When a prominent social or political figure offers his or her endorsement to a candidate what they are saying is that they agree with the candidate's views and wish to promote those views.

For example, early in 2008 Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election." Hamas has publically announced its agreement with Obama's views and wishes to promote those ideologies.

So, what's the problem? HAMAS (the Islamic Resistance Movement) is a word meaning zeal. They are a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization formed in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both political and violent means, including terrorism, to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel. HAMAS activists have conducted attacks—including large-scale suicide bombings—against Israeli civilian and military targets.

And they agree with Barack Obama's world view.

Another example: The Reverend Jeremiah Wright was video-taped making the following remarks:

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

These statements are at the heart of the Reverend's endorsement for Barack Obama. In effect, he endorses Barack Obama based solely on the candidate's ability to see country and culture from the same viewpoint the Reverend sees them from, as a society of rich white people lording over poor African Americans. (The Reverend conveniently ignores the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus has substantial power in Congress which makes the laws impacting our daily lives, and that many of these democrats were chiefly responsible for enabling the programs at the heart of the current economic meltdown, namely Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor are we yet aware of which group of villains the Reverend charges with the demise of the millions of poor caucasians currently residing in the U.S.)

This same Reverend also made the notorious remarks, "God Bless America? No, no, no, God Damn America!"

This man supports Barack Obama's social and cultural views, many of which were formed during the twenty years Obama spent sitting in the pews of Trinity United Church under the leadership and guidance of the Reverend Wright, who strictly conformed to James H. Cones' Black Liberation Theology. Cone writes: "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil." These teachings so inspired Obama that he borrowed the title of one of his books from Reverend Wright, "The Audacity of Hope."

During a speech given on "Saviours Day 2008," in front of an audience of hundreds of devout muslims the Reverend Louis Farrakhan, minister of the Nation of Islam, exclaims,
"I love that Brother (Obama), and I want to see that Brother successful."

"We are witnessing the phenomenal rise of a man of color in a country that has prosecuted us because of our color."

"This young man is the hope of the entire world."

These statements comprise a resounding endorsement for the candidacy of Barack Obama. Is it any wonder Senator Obama resisted so stubbornly when asked to denounce and reject Louis Farrakhan during a debate with Senator Hillary Clinton earlier this year?

But you see, Louis Farrakhan also happens to be one of the most vile, anti-semitic, anti-American, reverse discrimination figures in current history. Consider what Minister Farrakhan had to say about reparations:

"The present generation of whites, (say) they didn't do this to us. The present generation of whites are innocent of what their great grandfathers did, BUT, you are in a priviledged position because of what your fathers did and we are in a hell of a position because of what your fathers did. So, if you, the present generation of whites, want to escape what is justly due then you've got to do the right thing. You've got to do justice by the black man. What is the right thing? You got to apologize for what you did. You got to repent for what you did. You've got to say, we've been wrong. Now we know we don't want you, we don't like you, but we'll give you justice. Well, what does justice look like? If you add it up...if you add it up, white folks, you're going to have to give us the whole damn country."

This man, who has no qualms against declaring war with white America, agrees with Barack Obama's social and cultural views.

Regardless of how Senator Obama deals with media pundits concerning these questionable endorsements, it is strikingly disturbing when men who openly display loathsome contempt for the United States of America, Israel, and "whitey," in general, stand up to publically announce that they are in alliance with the ideologies of a candidate running for the highest office in the land.

For this reason, we not only have the right to question Senator Obama's judgement concerning his relationships to unrepentant terrorists such as William Ayers and shady outfits like ACORN, it is our duty as true patriots to continue to do so.

If men like Wright, Farrakhan, and Ahmed Yousef see some binding commonality between themselves and Barack Obama, there is more at stake in the upcoming election than most voters realize.

Not happy with the DNC and the way they have crowned their messiah before the convention roll call? The DNC has a message for you: Too bad, and shut the hell up.

If you believe you still live in a country with the right to voice your opinion and hold peaceful demonstrations, think again.

The following is a letter received from a woman with a view:

Let me introduce myself. I am 29 year old female serving in the United States Army. I am black. I am proud. And I am a supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We have seen daily how Senator Clinton moves forward to speak for our loved ones, our families and our friends, despite the constant call for her to step down. She has gone forward despite the obstacles in her path and she has continued to fight. To attempt to destroy the reputation, the name of the former First Lady and Senator by falsely portraying her supporters as racist is one of the worst mistakes of the 2008 election process. To use the the history and the struggles in the black community to destroy another person's political career is the worst form of politics imaginable.

The media is slowly destroying the black community with their words. MSNBC should fire Keith Olbermann and let him return to being a radio sportscaster. They are ripping the Democratic Party apart and they are dividing this nation. Any sane, reasonable and coherent person can see that the cries of "racism" are their attempts to get Senator Clinton to leave this race. By any means necessary. Therefore any sane, reasonable and coherent person watching this debacle is going to resent what is happening, because anyone can see that Senator Clinton is being railroaded.

African Americans are not in any way stupid. If we believed that there was this level of racial discourse as these pundits make it out to be we would be marching on Washington D.C. But now we can only watch in horror as the media destroys our history. The only ones who are "outraged" are those who have no idea of true racial hatred.

How many black civil rights leaders have you seen in the media, on NBC, MSNBC, and CNN, that have stated that the former President and First Lady are racists? None. But we should believe analysts such as David Gergen, commentators such as Keith Olbermann and reporter Andrea Mitchell who get on television and tell you so? On 27 April, "Meet the Press" NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell boldly stated that racism was a "real factor" in the Obama vote on the ground in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Apparently because many voters are racist they have a "willingness to believe totally erroneous things about Senator Obama," like he didn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. So my next question is, where is the evidence for the "I vote for Senator Clinton and I am racist who clings to my gun and bible" scientific poll to determine who is racist or who is not? So the next time the Obama campaign gives you talking points make sure you understand what you're reading and saying before you open your mouth and say it.

For those of you who don't know, there is a movement happening behind the scenes and it's one that is moving fast and one that is strong. It was born from watching this historic election with our nation having its first viable female contender for the position of Commander in Chief take hit after hit, day after day, while she attempts to fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, when the party in question will not stand up and fight for her.

It was born from watching the little girls with big dreams, and those that are already living the American dream. It came from the mothers who can barely make ends meet and do without just so their families can barely get by. It's from the blue collar workers who just lost their jobs. It was born from the heroes and sheroes deploying to the same place year after year with no end in sight. It came from the ones who want to give up, but find a way to keep on going. It started from the ones who have been constantly knocked down, but keep getting back on their feet. It came from those moving forward that never look back.

We all have a dream of change. A change that will put our nation back on the right path. Where putting the safety of our country is the first and foremost priority. Where people would stand up and fight for what they believe in. Where cries of racism is not the way nor the means to achieve a goal. Where the media reports news instead of their biased opinion. Where it's OK to vote on who is best to lead our country based on a candidate's experience.

The 2008 primary and general election is historic for many reasons. It's the chance of having either the first female or black president. But the most important aspect and notable accomplishment for me will be the official date, the official time, the exact moment the Democratic Party died for me.

The party I thought I knew ceased to exist the moment, the minute and the second they allowed the first most qualified female presidential candidate in our nation's history to be attacked, destroyed, and ripped apart, which reached a tipping point this weekend. As of 24 May 2008 0930hrs, I no longer belong to the Democratic Party. I will no longer be affiliated with any group or group(s), person or person(s), that would allow a party member to be falsely accused of allegations that bears no relevance or has no relationship to the situation at hand. I will not be part of a party that utilizes character assassination to achieve a goal. I will not quietly sit by and watch the destruction of my chosen candidate. I will not support, vote, or show any loyalty to those who sit quietly aside and allow this to be played out in the court of public opinion. The Party I once knew I know no longer. Today I turn my back on the Democratic Party, because by allowing the falsehoods against Hillary Clinton to be embellished as they have the Democratic Party has turned its back on me.

"As a black man, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

Is Michelle trying to put ideas in people's heads so that she can cash in that insurance policy, or what?

How dare Barack Obama attempt to make this anti-American spew about race? The people who perished at the World Trade Centers were people of every race and nationality. Those who perished on the successive flights were of every race and nationality. The victims at the pentagon were of every race and nationality. The brave men and women clambering through the rubble in search of survivors were of every race and nationality. The firemen, police, rescue workers, and support aides were of every race and nationality. Oh God, oh God, oh God, let us never forget that those who jettisoned themselves out of the top stories of the World Trade Center and fell to their deaths were of every race and nationality.

Barack Obama, your attempt to turn this national scarring and pain to your political advantage is an inexcusable abomination.

Imagine if it were Hillary who had pushed the wrong button several times over a course of years.



Los Angeles Times 1/24/08

CAMPAIGN ‘08
Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes

Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago’s West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.

“I was not aware that I had voted no,” he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he “intended to vote yes.”

On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote, “I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no,” he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting “present” on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. “I pressed the wrong button on that,” he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. “I pressed the wrong button by accident,” he said.

On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two “yeas” to spare — including Obama’s. Afterwards, he rose to say, “I’d like to be recorded as a no vote,” explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it. Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry

On June 11, 2002, Obama’s vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.

Afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their “sanctimony” in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices. A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. “You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. “I understand Sen. Hendon’s anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last — last piece of legislation,” he said.

Obama and His Advisors Not Ready for Prime Time
Expert post by Larry C. Johnson of No Quarter


Thanks to this insightful video clip that summarizes succinctly the inept incompetence of the Obama foreign policy team.Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, who served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under Bill Clinton. We don’t know for sure what Barack or Hillary would do with a “3 a.m.” phone call, but we don’t have to wonder about Susan Rice. She sits on her hands doing nothing.

During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives. And she is one of Barack’s key advisors.

But Rice is wrong about Hillary. Hillary is quite ready to answer the 3am phone call. As someone who has been directly involved with such calls during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, I do know what I am talking about.

As I have said before, I have had the opportunity to brief Senator Clinton twice on terrorism and Iraq during the last three years. During the course of my career at the CIA, State Department, and as a consultant, I have briefed in one form or fashion more than 60 members of Congress, a Vice President, and a President. I have participated in briefings for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders. I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media). I walked out of that meeting very impressed. Hands down, I found her to be the most impressive person I had had the privilege to brief.

Why was I impressed? First and foremost, she listened. I have briefed folks who get the 1000-yard stare–they drift off and start thinking about something else. I also have briefed folks who get the panicked look from not understanding what I am talking about. Hillary was different. She listened intently, but she also grasped the substance and nuance of the issues we were discussing. Second, she asked tough questions that showed me she was genuinely searching for viable policy options. I had a similar experience with Senator Joe Biden, only that was during a hearing.

But unlike many members of Congress who rely on some aide sitting at their side to pump them with questions and information, Hillary could think on her own. She did not need “Foreign Policy for Dummies.”

Hillary also is one of the few members of Congress who understood the difference between Special Forces and and Special Operations Forces. You would be shocked at the number of Senators and Representatives who are supposed to exercise oversight of the military and do not understand this basic point.

When we talk about the “3 a.m.” call we are talking about crisis response operations. Back in July of 1990, the United States was involved in a covert effort to resolve peacefully a coup that involved Libyan-backed terrorists. We had quietly inserted U.S. personnel into the country, the situation was settled without further loss of life, and we were trying to figure out how to withdraw our personnel without exposing them publicly. Our concern about how to cover their withdrawal was made moot when word came that Saddam had just invaded Kuwait. We were taking down one crisis communications task force in the State Department Ops Center as a new one, dedicated to Iraq/Kuwait, was being formed.

What is not well known is that President Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and James Baker had been briefed two days earlier in the White House situation room on the impending invasion of Iraq. They were warned that Saddam would likely invade unless the United States made a public declaration to warn him away. The President and his advisors declined at the time to issue such a warning because they believed that if they did so and Saddam invaded, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond militarily. With hindsight we now know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Baker screwed up that phone call.

When the phone rings and the President is alerted to the problem, you will want a President whose first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests. I know that Hillary understands that point. Barack, by contrast, did not even understand the importance of holding a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan even though he had the full authority to do so.

Once you hang up the phone you need a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem. On this point in particular Hillary is light years ahead of Barack. Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA. Hillary knows that Washington machinery intimately.

And finally there is the issue of advisors. Let me state again for the record: I am not trying out for a spot on Hillary’s foreign policy team. I am not seeking a job in her administration. I do not want to make the personal sacrifice required to go back into government service–I would have to take a pay cut and work too many long hours. But Hillary is surrounded with a better group of foreign policy advisors. Barack has the likes of Susan Rice and Tony Lake–two of the key folks who failed to respond in a timely matter to the disaster in Rwanda. Hillary, by contrast, has Dick Holbrooke, who helped bring an end to the killing in the Balkans.


About The Author:

Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management.
______________

General Wesley Clark: “She has done her homework on national security and I know from my personal discussions with her and with many other friends that go in and brief her in her role in the Senate Armed Services Committee. She knows the facts, she knows the details, plus she has the big picture. She is a strategic thinker but she has the building blocks of the strategy in her personal knowledge. This is someone that when she is president our military is going to respect very highly, and when our Senior Officers brief her and meet with her they are going be very, very impressed by what she knows and the intelligence that she brings to these problems.”

Brigadier General John Watkins, Jr.: “As I think about the challenges facing the nation and having been in uniform for almost thirty years, worked with a number of presidents to include the last four, I can’t think of a single person – those generals included – who is better qualified to walk into the Oval Office than Hillary Clinton. I don’t make that statement very lightly. She is more qualified, in my view, than her husband Bill was when he entered the office. It is no surprise to me that you would have as many flag officers who serve this country and Secretaries of the Army and Navy who have served this country who would come out and support Hillary.”

Major General Paul Eaton: “On a personal note, I have a Special Forces Captain son and a Sergeant Paratrooper both in Afghanistan and I find Senator Clinton the perfect choice to be their Commander-in-Chief and to display the loyalty to command our armed forces and to rebuild them after the conflicts in which we are engaged right now.”

Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy: “I support her because I trust her. I trust Hillary Clinton because of her judgment and her leadership. I have confidence that she is responsive to the needs of people. I believe that she understands leadership the way we do in the Army and that is that it’s about building connections and relationships and establishing guidance and leadership for others. I think she’ll rebuild relationships with other countries that have been suffering for the last seven or eight years; those relationships have really been strained beyond anything I would have anticipated. Another part of Hillary Clinton that I think is just tremendous is that she knows our reality. She is in touch with people, she listens to people. She decides what she believes about policy based on what’s right, she has integrity, and on what works, so she’s practical.”

Lieutenant General Frederick Vollrath: “I support Senator Clinton because I believe it’s time for change in our country, a new direction. And I know change carries with it risks. Senator Clinton is the candidate, in my opinion, with the proven experience that truly understands the risks and how to possibly cope with those risks to get the job done. We shouldn’t shirk from change because of the risks, but we absolutely have to have a leader with the proven experience. America, in the area of national defense, must be successful and Senator Clinton has that experience to create change, to understand the risk, and to get the job done.”

Admiral William Owens: “In this world that we face today, very complex as all of us know, I think experience will be really at a premium, especially at the level of the Commander-in-Chief. There’s not time to learn. The phone rings and you have to be ready. You have to ready with intuition, with experience and with skills. And this world will have the complexities that perhaps we’ve never before seen. I’ve been impressed with and admire Hillary Clinton for her work in the Senate. And we need people with great judgment. I think she brings the best of talent, intuition and experience to handle these unknown threats in the future.”

King’s Dream, Obama’s Nightmare
Written by Jamal McCoy

Obama’s mediocrity, lackluster legislative past, and abuse of perceived minority status to impart meaning to platitudes, were briefly sketched through the imaginary character of Barry. In speaking of Obama as Barry, we are not exaggerating. Nor are we exaggerating, when we suggest that Obama is a mediocre charlatan, who is about to seize the party of Roosevelt, so he can run the country of Lincoln and Washington to satisfy his personal vanity and ambition. Just imagine the consequences.

Imagine that following some nasty exchanges between Obama and McCain, the racially mixed, lanky, preachy-charismatic, but politically uninspiring and devoid of content Obama, becomes the 44th president of the USA. His earthy brown skin had filled words long moribund, with meaning, and his victory offers a deceptive remission of white America’s, and hence still America’s, sins.

What of the 6000 ICBMs, the 160,000 US troops in Iraq, the hundreds of Military bases abroad, the 13$ trillion economy, trillion dollar deficits, unruly Republican party, 250 million occasionally boisterous American citizens, and billions of unsatisfied and often angry non-American citizens of countries where America’s policies can mean life or death, freedom or totalitarianism ? Will these just be an afterthought for those who entrusted Obama with brining King’s dream to fruition?

Is America’s problem with Race, or America’s Race problem really worth the risk involved in anointing a President whose electoral victory will rest on superficial, bombastic, lowest-common-denominator rhetoric, tacky corporate branding, and grainy YouTube Videos?

This is our liberal dilemma. A liberal dilemma with a liberal solution.

We all share the dream of a society whose highest station always remains open to the talented and gifted, of all peoples, of all races. To keep this dream a reality we must relinquish the fancy that we can take the short-cut of reverse discrimination, relinquish it as weakness and a fancy with innumerable dangers. Lets relinquish by conceding that Obama’s stellar rise rests largely in America’s Racial eyes, and that as long as these eyes are Racial we Americans cannot approximate those cherished words of Reverend King:

“My four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Crucial to Obama’s primary success, are his advisers unabashed beliefs that they can turn our hopes and emotions to their advantage. Our dreams projected upon their candidate translate into their delegate counts. The religious zeal of these advisers rests on the belief that faith alone is the source of conviction, and that conviction assures determination which in turn guarantees results. Faith alone fills empty words with meaning, and Obama’s long-term victory relies on a repetitive declaring of the faith that Obama is victorious long before he’s actually won, thereby to raise voter faith, to motivate voter confidence, to increase voters turnout, and make the faith an inevitable fate.

It’s an empty system. One based on an ignorance of politics, poor judgement, and wishful thinking. It is an election strategy without moral ground, steeped in cynicism, imbued in nihilism. Responsibility for such a strategy no doubt lies in the unbridled egos of Obama’s retinue. Surely a man of any integrity would not participate in such a spectacle. Obama is either out-of-the-loop, shallower than we dare imagine, or far sinister than he lets on. Is this our concern? No. Our concern as voters, is our vote. With our vote lies our own responsibility towards this nation, and its citizens.

Those who sacrifice their democratic duty towards the commonweal for their personal emotional gratification, are always rewarded accordingly. As for the rest, we must keep sober, and push on. The country isn’t ready for a man who isn’t ready for himself. The country must resist a man who relies on our inner most weaknesses to satisfy his personal ambitions. Even an experienced man of integrity cannot always be trusted because his intentions necessarily express the interest of the many. Even such a man must be vigilantly guarded and judged by the public eye in order for him to do the little good which he so eagerly desires his fellow countrymen.

How much less can we imagine a man whose sole faith lies in himself, in Brand Obama, doing good on a promise made by the selfless Giant who overcame hardship, adversity, humiliation, and tribulation, to deliver us his Dream on an unforgettable August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln memorial.

By definition all liberals share King’s Dream. This Dream can only be made reality by using our reason and judgement when voting. Dreaming is effortless. For this we do not need Obama. We Dremt this Dream before he was born. His ability to paraphrase this dream, and to physically embody it, amounts to little more than a poor impersonation of the man who first described it, a sort of Elvis look alike claiming copyright royalties due to his physical resemblance to the King of Rock and Roll. We may enjoy the show, but we wont pass the buck unless he performs. Nothing in the record, indicates Obama has done so.

For those enamored with King, we do not need Obama. There’s no need for Obama’s hope. We’ve had it from time immemorial. There is no need for his change, nor his reconciliation. Nothing in Obama’s record indicates he has a clue how to bring about change. He is even more clueless about how to bring reconciliation judging by his own divided identity. The very mention of reconciliation by a man torn between vicarious suffering and very real privilege, is proof of his inability to understand conciliation, let alone to bring it about.



What America needs to make King’s dream a reality, Obama cannot offer. To make King’s Dream a reality we need capable, honest, hard-working, and dedicated men and women of integrity. Deference and infatuation with sweet talkers whose rise to power is assured by favorable media and their own good fortune, are symptoms of indifference, and apathy, not concern and empathy.

A man who panders to our nations lust and desires, exploits our weaknesses for personal gain. Such a man, entrusted with people’s dreams, has an inerrant tendency to transform them into nightmares.

Such a man, denigrates Martin Luther King’s dream by his very mention of it.