself was political cover.  If he should go on and lose either the Democrat nomination or ensuing National election, he will not lose because of his message.  He will have lost because of his skin color.  This is a win-win scenario for Barack Obama.  If he wins, great, he made the right move.  But if the Senator loses, he will have deflected the blame onto the ‘typical white person’ who in his eyes is racist.

When Obama rose, he rose fast.  And when he fell, he fell fast.  The rise and fall of Barack Obama came about because of his political inexperience.  Liberals wanted to support a populist.  The fact that he was a black man who did not define himself as black was a plus.  That is indeed refreshing.  We are all, regardless of our political affiliations or skin color, Americans, period.  In the end, Barack Obama could not help himself as he returned to the same old tried and true method in dealing with failure and racism—blame whitey.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

To say that Barack Obama’s speech on race today fell short of expectations is truly an understatement.  He started his speech by quoting a line in the preamble of the Constitution and then goes on to blame racism on the

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” 
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished.  It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.  …
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the

United States.  What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.  I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.   

What a load of crap!  It is as I expected—Barack Obama is as racist as his incendiary pastor. Slavery was a long time ago as was all of the other racist laws outlawed by the US Supreme Court.  Those days are gone, so get over it.  Obama says he began his road to the White House to end racism in

…I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. 

Oh, great.  Obama’s kids are racist too.  Then we hear how race was brought up in the run for the white House over and over again.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign.  At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” 

Let’s not forget, it was the Democrats who brought up the issue of race.  Bill Clinton, the first ‘black’ President, brought up Obama’s race a number of times.  Black commentators in newspapers around the country have openly wondered if Obama was black enough.Finally Barack Obama brings up the statements spoken by his firebrand preacher at

… [We all have heard] Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.  
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.  For some, nagging questions remain.  Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?  Of course.  Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?  Yes.  Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?  Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.  

Nagging?  Nagging?  As if I do not have the right to question him on his association with his fiery and bigoted pastor.  I am sorry, but his association with a bigot as a pastor for twenty years leads me to question his integrity, his judgment, and his character.  I have left churches because the pastor said offensive things.  One was racist and another one spoke out against our troops.  I left and left quickly.  I would expect nothing less from someone who is running on the platform of character, judgment, and integrity.  

On Friday, Barack Obama was interviewed by Major Garrett at Fox News and said he would have confronted his pastor if he had heard the remarks and left the church had he heard them mentioned again.  Now I have cause to question his honesty, integrity, character, and judgment.  Which statement is correct, Friday’s or today’s.  He obviously heard his pastor make these comments and he stayed in spite of what he said earlier.  He goes on:

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems…
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way. 

 So basically Barack Obama was not going to bring up the race issue, but he is running because he is black.  Huh!?  He did not like the comments brought up by the Reverend, but he decided to stay because…he liked the guy?  Hmm…He goes on to tell what a great man Jeremiah Wright is and how he led a young Barack Obama to Christianity.  What the church meant to him.  How the pastor never said a derogatory word to a person of any color or even about a person of any color.  (Riiiighhttt)  What the pastor means to his family.  Then he says these words.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.   

 Apparently he lied to Major Garrett when he stated that he would leave the church if he had heard racist comments repeated.  Now we know where he stands.  As a ‘politician’ Obama will say anything to anyone to get elected.  Not much change there.  Not much hope either.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.  We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about

America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.  

 Then Barack Obama the victim retreats back to the ‘poor black me’ mantra and points out how his people were abused: slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregated schools (and still are?), legalized discrimination through loans and unions, the lack of economic opportunity among blacks, prisons, humiliation, welfare, and blah, blah, blah.  Basically, Obama says blacks have a good reason to be angry.  The fact that this tension came through Jeremiah’s sermons is to be expected.

 Though he does face up to the fact that this anger inhibits blacks from facing their own ‘complicity’ in many of these problems.  There he tells black parents they need to spend time with their children, help them with their homework, etc.    
Obama goes on to tell about white anger—affirmative action, welfare, court ordered busing, quotas in college placement, quotas in jobs, and a belief that people of color receive a leg up at the expense of whites is all perception,  that much of the claims of racism against white is bogus.  If whites lose their job in which they are more qualified to fulfill a quota, or if our kids are bussed to other schools across town, or if whatever else we have a problem with, just understand, the problem is in our head.  Huh!?  And of course there is also corporate greed which is the knee-jerk liberal reaction to all problems.   

 Barack Obama concludes with his campaign trail rhetoric with all of his fixes which include raising taxes and with the government control of our lives.

Oh boy.  Senator Obama’s prepared statement may be enough for blacks who refuse to see the truth and for those liberals who believe that the white man,

Most Americans could care less what the color of skin is of the next President of the

Barack Obama’s speech was not enough.  Unlike Nixon’s ‘Checks’ speech, it fell flat.  Pointing a finger at everyone else solves nothing which was much like his speech–nothing.

Tags: Politics // Add Comment »

Barack Obama has set his hopes of the presidency on “Hope and Change.” The freshman Senator has no experience thus he has no choice but to focus on the future, on how his administration will look if he should become the President of the United States.  He is also running on his judgment and his character.  But here comes his pastor of twenty years saying things which is offensive to the average American.  Obama claims he had no knowledge his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, saying these things.  That if he had heard these things, he would have called the good pastor out on these outrageous statements. 

If that is true, then why did Senator Obama uninvite Pastor Wright to his kickoff campaign if he had not heard some of these statements?  Barack Obama is being disingenuous if not outright lying.  Fox News says that even Oprah Winfrey, who once attended Trinity United Church, left because of Wright’s offensive statements.  Now, because Obama chose to remain at this church for twenty years, it calls into question both the Senator’s judgment and his character.  Any presidential candidate whether he/she has experience or not needs to show they have both character and judgment because they are needed to be President of the greatest nation on earth. 

Barack Obama may have forgotten one of the most important rules in running for national office: bury your skeletons.  And Jeremiah Wright is a huge one.  Voters would either have to believe Obama was naive enough to believe the outrageous statements of his firebrand preacher would not get out in the public or, even worse, they would have to understand Obama holds the same beliefs as his pastor.  Maybe ‘hope and change’ stands for; ‘I hope you don’t find out about my pastor’ and ‘please change the subject.’  It is too late for that now.  Barack Obama’s credibility is on the line.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama is set to make a major speech today to address these issues.  This is in my opinion a make or break speech for Obama, much like the “Checkers” speech by Richard Nixon in 1952.  If the Senator continues to give some of the half-hearted excuses he has given in the past for not hearing his pastor’s statements, then it is over.  If he continues to give some softball denunciation of the pastor’s statements, then it is over as well.  

Obama may go on to win the Democrat nomination only because he is so far ahead of Hillary Clinton, but he will not be able to beat John McCain in November.  He will in essence become the ‘black’ candidate, something Hillary tried so hard to accomplish early on, but failed to do.  To use a war analygy, Obama has been dodging Hillary’s bullets for the past year only to shoot himself in the foot after the battle is almost over.

Obama did himself in when he failed to bury his skeletons.   I can not wait for what Obama has to say now.  Stay tuned!

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

A chink in the armor.  That is what Jeremiah Wright is to Barack Obama.  How can you possibly sit in the pew of a church for twenty years and not know the things your pastor stood for?  And what does he stand for: racism, anti-Americanism, class warfare, anti-government, etc.  Then once you know what your pastor stands for, how can you possibly stay there.  I left a church because the pastor said things I believed disparaged our troops.  That does not make me a better person.  The only reason I can see for Barack Obama staying at that church was because he agreed with his pastor.

The Reverend said things like:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

The ‘good’ pastor has also said that “rich whites control the country”, called the US the “U.S. of KKK-A,” compared the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the 9/11 attacks. 

If there was a time when everything has come together, it is now.  Barack Obama refuses to wear a US lapel pin.  Michelle Obama says that she is proud of America for the first time.  Taken in its totality, I would have to believe that Mr. Obama has the same beliefs as his pastor and wife.  Now to be fair, Obama has finally come out against his pastor, but the question remains, What has taken him so long?  I would have left years ago, years ago.

One thing I would not do is to characterize all blacks this way.  I have had the opportunity to travel all over the United States visiting more than thirty different states.  Every Sunday I stop to go to church.  I must admit, that I have attended more black churches than white while on the road, mostly because I do not care what kind of Christian church I attend and partially because I do not know where the ‘white’ churches are.  But I have never, ever heard a black pastor say the things Pastor Wright has said.  I am of the opinion most black church pastors are proud of America.  My family and I have been shown more love and have been welcomed with more warmth in black churches than we have in white churches.  Of course there are two large differences between black and white churches.  If you go to a black church, do not expect the church service to be over at noon.  They are just beginning the sermon at noon.  And second, black churches are unashamed of their Christianity.  The overriding issue has been and should be Christ, not these other side issues.  And for that I do indeed love my black brothers and sisters in Christ.

With that said, where does the Barack Obama stand?  Obviously he does not stand with the majority of the black people I have visited in churches around the country.

There is a chink in Barack Obama’s armor.  The hard left already agrees with Pastor Wright so the only question is whether the left will continue to apologize for Obama as they have done in the past.  America is not the bad guy.  We do not need a President who believes America is as evil Obama’s pastor believes it is.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections // Add Comment »

Navy Admiral William Fallon was fired/removed/or whatever you want to call it, as head of U.S. Central Command.  As commander of CentCom he was over the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq much like General Tommy Franks during both wars.  What was different about Fallon is that he has been openly critical in the press of the Bush administration and his policies in the Middle East, including Iraq.  He was also very critical of the surge in Iraq which is working so well to quell the violence there. 

It was not just the Bush administration Fallon had problems with.  According to many sources including the LA Times, the Admiral and General Patraeus (the commander in charge in Iraq) had also come to loggerheads over what to do in Iraq.  Fallon wanted to pull the troops out much more quickly than Patraeus, nor did he agree with the General’s plan for a surge of additional troops.  As a result Fallon came to dislike Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The Democrats and, predictably, the two Democrat presidential contenders, have been all over this story.  Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, called Fallon’s outing “yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcome in this administration.” 

Hillary has called for Senate Armed Services Oversight Committee meetings to look into Fallon’s removal.  Obama says that as President, he will listen to his generals.  Right?!  Then of course Obama says he will send troops back into Iraq if he determines al Queda has moved in to the struggling country.  Huh?  With the terrorist group already operating there, I wonder what it would take for Obama, should he become President (God forbid) to make that announcement, a knock on the front door of the White House by black clad homicide bombers.  I wonder how long it will take for Fallon to join one of the two Democrat candidates telling the world that there are no terrorists in Iraq.

Fallon’s removal came way too late.  It reminds me of one Democrat other today’s Democrats hate to mention: Harry S. Truman.  58 years ago there was another general who could not keep his mouth shut and went to the press time and time again to voice positions which were not only against the views of his military boss, but also against the administration’s policy as well.  The famed general was none other than General Douglas MacArthur who was fired for going to the press one time to many.

Like MacArthur before him, Adm. Fallon has forgotten that he serves at the leisure of the President.  As such, he can not dictate policy, he can not change policy, nor should he go to the press to voice his displeasure with the President’s policy.  If he has any qualms, the CentCom commander has an obligation to take those views to his boss and ultimately to the President.  But once the decision is made, the Commander has a duty to follow the President’s policy or he can quit.  The bottom line, Fallon worked for the President—period.  Not the press, and certainly not to members of the white flag Democrats who push their own political power before the security of the United States.

The lesson may or may not be learned.  As MacArthur once stated, ‘Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.’  Fallon may have a few months of glory as the left uses him to bash the Bush administration as they used Cindy Sheehan.  In the end Ms. Sheehan was all but abandoned by the anti-war left.  Fallon would do well to learn from her example.  Adm. Fallon may indeed become the new trumpet for the left, but in the end he will be abandoned by his new friends, and then he will fade away and be forgotten.  Treatment not worthy of a once proud admiral.

I wish you fair sailing, Admiral.  You will need it.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections, Iraq // Add Comment »