Obama's busted bubble....very well written article

• Obama's busted bubble....very well written article - sam
  • Great article. nm - shelly
  • It is a right-wing blog, sam. - Running on MT
  • warped sources = warped ideas - Warp Speed
    • The source does not matter if the facts are true... - sam
      • Googled Americanthinker.com - VERY Biased Reporting
        • So is Factcheck.org. What is your point??? - MT and worn out
          • What's your point? - harry
            • Artlcles and "facts" have been posted here........ sm - m
  • Very good article........ sm - m
    • Agreed! - Thanks Sam.. nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

As I've suspected for a long time now, he's deaf and *dumb*!!

Thanks for posting this. 

he is the money guy on CNBC. We listen to him sometimes, have read a couple of his books, and because of watching his show in Sept or Oct of last year, we pulled our money out of the stock market, which was the BEST idea. It is an interesting artcile to some, maybe not to others.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house

by a first-generation African-American woman (hard to get by with calling her a racist) in The National Thinker: 

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa

Well worth reading the entire thing:  http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2278969/posts?page=1

 knew there were pro-life liberals; just had to look for some.  She does not understand the stand some of you are taking, any more than I do. 

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Consistency demands concern for the unborn

Mary Meehan, The Progressive,

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.

Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.

Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

It is not my purpose to explain why courts and parliaments in many nations rejected this tradition over the past few decades, though I suspect their action was largely a surrender to technical achievement -- if such inventions as suction aspirators can be called technical achievements. But it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion.

One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born. When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."

Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.
 
 

Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.

But pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women. Thus; 1972, when a Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalized abortion, partly to remove discrimination against poor women, several commission members dissented.

One was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana was active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. Olivarez, who later was named to head the Federal Government's Community Services Administration, had known poverty in her youth in the Southwest. With a touch of bitterness, she said in her dissent, "The poor cry out for justice and equality and we respond with legalized abortion." Olivarez noted that blacks and Chicanos had often been unwanted by white society. She added, "I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ?wanted' or not, all citizens stand in danger." Later she told the press, "We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."

Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us." It is true that opposition to abortion is a religious position for many people. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and many of the fundamentalist Protestant groups also oppose abortion. (So did the mainstream Protestant churches until recent years.) But many people are against abortion for reasons that are independent of religious authority or belief. Many would still be against abortion if they lost their faith; others are opposed to it after they have lost faith, or if they never had any faith. Only if their non-religious grounds for opposition can be proven baseless should legal prohibition of abortion fairly be called an establishment of religion. The pro-abortion forces concentrate heavily on religious arguments against abortion and generally ignore the secular arguments -- possibly because they cannot answer them.

Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement.

If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as D*ck Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion. We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.

Although many liberals and radicals accepted legalized abortion, there are signs of uneasiness about it. Tell someone who supports it that you have many problems with the issue, and she is likely to say, quickly, "Oh, I don't think I could ever have one myself, but . . . ." or "I'm really not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice" or "I'm personally opposed to it, but . . . ."

Why are they personally opposed to it if there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on, the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:

First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.

Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.

Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. D*ck Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idi*t on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "

Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.

Juli Loesch, a feminist/pacifist writer, notes that feminists want to have men participate more in the care of children, but abortion allows a man to shift total responsibility to the woman: "He can buy his way out of accountability by making `The Offer' for `The Procedure.' " She adds that the man's sexual role "then implies-exactly nothing: no relationship. How quickly a `woman's right to choose' comes to serve a `man's right to use.?" And Daphne DE Jong, a New Zealand feminist, says, "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience." She adds, "Of all the things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape . . . ."

Loesch, de Jong, Olivarez, and other pro-life feminists believe men should bear a much greater share of the burdens of child-rearing than they do at present. And de Jong makes a radical point when she says, "Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." Olivarez and others have also called for the development of safer and more effective contraceptives for both men and women. In her 1972 dissent, Olivarez noted with irony that "medical science has developed four differ ways for killing a fetus, but has not "developed a safe-for-all-to-use contraceptive."
 
 

Fifth, abortion is an escape from an obligation that is owed to another. Doris Gordon, Coordinator of Libertarians for Life, puts it this way: "Unborn children don't cause women to become pregnant but parents cause their children to be in the womb, and as a result, they need parental care. As a general principle, if we are the cause of another's need for care, as when we cause an accident, we acquire an obligation to that person a result .... We have no right to kill order to terminate any obligation."

Sixth, abortion brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen. Too many of us look the other way because we do not want to think about abortion. A part of reality is blocked out because one does not want to see broken bodies coming home, or going to an incinerator, in those awful plastic bags. People deny their own humanity when they refuse to identify with, or even knowledge, the pain of others.

With some it is worse: They are making money from the misery others, from exploited women and dead children. Doctors, business and clinic directors are making a great deal of money from abortion. Jobs and high incomes depend on abortion; it?s part of the gross national product. The parallels of this with the military industrial complex should be obvious to anyone who was involved in the war movement.

And the "slippery slope" argument is right: People really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia and accepting "triage" for the hunger problem and accepting "lifeboat ethics" as a general guide to human behavior. We slip down the slope back to the jungle.

To save the smallest children, save its own conscience, the Left should speak out against abortion.

Mary Meehan has written for Inquiry, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and other publications.

The Bubble of Obama Supremacy

‘Well done, my good and faithful servant.  Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities.'
 --The Gospel of Matthew 25:23 (New American Bible) Parable of the Talents

• Never in American history has a man with so pitifully little on his resume received such adoration. 

• Never in American history has a candidate had the temerity to mimic our Presidential seal the place it upon his podium. 

• Never in American history has a mere interviewee deigned to write the rules for our interview. 

• Never in American history has a mere candidate had the gall to travel abroad with a press corps and secret service in tow to give "fake press interviews"  for manipulated "news" coverage.

• Never in American history has so little respect been given to our electoral process. 

A leader is a dealer in hope.
 -- Napoleon Bonaparte

"They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life.  They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them -- that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness."

Peace and equal rights.

All must be different.

Change you can believe in

"I think if Kerry were to win this in a tight race, I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly." 

"I mean that the right wing is not going to accept it." 

I'm not sure what irks me more:  The fact that she is a compulsive, pathological liar or the fact that she's a LAZY one or the fact that she thinks we're all stupid here and can't see what she throws in front of our faces.

My granddaddy used to say, If someone's going to be a good liar, they'd better have a good memory.  Maybe she's just got too many different identities living in that lil brain of hers that it's impeding her ability to remember things that she's already written on this board that are visible to everyone, including her.

Every time I see the initials MT I see Mutilated Truth and know, from all the other times she's been caught in lies, that whatever she writes has no authenticity.  I have to admit, sometimes seeing her posts is like watching a car wreck, and against my better judgment, I sometimes peek.  Lately, though, she/they is/are so WOD (way out dere) that she's/they're becoming more scary than anything, and the sympathetic humanity in me sincerely hopes that she gets the help she so desperately needs soon, before she goes postal and hurts someone in real life, as her rage seems to be increasing and getting out of control. 

by the courts for criminally violating the US Constitution.  When are they going to impeach him?  We get 24/7 front page JonBenet coverage (very sad story), but nothing on the crooks in the White House.  All the drama with Watergate and Clinton IMO pales in comparison to what is on this President's mantle.  What a mess.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/082105LINDORFF.shtml

The KKK is still out there and the more white bigots feel threatened, the more will join up.   

My biggest fear right now is something happening to President Obama.  Not only would that be very sad for our country and his wife and daughters but I can't even begin to describe the riots that will follow.  We could very well be seeing the beginning of another civil war with racism, once again, at the heart of it.  Truly scary when you think about it.

The BBC is very liberal, so this is quite shocking!

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
 

Viewpoint: The case against Obama
Peter Wehner
Former deputy assistant to President Bush

If the polls hold, the American people will elect Barack Obama as their 44th president.
He is a man of prodigious political talents who exudes grace, equanimity and self-possession. He is unflappable, possesses a first-rate mind, and is capable of inspiring rhetoric.
And he would be a very bad choice for president.
On the most important issue he has confronted as a legislator, the surge of forces in Iraq, Senator Obama was a harsh critic.
His opposition to President Bush's new strategy was wrong.
Much worse is the fact that Obama continued to oppose the surge at every stage, even after it was obviously succeeding.
To this day, even as he finally concedes the surge has "succeeded beyond our wildest imagination," Obama insists his opposition to the surge was correct.
Senator Obama's view is that a defeat in Iraq would somehow help our efforts in Afghanistan.
Indeed, if Obama had had his way, all American combat troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008, which would have led to civil war and genocide; an unprecedented victory for al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists; and a boon to Iran.
This fact is, by itself, a shattering indictment to Obama's judgement, and in the area that is the most important responsibility of a president: his duties as commander-in-chief.
Extreme liberalism
I suspect, too, that Obama will, as his running mate has said, invite an international challenge early on.
Obama appears to be a man who dodges conflict and hard decisions; the result may be dangerous displays of indecision and weakness.
Beyond that is the fact that Senator Obama, while exuding a centrist style and employing soothing rhetoric, has amassed a record that places him on the extreme left end of our political spectrum, whether the subject is taxes, trade, healthcare, the size and role of the federal government, the federal courts, missile defence, or virtually any other policy area.
In fact, Senator Obama has been judged by the non-partisan National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate.
His record as an Illinois state senator is, if anything, more troubling. He opposed legislation that would have prevented infanticide against children who had survived abortion attempts.
Senator Obama has presented himself as a post-partisan figure. Once again, however, his record belies his claim.
He is among the most reliably partisan voters the Democrats have.
He has not opposed the special interest groups of his party on a single important issue. And he has no impressive bipartisan achievements to his credit.
Senator Obama is, in short, an orthodox partisan, a man of left-leaning instinct who has - through the power of his rhetoric, head-snapping shifts in his position, and the attractiveness of his personality - won people over.
Race card
Even Senator Obama's claim of being a practitioner of a "new politics" is fraudulent.

Much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless

He has run ads about Senator McCain's position on healthcare, social security, immigration, and the Iraq war that are demonstrably false.
After saying he would never do such a thing, Obama and his supporters have employed the "race card" in a disturbing fashion - with Obama warning that key Republicans would use the fact that he's black against him, and later saying that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten voters by saying Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills" (both claims are untrue).
And Senator Obama's intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright - an anti-American extremist - is troubling.
It reinforces the sense that much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless.
And even if you were inclined to believe that Senator Obama will govern as a centrist - a questionable claim, given his record - the Democratic Party will hold a commanding position in the House and Senate.
Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid and their committee chairmen - many of them partisan, ideological, and ruthless - will exert enormous pressure on Obama to move left.
From all we know about him, Senator Obama will not resist it or defy them. And that, in turn, will lead to overreach.
Which is why even though next Tuesday will be a difficult day for Republicans and conservatives, the wise ones will understand that our moment will come again, and perhaps sooner than we think.
Our task is to be ready.
VIEWPOINTS
Peter Wehner is a former deputy assistant to President George W Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. This is one of a series of comment and opinion pieces published on the BBC News website in the run-up to the US election.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm

piglet.  What would you like to discuss?

commandment -  Two wrongs DO make a right. 

 I believe I said in order to be forgiven, one has to 'fess up, own up, repent and go and sin no more.  This is a 1 on 1 deal with God. I have repeatedly said, in response to many issues, that God judges, not us but what I get is God will judge W and anyone else with whom we agree and who are we to say anything different but the liberals, the people of other faiths,  poor people, the spiritually bankrupt people, the **undeserving poor** as opposed to the ***deserving poor***, now that is a different story. We can and ought to judge them as harshly as possible; speaking out of both sides of one's mouth it would seem to me. In response to my unChristianness I have enclosed the definition of repentence with Bible ***links***. 

What is Repentance?

Repentance comes from a Greek word meaning to change one's mind. It is much more than feeling sorry about what has happened or regretful about circumstances and their outcome. The key element is the concept of change, of turning completely around. It involves both a turning from and a turning to. In the Bible it means to be converted; to undergo a radical change of heart and life, a complete turnabout of life.

The Shorter Catechism says Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

The change of mind and heart comes as we move from a state of rebellion against God and the idolization of our selves (Rom 1:21ff; 3:10-19, 23). We agree with God in His assessment of us - we are sinners in thought, word and deed - under His wrath and curse. No longer do we seek to justify ourselves, excuse our sins, or try to merit salvation. Rather we comprehend the awful truth about ourselves - that we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sin - and the wages of sin is death, and after that will come judgment. (Eph 2:1-3; James 1:15; Rom 6:23; Hebr 9:27).

True repentance is not putting on sackcloth and ashes, a negative preoccupation with ourselves. However to turn from sin and live for Christ, we must see our sin for what it is and how it affects our thinking and actions and this can be done most clearly as Christ bears it to the cross - God's response to our sin is such that he couldn't spare his own Son. (Rom 8:32)

Repentance includes Confession - the acknowledging of our sinfulness to God and our admission to Him that apart from Christ we are unable to please God. It includes knowing God's forgiveness, we can turn away from sin when we know our sinfulness no longer keeps us from God. And true repentance leads to new obedience. We are turning to newness of life, living now as God would have us to live.

True repentance can only come at the foot of the cross. It is inseparable from faith for this reason. Repentance is admitting that we are as God sees us, and He knows every secret within our hearts (Psa 139, Matt 6:4, 6). Faith embraces the Savior he offers for our salvation.

Only as we realize what our sin is before God, will we experience true godly sorrow for our sins (Cf 2 Cor 7:8-11) Worldly sorrow regrets the consequences, feels remorse that I'm guilty - it leads to death. If we dwell on our sins rather than viewing them in the shade of the cross - we would be driven to despair and hopelessness. But godly sorrow leads to repentance and salvation - we see ourselves as we are and hate our sin, humbling ourselves before God. True repentance is being honest with ourselves and with God without fear - because we trust God has dealt with that sin on the cross. (Rom 8:1ff)

P.S. All humans make mistakes. All presidents are human, ergo, all presidents make mistakes.

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you.  If you don't like the policy, don't work there.  Your office is not your personal gallery.

If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.

However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree.  What's next?  An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?)  Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it.  If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it. 

If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this.  In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.

Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations.  What is it they don't understand about "liberty"?  If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay!  Disciplinary action against the complainer.  Law suits!  ACLU involvement!   Paid leave  and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!

I don't think some people realize the seriousness of the illegally invading a sovereign nation for what is truthfully nothing more than regime change, after being dishonest to the entire world about the true reasons for invading this country.

If/when it happens, they still won't get it.  And if/when more Americans are killed by terrorists because this president was too stubborn to care about America first and refused to implement most suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, the ones who survive the next terror attack will still be kneeling down and kissing his boots because they are preprogrammed to believe this man can do nothing wrong.