"Barack Obama Exposed!" Exposed. “Barack Obama: EXPOSED! Copyright ©2008 by HUMAN EVENTS. All rights reserved. No excerpting or copying permitted without written consent.”
Well, right there they’ve lost me, because I don’t need their permission to excerpt from their spam. I live in America, which is still a free country until further notice.
But to keep this on the up-and-up, here is their contact information:
Eagle Publishing, Inc.
One Massachusetts Avenue,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
1-888-467-4448
Website: http://www.humanevents.com
It's an interesting read, and I'd encourage you to email them for it. I'd give you my copy, but that is a right they can reserve
The report consists of a series of articles, the first by Ann Coulter. I suppose she really wrote it. “His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.” That seems to set the tone for this report. That’s Ann’s opinion and she’s certainly entitled to have one. “There were about 400 more reporters at Obama’s announcement than Mitt Romney’s, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.” The reporters were right Ann, you were wrong. Nice manipulation of his name though, very creative.
Next we have Bill O’Reilly with a meandering bit about how African Americans have a victim mentality, thinking they are discriminated against even when they are not. The conclusion may be that since blacks think they’re being victimized, only whites are qualified to run for president? “So I chalk this one up to mild paranoia and/or a victimization play. Many of us know people of all races who are professional victims. They see slights everywhere. The world is against them, and if you live in the world, so are you. These people are tough to deal with. Anything you say to them can and will be used against you.” Nothing in here about Obama specifically, so let’s move on.
Mac Johnson is unimpressed with Obama because he’s all potential, no accomplishment. “For
emphasis, let’s examine a list of Obama’s major accomplishments (so far):
1. Simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks
2. Made the initials “B.O.” cool again
3. Good oral hygiene
That’s it. He’s the Wayne Brady of politics…”
Ah yes, another articulate black man, they're all the same, right? He goes on to make a very good point about racism as a general
topic when he says, “But to see ‘black’ as a synonym for ‘oppressed’ is just a stereotype” Mac Johnson goes on to list the lack of oppression
that Obama faced in his ever-so easy life: “he was admitted to Columbia University and…” “...Harvard Law School…” “…President of the Law Review by an
overwhelming majority.” I like the contrast between that and Obama’s accomplishments, iterated above.
Next there’s Monica Crowley, who gives us Obama’s three recent mistakes. “Mistake Number One was his statement that he’d move more aggressively into Pakistan if, as president, he had ‘actionable intelligence’ about al Qaeda operating there.” This was apparently a mistake because it “ticked off his liberal base.” And then “Mistake Number Two came when he tried to fix Mistake Number One: he said he’d take nuclear weapons ‘off the table.’” I’m guessing you can’t have peace if you’re not willing to nuke Pakistanis. “Then came the Third Big Mistake. He was asked about U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, and he said this: ‘We’ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.’” I guess we wouldn’t want to increase troop deployments in Afghanistan, because that would end the war there prematurely, without using nukes.
On to Patrick J. Buchanan insisting that Obama is only in the running because he is African American, and sites Geraldine Ferraro as a democrat who agrees to this. Because she is a woman, she is not racist. “Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self delusion— or deceit.”
Now, Cal Thomas has a different take on Obama, calling him “Obama the Inexperienced” and stating “I am all for a post-racial, nonpolarized society, but Obama has yet to detail how that would work and on which issues he is willing to move toward the center from positions any reasonable observer would have to describe as far-left, even radical.” He also claims that Obama voted against banning partial-birth abortion, which sounds unlikely from my understand of the man’s policies — far more likely that Obama voted against a bill that included banning partial-birth abortion amongst more controversial rules, but I cannot check since he cited no source. “His uncertainty and inconsistency on issues ranging from war to taxes reveal his inexperience and youthful stumbling, two qualities that make him unprepared to be president. And now we return to our regularly scheduled program of the rantings of Rev. Wright.” Ah, that was a lovely dig at the end there Mr. Thomas.
“Barack Obama has charisma and charm but in terms of character, values and understanding, he is no Jackie Robinson.” Walter E Williams thinks that the first black president, like the first black pro-baseball player, must be exceptional, where Obama is only an ordinary man. Sounds reasonable, I mean what ordinary man hasn’t led the Harvard Law Review? But let’s not talk about the man, let’s talk about his pastor! “By now, many Americans have heard the racist and anti-American tirades of Obama’s minister and spiritual counselor. There’s no way that Obama could have been a 20-year member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church and not been aware of his statements. Wright’s racist and anti-American ideas are by no means unique.” Listen to a whole sermon by Wright and he talks about improving America, not destroying it. But even so, he does not represent Obama, so I think we can move on.
Michael Reagan has another angle: attacking Michelle Obama. “Nowadays she’s playing the role of dutiful wife and doting mother, but every once in a while her anger surfaces…” Apparently Michelle hates whitey (a word she has been accused of using, although video footage showed otherwise) and loves Rev. Wright. So now it’s not Barack who follows a traitorous pastor, but Michelle. At least this was a short article.
Robert Novak is another semi-famous name on our list, and he comes out swinging. “Obama in advance dismissed Republican criticism of his ideology or his past as the same old partisan bickering that the people hate.” Perhaps Robert is right, but does that mean Obama would be wrong? And I cannot concede that Robert is right, since that’s a pretty unspecific statement on his part. “John McCain as the Republican candidate does not like that kind of campaigning, either. But a gentlemanly contest between the old war hero from out of the past and the new advocate of reform from the future probably would guarantee Democratic takeover of the White House.” So, Robert is advocating mud-slinging because he believes that McCain would lose a fair fight.
Ann Coulter swings in saying that Obama should have been emotionally immune to the words of his grandmother, even as a child. “If Obama is sent reeling by the mere words of an elderly white woman, how is he going to negotiate with a guy like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What if Ahmadinejad calls him “booger-face”? Will he run crying from the table?” Obama tells us that his grandmother was afraid of a man simply because he was black, but Ann Coulter is convinced that he must have really been evil, and that Obama’s grandfather must have deliberately wanted to send Obama’s grandmother into danger. “Your grandmother wasn’t a racist, Barack. Your grandpa was just a loser.”
Gary Bauer weighs in, accusing Obama of hating Jews, because Obama does not think that it is healthy for Israel to bomb Palestine. “But nothing should concern Israel supporters as much as Obama’s foreign policy team, which consists of the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski, a remnant of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, who, like Rev. Wright, calls Israel an apartheid state.” Well Gary, let’s breakdown that word. It means separated state – for example the large wall splitting up Israel into many parts. So I guess they’re right. Obama has pledged to work with the Israeli government toward peace in the region, that’s good enough for them and it’s good enough for me.
Ann Coulter again, on Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father:” “Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read ‘Mein Kampf’” So Obama is a black Hilter, just waiting for his chance to fire up Haliburton’s internment camps. “For those of you in the “When is Obama gonna play the ‘N-word’ card?” pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!” So a modern black man claims to have on some occasion been called nigger. I too doubt the possibility that he could be telling the truth Ann.
David Limbaugh weighs in next, “What has placed America in a falsely negative light to the world is the Democratic chorus of lies that President Bush misled us into war in Iraq; that he is responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; that the United States is torturing and otherwise violating the “rights” of our enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; that this very detention center is comparable to a Soviet Gulag or Nazi prison camp; that the Bush government is spying on its own citizens; that America, because of its corporate greed, refuses to lead the world against apocalyptic global warming; and that the heartland of America is inhabited by jingoistic, imperialistic, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, racist and reality-challenged Bible-thumpers.” Well, thanks for telling us what all Democrats believe David, but what about Obama?
Brent Bozell believes that Obama is incapable of being president, as he once referred to there being 58 contiguous states rather than 48, and “In Sunrise, Fla., Obama said, ‘How’s it going, Sunshine?’ He did the same thing in Sioux Falls, S.D., calling it ‘Sioux City.’” Certainly Obama has misspoken on several occasions.
Robert Spencer believes that Obama's suggestion that we attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the problems with Iran would project an air of weakness, so apparently only by refusing to talk to them can we ever hope to be at peace with them. “Would Iran’s Thug-In-Chief regard Obama’s invitation to sit down and chat as a sign that he was willing to ‘bow and surrender’? There is no reason to think he would regard it in any other way.”
And on that note we close, leaving me hungry for the hidden view of the man
that the title seemed to promise. Talking heads are all well and good, but in the
end it is Obama's actions that define his character, and not someone else's words.
[ add comment ]
( 225 views )
| permalink | print article | 
( 3 / 367 )
Date: 2008-04-28
So, I watched the Golden Compass for the first time the other night. And i was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Here was a typical fantasy story, fun but not particularly original, benign family oriented stuff.
There are Gyptians, witches, and bears. Witches are obviously bad in Christianity, but no-one here is claiming they are good. Hardly raises this to Harry Potter levels of controversy, let alone the uproar it got.
Then there's the fact that human spirits reside inside animals. This person and their anima in animal form walk together as two hoalves of a whole, no person complete without their soul alongside. Odd, but merely interesting rather than controversial.
This is a classic good-vs-evil, liberty vs. fascism story. The kind red-blooded-Americans flock to every day.
I went to bed puzzling over the controversy, and in the morning it came to me. The witches are female, of course, and powerful women at that. But it is much worse than that, for the chief force for evil is not a witch, merely a human being and also a woman, a beautiful strong woman who does not respect the authority of men. And to top it off, the primary protagonist is a girl.
The men in this movie are supporting cast, sheep-herded by the women who obviously run this world. And that is the unforgivable sin, not the trivial religious statements.
[ 2 comments ] ( 133 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 460 )A response to some unfortunately unattributed criticism of my religious taxonomy.
Agnosticism is the recognition of the FACT that the existence/nonexistence of god cannot be determined with certainty.ie. Agnosticism is a decision not to vote.
That you don't know whether you, me or the universe exists doesn't prevent you from getting out of 'bed' or crossing rivers only using 'bridges'. You're reticence in deciding whether God exists is not especially admirable, although far superior to those who simply accept what they were taught at their parents knee.
atheism is the belief that no god exists.How very vague of you. God is better defined as "superior authority" since atheists refuse the advice of such figures as the Pope or Einstein also. In so saying, I am defining a subset, yes, but a subset that contains all proper members of the super-set.
Muslims are sons of Abraham, as are Jews. One son is claimed as legitimate heir by each side, and both worship the same God of War. Have you looked at their texts, their activities, their beliefs? There is no significant difference.
I admit, I was exposed to Hindusim at an extremely young age, my views are confined to what a child could comprehend. I am not mistaken in my conclusion however. There are dualistic powers which stem from a single neutral source, making this a monotheism at heart.
Scientologist do indeed worship a Science fiction author. Worse, he is a hack who stole all his best ideas from H.G. Wells. His lack of creativity and enlightenment are only matched by his sadistic sense of humour.
Belief in gravity and gravity's continued existence are logic-based. Since I don't assume the world is flat, I must have some argument to the contrary. Why? Because that's logical. At best, logic is a dogmatic and tired methodology. At best, a religious fanaticism takes hold and objectivism overwhelms reality.
Buddhism is as "originally hindu" as christianity is "originally judaism".Then we are in agreement! For Christianity has nothing to do with the beliefs of Judaism, just as Buddhism has nothing to do with the beliefs of Hinduism. Yet, each founder was indeed a member of the foundation religion. Buddhism teaches a way of living that is extremely beneficial to the human circumstance, the underlying reasons for those benefits are irrelevant. It is a system that works, first and foremost.
you are obviously not familiar with the scientific method or its application.Science has nothing whatever to do with the scientific method. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein... all were men first, scientists second. That current Science raises them to the Godhead demonstrates a failure of Science to remain objective.
you would do well to at least learn to include a disclaimer at the beginning of your post indicating that "these are definitions that i stole from someone who obviously is ignorant of the truth, and who is biased against the only rational belief set (agnosticism)."You arrogant asshole. I stole my beliefs from no-one, they sprang fully formed from my head. You admit to being a rationalist, and as such I dismiss you as the theist you are. I will not tolerate accusations of plagiarism from you. Your cowardly refusal to vote has betrayed itself, you are revealed and impotent before the world.
I hope you're happy now.
you have left out what some would consider major subsets, such as gnostic christians vs. catholics vs. orthodox vs. protestant
Very good, you noticed. These distinction are trivial, I leave them to those who care.
you also failed to define the distinction between religion and philosophy and methodology.
You failed to ask. These are not hard and fast as you imply, just as pluto is a planet for historical reasons only, so too were many religions and philosophies misplaced over time.
All belief can be fit into the term philosophy.
Religion is belief about God exclusively. Other things (such as morality) are not part of religion, but are influenced by the human inability to distinguish disjoint.
Methodology is not belief at all, it is tools that change the human condition, irrelevant of the underlying belief system. Of course, such tools are seen as good or bad depending whether they move you closer to the ones philosophy. The scientific method is indeed a methodology, though Science is not.<br>
The religions I listed are prevalent in western society. Their origins are irrelevant. Notice I did exclude such western protest religions such as wiccan and pagan, since they are merely counters to the common paradigm.
I'm pleased to have an agnostic such as yourself respond to me like this, and I'm even more pleased that you read this far. Agnosticism is a natural state that a healthy intellect will return to repeatedly. But, change is inevitable among a living belief system, so don't declare yourself locked into agnosticism forever. If you don't know, then you also can't know whether I know. And I do know.
[ 1 comment ] ( 483 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 490 )Date: 01-08-03 18:33
There are only two basic forms of religion:
Theism and A-Theism
The "third alternative," namely agnosticism, is merely a decision not to vote. This is particularly uninteresting and therefore may be left out of intelligent conversation. If you are an agnostic, I sympathize and hope you find your truth soon. Check under your bed, that's normally where I lose things.
A-theism is a challenging perspective, because in declaring the absence of a higher power one is automatically implying that you are, in fact, the highest authority. What great arrogance that takes! Unless, of course, you are correct. In which case it is lonely perspective, is it not? And, if you are the highest authority, can there ever be one higher? Or are you the pinnacle of all you can ever see? As I said, challenging. But, in its own way, powerful.
Theism covers all other beliefs.
Here are the common variations on theism as you will meet them in the western world:
Deism is a subset of theism where believers accept a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God, but not a conscious or personal God.
Judaism is a subset believing in a benevolent, conscious and omniscient God, but not necessarily omnipotent. He created everything, but in the last few millennia things have been getting a little out of hand.
Muslims believe in the same God as above, except that they are the chosen people instead of their half-brothers the Jews. No significant theological differences here.
Hindus believe in a series of little God (kind of like angels) created by a conscious omnipotent, omniscient God. He has a SubGod, or angel, who is benevolent, personal and helps out people. Balanced by his brother the god of death. It is these sub-gods that separates Hindus from deists.
Christians believe in a benevolent, personal, conscious, omnipotent, omniscient God. This God has no limitations, nor makes mistakes. He is also three-in-one, the closest to truly polytheistic of all religions. Many branches of Christianity believe in salvation through grace.
Mormons believe in a benevolent, personal, conscious, omniscient God. However, he is not omnipotent since he either a)gave that up to create us, or b)is only a God because he was Mormon on another planet somewhere, and he didn't really create the universe after all. Like vishnu et al of the Hindu system, we have a hierarchy from God the source of all, to Jesus and Satan, the life-bringer and death-bringer respectively.
Scientologists Worship a science-fiction author.
Logicians believe in a omnipotent God. He has no characteristics other than complete constancy and reliability. His name is more accurately Reason, not Logic, and appeals to Him are as iron-clad as they are silly. Many people do not see this as a religion, citing its basis on faith in an unseen power as proof. Cause-and-effect, statistics, and gravity being among its most famous beliefs. Most so-called atheists fall into this category.
Buddhism is of course, not a religion but a methodology. The underlying belief system is entirely flexible, although originally Hindu.
Science was meant to be a methodology also, but has become so mired in its own appeals to higher authority that it quickly forces a follower into religion (see logician). The purpose of both religion and science are to explain the surrounding world, the only difference being the youth of science allows it a closer connection to reality. (Assuming reality exists at all).
Feel free to respond to what I write, but be sure, I will write again
[ add comment ] ( 157 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 534 )"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate" --Monty Python
The Roman Catholic church has always fought against masturbation and birth control of all kinds. They do believe that all sperm and all eggs should be given the maximum opportunity to become human beings.
Of course, this indicates an inability to count on the part of the Pope. Yet another indication that the worst thing that ever happened to any third world country was conversion to "Christianity."
As to abortion, I do not consider it morally or practically acceptable, I believe in things like personal responsibility and social support.
However, in a society such as this one, where young children are never taught about birth control and unwed motherhood is still stigmatized, it is the only visible option. In such cases, abortions do happen whether or not they are legal, and because of awareness and councelling, they are less prevalent now that it is legal.
Adoption is often cited as an alternative, but it is not. Too much social stigma is attached to adoption for most pregnant children to consider it. The source of the stigma is irrelevant in this case, only its effect. And its effect is that abortions will take place, legal or not.
If you'd like to work with at risk teens and discuss the benefits of adoption with them, feel free. That is the only viable way to decrease the number of abortions.
There is a clear dicotomy betwen the anti-choice folks and the pro-life folks. I am pro-life, in that I am pro-choice. I do not wish to punish 16-year-olds for getting pregnant, rather I would hope we can avoid forcing them to make that choice at all.
[ add comment ]
( 256 views )
| permalink | print article | ( 2.9 / 379 )
Date: 01-21-03
I don't necessarily take pride in my patriotism, but it is there none-the-less. I take no pride in hunger, either, but I need not deny its existence.
When someone says "I am hungry, I have more right to that food than you." I say "I'm hungry too, and you've already eaten."
I could just as easily gone into a debate about the worthlessness of hunger as a measure of objective need, or discussed the fallacy of using hunger to imbue nobility.
However, what would be the point? Is one off the street capable of understanding the subtle degrees of such an argument?
Instead, I approach with arguments they are capable of understanding, based as always in the truth I seek. I do not deny my animalistic nature, I embrace and become it. I am fully human because I experience the fluctuations of emotion as well as the cold hard day of reason. I control my body and my mind, with sparing touches.
Despair not, Wanderer. The hard strength of reason is always nearly spent. The night of turmoil is always hard upon us. Yet, reason will out, and strength it has left for another generation.
[ add comment ] ( 118 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 438 )Date: 01-14-03 13:12
First and foremost, gays and lesbians are not trying to change their sex. They are not men trying to be women, or women trying to be men. They are simply people who happen to have found happiness in marriage with one of their own sex.
Transgendered people OTOH are people who have bought into social gendering so strongly that they believe physical mutilation can change their personality. They think that being a man is significant outside of reproduction, in the same way that zxz obviously does.
No-one can justify to me why it matters whether my secretary is male or female, unless I plan on sleeping with them. Further, no-one has explained why it matters what gender my spouse is, unless we plan on having children.
Believe it or not, there are enough ins on a man and enough outs on a woman to more than make up for whatever difficulties you envision. You forget, the most powerful sexual organ in the human body is the brain.
We are born with innate sexual desire. As we grow, society teaches us that we can only express that desire towards one gender, so we suppress our other attraction to the point that it feels like revulsion. In some people, this process goes "badly wrong" and they wind up fixated on their own gender instead of the opposite. This 'mistake' is not reversable since humans lose their flexibility of mind when they become adults.
Some however, remain mostly free of this inhibition. They remain bisexual, and they get a bad name because those who escape one batch of social programming probably escaped others too, making them unpredictable and dangerous by affiliation.
In a monogamous-based society bisexuality is not likely to be maintained. Once you pick a partner, people assume you are only attracted to people of the same gender as your partner. Since this is error is difficult to correct, it becomes accepted and eventually becomes the truth itself. A married woman is not likely to receive offers from other women, nor is she likely to accept those offers even if she would like to. She's committed now, remember.
Travis
Date: 01-19-03 18:40
I am quite glad that you see that you and I DO NOT live in the same world. We walk on the same ground and breathe the same air but rest assured this is all that we share.
I have read your posts and thought much about a response and still the only fitting response that I can think of is "Are you joking?"
I hope this .zinger. was a little more specific and a little less obnoxious.
Date: 01-19-03 19:51
This is something I can accept, respect, and respond.
I am indeed not joking, for a careful examination of the air and soil has lead me to this analysis.
Why you do not share it, you leave open. I am therefore forced to continue to conjecture as I have in previous posts, but I'll try not to poke fun, as much for your friends' sake as for yours.
You feel no attraction towards men, and you therefore conclude you are 'straight'. By common understanding, you are, and I do not seek to argue with you on that.
When you were a child, you loved men, such as you father, your best friend, brothers, etc. This is platonic love, for all childish love is platonic.
When you began to grow up, you found yourself feeling urges and desires that were frightening in their strength and unpredictability. By this point you already knew the appropriate direction for these feelings, though not their strength. You did not wish to feel any attraction towards men, so you probably did not.
Indeed, many people do feel this attraction, and simply lie about it to themselves. I credit you more honesty than that, so you may have simply avoided such feelings.
The question here then, is: are you incapable of such feelings towards men? A good indication that you are not would be revulsion at even asking the question. If you can look at the issue without any strong emotional response, then your answer is more likely. Keep in mind that sodomy is not the full extent of homosexuality, and there are other milder activities that you even now probably enjoy. Given an open mind and appropriate conditioning, I doubt that your preferences are as fixed as you imagine.
Keep in mind that the great philosophers of the past that you have undoubtably studied were for a large part homosexual.
Having said all this, I will not have you "turn gay" on me. I do not take responsibility for the havoc and disruption this would have upon your life, nor do I recommend it as a course of action. You are no more likely to find happiness with a man than with a woman, and nothing I have said should lead you to
believe otherwise.
The most you can take from me is a recommendation for openness towards bisexuality, and even that is only on the condition that you are having difficulty finding a life-partner.
[ 1 comment ] ( 152 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 470 )I've been thinking about something someone else wrote, on a site that's gone now, or I'd let you read the original. He claimed to have the right to decide what's good and what's bad, because the bible does make judgments on people. She said that the phrase "Judge not" was just a sound bite rather than sound theology. She and I have another disagreement, he claims that the vision of Peter refers only to food, that the laws in the old testament are the same we should believe today except for food alone. I doubt she practices that when it doesn't suit him.
Piper, you have the right to decide what's good and what's bad? Sorry, I still think that's God's prerogative. And since you believe we have the right to judge each other, I call down judgment upon you and yours.
...or does that sound just a little strange?
Seriously, I do not hate you and even if it were in my power I would never condemn you. Piper, you don't have the right to judge because you don't expect to be judged. Unless you're saying you've already earned your salvation on your own? I wonder if you believe in grace. It's not just a sound bite, it's the word of God.
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Mathew 7:1-5
BTW, I re-read acts since everyone was focused on the food side of things. The issue is not food, but people: "You went into the house of uncircumsized men and ate with them." --Acts 11:3 They weren't angry about what he ate, and neither are you. You'd judge me by the company I keep.
[ 1 comment ] ( 492 views ) | permalink | print article |
( 3 / 467 )
Calendar
