“…And he said, Hillary, keep fighting for us. And that is exactly what I intend to do, because America is worth fighting for.” Really, so that’s why your husband dodged the draft? 

As this is being written, with 80% of the precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in Pennsylvania sits at 10% -- much larger than what it should have been. If you asked me three weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was going to lose Pennsylvania by 6-8%. But if you read my previous post, and my previous one before that, one can easily understand why Obama really screwed this one up.

You have those idiot leftists on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, calling the election and they're having their own little competition of who slobbers more over the concession speech of Barack Obama. Since they’re both in bed with George Soros, it’s no surprise they’re nothing but a bunch of spineless puppets to Mr. Obama and his socialist agenda.

Chris Matthews thinks that Sen. Clinton sees Obama as a mere obstacle to her attaining the presidency, “this time or next.” (God help us!) But I see quite the contrary. With this victory, Hillary Clinton has become Obama’s obstacle to the White House. Six weeks ago, he was cruising. He was going from town to town, spewing his socialist clap-trap; people were fainting all over the place. Then the words of his pastor surface, we find out his wife is not proud of America, we’re all a bunch of bible-thumping, gun clinging racists and he’s barbecuing burgers with Bill Ayers – the narrative begins to unfold.

Lo and behold, the battle continues. There probably wont be anymore debates for them to argue over who is going to spend more money or who is going to withdraw troops from Iraq quicker. Whether they like to admit it or not, this loss is a hard blow to the Obama campaign.

All I can say is: thank god this election has droned on and on into what seems like a never ending cycle of stupid comments, fawning media coverage and speeches to clear up all the controversies. If this was like previous primary seasons, time would be up and we would have handed the office of the presidency to a man who is not only wholly unqualified but is more ideologically radical than anyone to ever run for president in this country.

Has anyone else noticed that no one is fainting in front of him anymore? That’s right, because finally people started using their heads and, with some assistance from Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Obama was exposed for what he really is: an angry Marxist. He wants to change Washington by making it bigger. There’s an idea, straight out of Das Capital. But now, he has his work cut out for him against another Marxist who is even more determined and more angry than he is – especially since she’s had to fight for this long. “Change we can believe in?” Think again. Forward Comrades!  

Every time a Democrat runs for the presidency, they claim some sort of connection to the Jewish community: Joe Lieberman, always Jewish; Howard Dean, married to a Jew; Wesley Clark, found out his father was a Jew. Even Hillary Clinton dug up some evidence that she was Jewish and at one time dodged rampant sniper fire.

Now, it’s Barack Obama’s turn. Speaking to a group of Jewish leaders this week in Philadelphia, Senator Obama claimed to have a kinship with the Jewish people that “predates his political career and will extend beyond this particular election.” My next question would be: Why didn’t Barbara Streisand endorse Obama? She’s as left and Jewish as they come. Sounds like two peas in a pod to me.

This strategy of identity politics is a staple of Democratic campaigning. Although none of them will ever admit it, they support the terrorists in Palestine just like they support the terrorists in Iraq, the 9/11 hijackers and Fidel Castro. However, as unorthodox as this campaign has been, it is safe to say that it has gotten a little weirder and, as usual, a little less honest.

Just when you thought you’d seen it all: a half black, half white man born to a Muslim father from Kenya who grew up in Indonesia and “was introduced to his Christian faith” by a radical, hate-spewing pastor – the Obamas continue to surprise. The Wall Street Journal published a detailed article, a mini biography if you will, reviewing the political history of Senator Marx. Judson Miner, a Jewish lawyer from a Chicago law firm, is one of many Jews that serves in Obama’s network of mentors and advisors. Even Mr. Axelrod is a Jew. (don’t let Rev. Wright find out!)

“I used to tease Barack that he had Jewish blood,” admits Mr. Miner to The Journal. How cute. But if he straight up called Obama a Jew, crap would have hit the fan. In the same article, it is also revealed that this “Jewish kinship” extends to his charming wife, Michelle. Mrs. Obama’s second cousin is a Jewish convert who was ordained as a rabbi and even has his own congregation made up of mostly black converts in Chicago. One has a pastor who hates Jews, the other is related to a black rabbi – at least everyone is on the same page.

 Whether or not anyone has noticed, and I don’t think many people have, Barack Obama is a political hooker. In fact, he won the World Series of identity politics. When he’s with the Jews, he has a special kinship with the Jewish people. When he’s with the Muslims, he reminds them that he grew up in a Muslim country. When he’s with the Palestinians, he feels their pain. When he’s with the Christians he reminds them, when it works, that he is a devout Christian who supports the killing of innocent unborn children. Now, there’s a debate question!

So, when is everyone taking down their Iraq War tree? I like to put mine up earlier than everybody else – it’s been up since Monday—because I don’t like to think about the travesty of Iraq on just one special day. I do it for a full week up until the anniversary of America’s invasion of Iraq which, even without the liberal media shoving it down my throat, I know was March 19, 2003. I turned on the television yesterday and found myself in awe as I flipped through the “major” news networks. What did Keith Olbermann just say? What did Chris Matthews just stutter? Oh my God! Did you just say…Iraq?

How many times in the last four or so months has the word “Iraq,” “soldier,” “Army,” “Marines,” “troops,” or even “terrorism” been used in the liberal media? Probably as many times as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has gone golfing with Senator Robert Byrd. The fact is, the media has been waiting for this day, like a lion about to pounce on an unsuspecting antelope – just ready to rip our president and this war apart. My question is: why did they wait so long? For the past four months, the media has sat there telling us how we’re in a depression and how we’re all going to lose our jobs and homes and how we’re dependant on oil (even though libs wont let us drill for our own) and how we’re all going to die from global warming. Look, I live in the mountains. If the polar ice caps melt, I’ll have waterfront property!

But finally, the sleeping giant (turd) awoke. The media celebrates the anniversary of this war just like they celebrate the anniversary of September 11^th. To them, it is their only chance to legitimately defend the terrorists by hiding behind the moniker of “un-biased journalism.” The New York Times ran a story in a column devoted to reports by journalists (ooooooohh…journalists) who spent time in Iraq shortly after our invasion. The column, entitled “Notes From the Field: War and Peace,” (sounds like another stunning Leonardo DiCaprio film) is a perfect display of the treason that occurs not only at the Times, but at nearly every news outlet across the country. Robert Worth wrote a piece describing a trip he made to Beirut and his heartwarming encounter with an Iraqi refugee when he claims that “his Iraq was a different place: not peaceful, exactly, but a world away from the shattered place I spent time in.” So let me understand. While you were in Iraq in 2003, supposedly “reporting” the news, there was a brutal, dangerous, authoritarian leader who tried to kill you with chemical weapons? Maybe Worth got raped by Uday and Qusay in some dark, smelly room with pictures of naked pre-school girls all over the walls. Another pathetic attempt by another pathetic “journalist” to make Saddam Hussein’s Iraq look like spring break in Cancun, Mexico.

The front page article of The New York Times’ “Iraq Anniversary” edition focused on a speech President Bush gave on March 19, 2008 addressing the war in Iraq. Well that’s all well and good. I heard the speech. I don’t need some schmuck at The New York Slimes telling me what the president said (or what they think he should have said). However, two little features of the article that caught my attention – enough of it to write this blog – have nothing to do with the current state of Iraq at all. Steven Myers wrote:

“Mr. Bush announced the war’s start from the Oval Office on the night of March 19, 2003, declaring that the United States would ‘not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.’ (It later became clear that those weapons did not exist.)”

I love how liberal journalists call President Bush “Mr. Bush.” They’re in such denial; they can’t even acknowledge the fact that he is the president. Now, I am sure that Mr. Myers is privileged to certain information that not even President Bush is. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have yet to hear any public official, Democrat or Republican, come out and say ‘Nope. No weapons. Never happened. That guy was innocent.’ I always thought there was a difference between not finding something and something simply not existing. “Damn, I can’t find my keys!” That’s because they never existed! You don’t even have a car!

“Vice president Dick Cheney who declared in June 2005 that the insurgency was in ‘its last throes,’ also acknowledged that the war had ‘lasted longer than I would have anticipated,’ but he, too, defended the effort and brushed aside antiwar sentiment.”

I’m sure that Mr. Myers is also one of those ‘hopemongers’ that probably thought Hillary Clinton’s campaign was in its last throes as well. Unfortunately for us real Americans, it’s not.

“When told in an interview with ABC News that two-thirds of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, Mr. Cheney replied, ‘So?’ When pressed, he added, ‘I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.’”

You tell ‘em, Dick! Who cares what the stupid, liberal American public thinks! Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my unemployed, pot-smoking neighbor who is on welfare and drives a BMW make decisions about my safety or the safety of my children. If Mr. Myers and the like had their way, we’d all be wearing burkas and praying towards Mecca three times a day – and if not us, then our children.

True leaders don’t change their minds based on what their opponents tell them. What kind of leader would that be? One minute, Saddam is evil, the next minute, he’s having tea at the White House. A true leader is someone who makes up their mind and moves forward towards their ultimate goal. The opposite of this, of course, is a follower. A follower is a person who relies on polls to make their decisions. A follower is a person who supports the Iraq war when two-thirds of Americans support the war and disapproves of the war when two-thirds of Americans don’t (ehem…Hillary). In this dangerous world that we live in, we need a leader who is willing to put his name on the line in defense of freedom. As The Philadelphia Inqirer puts it, "President Bush defiantly defended the Iraq war yesterday..." Really? Whose authority did the president defy, his own? The most important thing to any president of any nation is their legacy. What will history books write about them thirty years from now? If this president wants to fix his legacy, he could just listen to the “two-thirds” of American people who want to retreat. But maybe, just maybe, there is something a little more important to President Bush than his legacy (national security possibly?). “Hey John Kerry, what’s your favorite color?” I don’t know, what’s yours? “Blue.” Hey, mine too!

The funny thing about liberals is that they like to answer a question with a totally unrelated question of their own. “So, what do you make of the current Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy surrounding Barack Obama?” It was a really good speech he gave, wasn’t it? Of course it was, we get it…the man gives great speeches. But that response is the response of a typical liberal: when a topic you can’t defend is brought to your attention, simply revert to a topic that makes “your guy” look good (or start bashing George Bush). But the hate speech and class warfare rhetoric that spews from the mouth of people like the Rev. Jeremiah Wrong is indefensible, even by the most pompous liberals, which includes our good friends in the mainstream media.

 For the past year, Senator Obama has ridden this self-created wave of blind enthusiasm straight to, what will inevitably be, the Democratic Presidential nomination. He has been heralded as nearly untouchable by the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC…get the picture?) and can do no wrong in the eyes of the followers who chant his name at rallies, “Barack….Barack…Barack…” This man practices a new type of politics. Not the politics of other political hacks like Hillary Clinton or All-Star swimmer Ted Kennedy, but the politics of hope and, that’s right, change. No longer, Obama claims, will our leaders be held unaccountable for their actions. No longer, Obama claims, will the American people be made false promises by their government – out with the old, in with the new.

You see, with Hillary Clinton, we know what we’re getting. We know that both her and her husband lie profusely and always find a way to beat the system (Michigan and Florida delegates, anyone?), but this is something we’ve all come to know and love about the Clintons. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” claims Senator Obama. Now hold it right there. Just last week, when FOX News' Sean Hannity asked Obama if he was ever a witness to such speech, he denied it. We’d expect this from Hillary, but not from you Barack.

 It seems to me that liberals (must I always include the media?) continuously give Obama a free pass. Neither he, nor Clinton for that matter, has been asked those really tough questions that usually lead to the abrupt end of a press conference, with the candidate pleading, “Come on guys, I’ve answered like eight questions already!” (Oh wait, that did happen) Yet again, another substantive issue – in addition to the Rezko scheme and his charming wife’s brilliant display of patriotism – goes unchallenged. Instead, liberals look on the bright side: That was a great speech, wasn’t it?

 “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.”

 Actually, no, my priest has never stood at his pulpit and screamed, “Goddamn America!” Nor has my priest ever blamed the white man for infecting blacks with AIDS as a form of genocide. My priest never gave Lewis Farrakhan – an outspoken black supremacist and anti-Semite – a “Lifetime Achievement Award.” It may have a little to do with my priest being white – or maybe he’s just not a bigot. Beats me.

 What I don’t understand is how no one is holding this man accountable for his actions. Well, you can’t blame him for something his pastor says! Maybe Mike Huckabee's got it right, as he stated on Morning Joe on MSNBC “…you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names.” Oh really? So in Chucklebee’s eyes, we need to cut Rev. Wrong some slack, maybe give him a little extra room to preach even more hatred. You Huckabee, are not the only conservative who wants to cut slack to hatemongers because you Mike Huckabee, like Senator Obama, are a liberal – a big taxing, big spending, open boarders liberal.

 Okay, so Obama denounces or rejects…actually, he denounces and rejects the statements of Rev. Wright. But how come, Barack, you refuse to denounce the man himself – the man who, by your own admission, “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country.” Senator Obama, as we all know, is a politician. And Senator Obama consulted Rev. Wright, his mentor and spiritual leader, before he announced his bid for the presidency. Now, if you are about to run for the most powerful office in the world and hope to become the next the leader of this great country, would you consult someone who has a profoundly distorted view of America? What kind of issues would you talk about? Who should we knock off first: Islamic terrorists or the white man?

 “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.”

So his grandmother is a racist too? ‘Well, what is he supposed to do?’ many ask. The answer is simple, you take your wife and kids, you get up out of your pew and you leave. That’s it, end of story. You don’t go back Sunday after Sunday, week after week, year after year for twenty years. You don’t donate over $22,000 to a church whose pastor’s comments “you strongly denounce.” You don’t get married there or baptize your children there. You don’t consult this man about anything, especially politics – unless, of course, you agree with what he says.
   
As with most liberal quandaries, hypocrisy is always there to rear its ugly head.  When Don Imus was getting publicly raped by the media last April, Senator Obama – along with the Rev. Al Not-So-Sharpton and Jesse Jerkson – was the loudest mouth calling for Imus’ firing. "He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. "He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.” So now we learn that Obama’s own daughters are called ho’s as well. It seems like that word gets thrown around an awful lot. Yet, he no longer wants his daughters to experience such disgusting, racial and derogatory speech that is so divisive and cynical. Come on kids, let’s go to church!
   
I know how much liberals hate Jesus so I’m going to invoke his name just in spite. When Jesus was being persecuted and consequently crucified by the Romans, his followers were persecuted as well. The disciple Peter denied Jesus three times when questioned about their affiliation for fear of punishment. It's kind of like when you accuse a liberal of killing babies. They are programmed to say that they are "personally against" abortion, but are fearful of losing the votes of fifteen year old tramps (wait a second, you have to be eighteen to vote). Senator Obama should absolutely be held accountable for Rev. Wrong’s comments, even more accountable than the reverend himself, because it is Barack Obama who wants to be our president. It is Barack Obama who has played the role of “political savior.” It is Barack Obama who, day in and day out, talks about bringing the country together and ending the racial politics that supposedly divide us. Well, if this is what he truly believes, maybe it is he who should be mentoring his mentor.