Obama's Church at it again

A new video has surfaced from Barack Obama's Church and it is quiet scary. The pastor speaking is a regular guest at the Church and a friend of Barack Obama who was featured on his website until it was just removed because of the video. Now they have turned their hate and racism towards Hillary Clinton. It is time that we got real answers from Barack Obama about his feelings on race and his attitude towards the church that he was a member of for 20 years and his pastor and friends. We know very little about Sen. Obama and he should come out and be honest with us all.

Here is the video:

Sphere: Related Content

Even Clinton aknowledges Iraq trip with McCain not bad

Hillary Clinton today weighed in on the Obama Iraq Controversy. Obama has resisted going to Iraq with John McCain even though he has only gone once. Today Hillary Clinton had this to say about John McCain and the trips she took with him, "“I have the highest respect and regard for Sen. McCain, he and I have actually gone to Iraq and Afghanistan together, and I honor his service to our country and his patriotism.” Sounds like Hillary is willing to see the truth while Barack Obama perfers to employ empty rhetoric without knowing the truth.

Sphere: Related Content

About that Recession the media has been talking about

For the past several months we have heard time and time again from the media about the horrible Recession that was going on. We have heard from the Bush detractors about the horrible Economy and the Bush Recession. Well, as it turns out we are not in a recession. By the definition of recession it is two quarters of negative growth. Now, originally Economists had predicted a .6% gowth rate in the first quarter. Now, it turns out that the economy grew more than expected at .9%. While that is not great growth it appears to be setting up what Alan Greenspan always called a soft landing where we go in a downturn, which always happens because the economy is cyclical, but we dont go into a recession. That allows the next wave of the cycle to pick and add more growth with no contraction in the economy. It looks we are doing better than the media and poltical talking heads thought, now wait for the spin because nothing can be good as long as President Bush is in charge.

Sphere: Related Content

Why would Obama go to Iraq

The National Journal has this:
RENO, NV -- In a Reno gymnasium festooned with American flags, John McCain knocked Barack Obama today for failing to visit Iraq since 2006 or meet with the U.S. generals overseeing the military efforts in the region.
McCain contrasted Obama's accused negligence with the Illinois senator's proposal to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking, "Why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran but hasn't yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?"
The McCain camp's criticism of Obama's single pre-surge trip to Iraq originated Sunday, when surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham raised the issue and proposed a joint McCain/Obama trip to the region as a solution. (McCain has visited eight times to Obama's one.) McCain told the Associated Press Monday that he hopes to use such a venture to "educate" Obama. The Republican National Committee joined in today, posting a clock of the days elapsed since the likely Democratic nominee visited Iraq.
McCain reiterated that appeal, saying of the proposed trip with Obama, "I would be glad to go with him because these issues are far more important than any election. The security of this nation is far more important than any political campaign."
He read aloud the Obama camp's strongly-worded reaction statement, in which spokesman Bill Burton derided the offer as a "political stunt" and called McCain's optimism about the war a "false promise."
"That is a profound misunderstanding of what's happened in Iraq and what's at stake in Iraq," McCain retorted.
"I will never surrender in Iraq," he added, "I will not let that happen."

Of Course Obama will not go or meet with Generals. Then he would not be able to honestly through around his empty rhetoric. It would also require him to lead on an issue that he has knowledge of. Something he has not bothered to do in his brief experience of running for higher office after higher office.

Sphere: Related Content

More Members for Congress?

The Washington Post is discussing if the Congress should have more members. The Last time the membership number of the House changed was 1911. Since we have obviously grown a lot since then should the membership increase? If it does keep increasing when would it become unmanageable?

The Post from Capital Briefing from the Washington Post:

With members of Congress so very popular right now in the eyes of the
American people -- the latest
Gallup poll puts congressional approval at a solid 18 percent -- perhaps the
time is right to give the public more of what it loves.
Whether the voters
actually want it or not, the argument for a bigger House of Representatives is
the basis for a new
article by the California-based research center Miller-McCune. Surveying the latest
scholarly work, the piece makes the case that House districts now cover so many
people that members may not represent their constituents as well as they could,
or should.
When the current size of 435 members was established in 1911, each
House district covered roughly 200,000 people. Now the average district size is
more like 640,000, and the number will keep going up as long as the U.S.
population grows without the House growing along with it. Other western
democracies like Britain and Germany have larger lower houses of parliament than
we do, even though they have far fewer citizens.
So how big should the House
be? One study cited in the
Miller-McCune piece suggests the chamber could grow by about 50 percent, to 650
members. That would knock each district down to a more manageable 430,000 or so
constituents (still more than double the size the districts were the last time
the House expanded).
Now, a bigger House might mean lawmakers would be more
responsive to helping constituents get their Social Security checks. But would
it do a better job on lowering gas prices, dealing with illegal immigration or
any of the other tasks that the public currently thinks Congress does terribly?
And do angry voters really want a lot more lawmakers making $170,000 per year,
airing annoying campaign ads, and finding new ways to become enmeshed in
scandals?
Probably not.
Nor does there appear to be a huge appetite on
the Hill for such a move. In the 109th Congress, Rep. Alcee
Hastings (D-Fla.) introduced a bill "to establish a commission to make
recommendations on the appropriate size of membership of the House." The measure
picked up just one cosponsor and never even got a committee hearing.
On a
selfish level, Capitol Briefing would absolutely LOVE to cover the expansion of
the House. As things stand, congressional districts are re-drawn by each state
at least once every 10 years following the census, giving governors, state
legislators and other political operatives the opportunity to jockey for
advantage. Can you imagine the chaos if all of the sudden there were 200-plus
new seats to play with?
Unfortunately, Capitol Briefing does not have a vote
in the House to help make this happen. Perhaps the 650-member "House of the
Future" could include slots for a few bloggers.

Sphere: Related Content

Al Queda calls for use of WMD on civilians, but dont worry some think they are just misunderstood

Everytime I read a new article about how bad we treat terrorists and they should be given the same rights as Americans I get a little worked up. When people refuse to play by the rules they should not be rewarded by being treated better than other Military Prisoners. I think the people who push these kinds of view have lost track about what this is really about. The terrorists do not care about rules they do not care how many innocent people they kill just to accomplish their senseless views. They hit us once and we have to do everything possible to hunt these people down and hold them responsible for their actions.

From ABC News,

Intelligence and law enforcement sources tell ABC News they are expecting al Qaeda supporters will post a new video on the Internet in the next 24 hours, calling for what one source said is "jihadists to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West."
"There have been several reports that al Qaeda will release a new message calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians," FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told ABC News in an e-mail.
"Although there have been similar messages in the past, the FBI and [Department of Homeland Security] have no intelligence of any specific plot or indication of a threat to the U.S.," the e-mail said. "The FBI and U.S. intelligence community will review the message for any intelligence value."
While there is no evidence of any direct threat, the FBI sent a bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country, out of an abundance of caution.
Some independent analysts don't think the public should worry much.
Ben Venzke, the CEO of IntelCenter, a group that monitors terrorist communications on the Web, said the video, entitled "Nuclear Jihad, The Ultimate Terror," is a jihadi supporter video compilation and not from an official group.
"Supporter videos are made by fans or supporters who may not have ever had any contact with a real terrorist," Venzke said. "These videos almost always are comprised of old video footage that is edited together to make a new video."
He said the material in these types of videos does not qualify as an official message from al Qaeda or any other group.
"Considering them so would be the equivalent of considering a 10-year-old's homemade fan video of his favorite sports team to be an official team message," Venzke said. "IntelCenter is not aware of any new imminent message by al-Qaeda or any other leading jihadist group in audio or video form that will call for the use of WMD against civilians."
Word of the new tape comes on the heels of a spate of messages from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Earlier this month, al Qaeda released an audio message from bin Laden, excoriating the media and countries that are supportive of Israel. The release was timed to coincide with the nation's 60th anniversary and President Bush's trip to the region.
So far this year, four bin Laden tapes have surfaced.
In April, the terror group released audio recordings in which al-Zawahiri answered questions submitted to an online forum several months earlier.
The increasing volume of tapes seems to signal to the law enforcement and intelligence communities that top al Qaeda leadership is comfortable monitoring current events and communicating messages frequently.
Officials have tracked the trend, but FBI director Robert Mueller downplayed the surge of messages during an appearance earlier this month, noting that "there is a difference between al Qaeda's ability to communicate internally and al Qaeda's ability to post a message on the Internet. As we all know, the Internet is so broad. The access is absolutely open that just about anybody can post material on the Internet."

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Hypocritical Stance

Obama today blasted the fact John McCain for not letting the press into fundraisers with President Bush and claimed it is becasue John McCain is ashamed the President. Does that mean Barack Obama is ashmaed of Florida Democrats and Oprah since he has held fundraisers with them that did not allow in the press.

From the National Journal

Barack Obama, speaking in Nevada today about the nation's housing crisis,
launched his speech by chiding John McCain for holding a fundraiser with
President Bush. Full speech after the jump, but here's the related (and largely
predictable) snippet:
Today, John McCain is having a different kind of
meeting. He’s holding a fundraiser with George Bush behind closed doors in
Arizona. No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why. Senator McCain doesn’t
want to be seen, hat-in-hand, with the President whose failed policies he
promises to continue for another four years.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Would Howard Dean want to eliminate the Electoral College?

Howard Dean told Time Magazine this week that he was in favor of eliminating the electoral college. Why would he say that?
USA Today stepped up the answer the question with this

Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular
vote but loses in the Electoral College -- he might galvanize Southern black
turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.
Among
the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was
near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party's
prospects in November would be nil. ...
The case they make for a comfortable
McCain win is not beyond reason. Begin with the 2004 electoral map. Add Iowa and
Colorado to Obama's side, since both are considered states Obama could pick off.
Then count McCain victories in New Hampshire and Michigan, two states where
McCain is competitive. In this scenario, McCain wins the Electoral College
291-246, a larger margin than Bush four years ago.
If Obama managed only to
win Iowa from Republicans and McCain managed only to win Pennsylvania, McCain
would still win by a much greater margin than Bush - 300-237.

Sphere: Related Content

Florida Speaker of the House expresses why Obama is wrong on Cuban Policy

Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-America ever elected to the post, released a statement showing why Obama is wrong on siting down with Castro.
"I support the current U.S. policy against Cuba, including the travel ban for most Americans. I also recognize that some people may respectfully disagree with my support of these limitations on Americans visiting Cuba.
In my view, however, there should be no disagreement with the fact that under no circumstances should the U.S. negotiate the future of Cuba with Raul and Fidel Castro. The Castros do not govern officially over a foreign state; such a view would be naïve and, to many, even offensive. They do not govern, they dictate, and the result is tyranny because they have never had the consent of, nor have they been elected by, the people they control.

Negotiation with the Castros would violate that most precious of all American beliefs that the only power government can possess is the power that the people consent to bestow.
The United States is the great single beacon of hope for Cuba.
We must ask: 'What type of message do we send if an American President sits across a table from a tyrant like Raul Castro?'"

Sphere: Related Content

The Barack Obama Lobbyist Show!

Barack Obama, his supporters, moveon.org, and other liberal messengers all love to attack McCain for lobbyists working on his campaign staff. The fact is their side is far from pure and the whole thing is kind of crazy anyway. Lobbyists are people too, and they need work in non-election years. This issue just shows that the Obama campaign is so busy trying to act pure that they have not come to term with what they are preaching.

National Review online had this to say,

"But if our friends on the left want to have this fight, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So can we expect a front page story on:

Daniel Shapiro, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the Middle East, registered to lobby for several corporate clients in the last year, since leaving the office of Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Shapiro, who worked during the 1990s for President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, counts some of America's biggest corporate names among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.
Obama considers the point that he doesn't take money from oil companies (no one does; he just takes money from their employees) worth mentioning in an ad. So if their money is tainted, why is it okay to take advice from their lobbyists? How can Obama say he'll get tough on automakers to make sure they make fuel-efficient vehicles, if a Daimler Chrysler lobbyist has his ear?
Stupid argument? No more so than the idea that Charlie Black will be setting McCain's Africa policy. More:
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
The BP connection is through Teal Baker, who worked for the Podesta Group.
Or how about lobbyists for those dreaded insurance companies?
Brandon Hurlbut, Obama's liaison to veterans, union members and senior citizens in New Hampshire, represented clients such as the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Allegheny County Housing Authority from January to June, according to public records. Six clients paid B&D Consulting $380,000 for Hurlbut to lobby their causes.Or how about pharmaceutical companies? They're popular in Democratic circles.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, which accepts lobbyists' donations and is now trailing in the polls, has sought to question Obama's commitment to his lobbying ban. In a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire, she noted that Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state-based lobbyist whose clients include pharmaceutical companies. He is not registered at the federal level.
Wait, there's more. How about AT&T, opponent of "net neutrality" and a company that cooperates with the NSA on wiretaps?
The Washington Post previously reported that Moses Mercado, a veteran political adviser to the likes of Dick Gephardt's former presidential bids, was negotiating last fall to become an adviser to Obama. Mercado was registered in Washington to lobby on behalf of several several corporate clients, including AT&T.
Mercado said today he ultimately decided to skip becoming a paid adviser and instead is volunteering his advice and time in hopes of sidestepping the questions about being a lobbyist on the Obama payroll. Mercado was departing today to Nevada to help Obama with that state's caucuses.
How about a lobbyist as chief of staff in an Obama administration?
One of Obama's chief surrogates, former Senator Tom Daschle, is being talked up as possible chief of staff in an Obama administration. He's currently a "Special Public Policy Advisor" at Alston & Bird, where his duties are described, "as a non-attorney, Senator Daschle focuses his services on advising the firm's clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy with a particular emphasis on issues related to financial services, health care, energy, telecommunications and taxes. In addition, he advises on trade and international matters." His title may not be "lobbyist ," but when he joined the firm in 2005, NPR described their interview with him this way: "Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, discusses politics, the party and his new job as a lobbyist."
Now, all of these folks may be fine folks - I think rather highly of Daschle for the way he handled the anthrax attack in his office - and if Obama wants them on his team, that's his decision. But I don't see why McCain should be raked over the coals for Black while Obama gets a pass for his lobbyist staffers, advisers, surrogates and helpers."

Sphere: Related Content

Combating the Bush Haters

The Bush haters have been around for a number of years bashing The President and blaming every car accident and wildfire on him. They attack John McCain as a third bush term and refer to him by the loving term McSame. The fact is the reality of the Bush Presidency is much different than they discribe. Investors Buisness Daily had a great editorial describing that the Bush Presidency is much better than Barack Obama and the Demcorats want you to believe

"How about a dose of reality?"

• The editorial points out the real deal of what happened.
• We have had great economic times and we seem to be pulling out of the current downturn without even a recession, thanks in part to tax cuts
• We have had no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
• We are safer than we thought we would be after 9/11 thanks to taking the war to the terrorist and tougher anti-terrorist efforts.

Lets Hope the American people see the real deal not the distortion that the Bush haters, Democratic Hitmen, and Barack Obama want you to see.

Sphere: Related Content

The divisive Obama Cantidacy

Barack Obama's canidacy is becoming apparently more and more divisive. With terms like Racism and Sexism floating in the air it looks now like he cannot count on long time democratic support. Geraldine Ferraro the one time Democratic Nominee for Vice President of the United States has said in a New York Times that, “I think Obama was terribly sexist.” Compare that with the fact that NBC reported on the air tonight that 41% of the Clinton voters in the democratic primary in Kentucky would vote for McCain over Obama. It is hard to trace why such a division has taken place. The division seems to be happening on just gender lines but also the fact that moderate democrats find Obama to be too far left for their taste. The question now as Obama emerges as the presumtive nominee is can he moderate his message to pick up the rest of these votes and in doing so can he prevent from alienating his current supporters?

Sphere: Related Content

Who is to blame for Gas Prices?

There has been a lot of talk from Democrats about Gas Prices and Oil Prices. They want to tax the oil companies and force them to produce more oil. That leaves a problem we still would not have enough gas as there are not enough refinearies. Democrats have fought them as well as other good alternatives, President Bush said this yesterday, "Those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity,"
We also have added ethenol to our gas which makes it tougher to refine and cost more because we subsidize the corn production. We should also limit speculation in these markets as they are vital to our national economy. But, we will not get any of these solutions as long as the Democrats that are in charge want to appease too many groups and increase taxes while refusing to fix any of the problems facing the country.

Sphere: Related Content

I thought that Democrats were for a total and complete seperation of Church and State

I have heard over and over again Democrats attack republicans and President Bush over having personal feelings about Religion. They have said they should keep religious feelings to themselves and there should be a total and complete seperation of State. If thats true why is Barack Obama sending this ad out in Kentucky? But, wait didnt Michelle Obama and Barack Obama not like those who clung to their religion and guns? I guess double talk never gets old.

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats want to Tax Again!!

Look out, The Democrats are out to raise taxes again. But you do not have to worry they just want to add a 1% tax on those making over 500,000 and couples making over 1,000,000. Forget the fact that these people already pay a majority of taxes lets just add a new surcharge. Democrats have proved again and again they are incapable of making the tough decisions of choosing between programs that work and dont. Instead they just want new taxes to fund new programs while not having to cut anything. The lack of Respect that the Democrats show these taxpayers is out of hand. They pay a majority of the taxes and the democrats take pot shots at them while they are doing it. This is just the latest effort of the Democrats to strip away the American Dream and replace it with a handout state.

Sphere: Related Content

Who is Really Running the Show?

Robert Novack is quoting sources inside the Obama campaign as saying that he will not be able to pick Hillary Clinton as a Vice Presidential Cantidate because Michelle Obama has vetoed it.

That leads us to a bigger question about the Obama campaign, Who is really in charge? It seems like every Democratic Nominee is beholden to his spouse (Clinton, Kerry, and now Obama). So if that is the case why has been Obama been attacking the two for aspect of the Clinton Campaign when his house is no different.

For a Cantidate we already do not know enough about and has big questions in regards of Leadership, can he really afford this perception. We need a strong leader as President of the United States not First Lady.

Sphere: Related Content