Obama’s Opposition to Abortion Bill


This has been quite a week for Obama starting with his apparent defeat at Saddleback last week.  But this one is a bit more serious.

Be prepared for liberals and the media to hysterically turn back to the “important issue” of whether or not Obama is a Muslim.  Most of us in the land of common sense know that this cannot be true because no Muslim would ever be pro-choice.  (If you think Christians were strict….)  But nonetheless, liberals will use it to deflect from real issues like this one.

It’s astonishing that he actually voted against a Bill in the Illinois legislature that Barbara Boxer (the leftest of the left until this point) supported which protected the life of a baby if it were born after a botched abortion.

Perhaps Ann Coulter is a bit over-the-top by stating that Obama wanted to make sure that doctors were chasing babies around the delivery room, but essentially this is a Bill that even people like Barbara Boxer supports.

Even the most pro-choicers out there would have to support this Bill because A.) the baby is already out of the body and B.) It’s no longer a question of the mother’s body or health.

Obama’s Terror Connection: What Would Reagan Say?


On Obama’s part, Alan Colmes manages to think that this is not a “big political problem.”  The topic at hand: Obama’s relationship/friendship with former terrorist and founder of The Weathermen leftist-radical group in the late 60’s.  The group was founded in opposition to the Vietnam War.  And what better way to protest a war than by bombing the United States Capitol, The Pentagon, and the Harry S. Truman building within a span of a few years.

Incidentally, what has come about of the bombing in Times Square a few months ago?

Back to Obama: let’s review his friendships with a few random folks. There’s Reverend Jeremiah Wright who said in response to 9/11: “God bless America… No!… God Damn America”, and also said in regard to HIV and the United States Government:”[t]he government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”  These are accompanied by dozens of other black-power, blame the white-man sentiments.  Obama confirmed his admiration for Reverend Wright by personally thanking him in the same book raved about by Oprah.

Then, there’s his personal friendship and ties with Tony Rezko.  As we all know, Obama scored a sweet real-estate deal with Rezko in 2006.  Rezko is currently on trial for fraud, money-laundering, bribery, and attempted extortion.  Here, Obama admits this was a decision he considers a “mistake” that he regrets.  Rather Clintonian, wouldn’t you say?  Rezko has also held various fundraisers for Obama raising millions of dollars for his campaign and was also very chummy with Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich.  Adding to his list of favorite politicians, Mr. Rezko has also supported and done many money favors for Cook County Board President; John Stroger who is ultimately responsible for Chicago’s ultra-high sales tax rate.

Now, we find out Obama has kept a friendship/relationship with “Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois Chicago” Bill Ayers.  Ayers and wife, Bernadine Dohrn were original members and founders of the 1960’s radical terrorist group called the Weathermen.  In their opposition of the Vietnam War, they peacefully protested by bombing multiple government buildings here in the United States and screwed up a bomb experiement in NYC that ultimately cost the lives of three other members.  The two then – in a very Rosenburg kind of way – lived underground for years and continued in their pursuit to terrorize.  In the 70’s – after leaving the group, they turned themselves into authorities only to have the charges dropped against them for “prosecutorial misconduct.”  (Basically they walked on technicalities.)

Of course, as is the case with many walk-away psychotic criminals (O.J.), “Professor” Ayers wrote a book which was ironically published on September 11th, 2001 (perhaps it really WAS  an inside job)  that opens up with “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough” and also states that he would not “discount the possibility” when asked if he would do it again.  This man is a “professor” at a University today.

To think for the last few years, liberals have contemplated capturing GW Bush and smashing his fingers with a meat cleaver for once shaking hands with Jack Abramoff.  (Note to self: be prepared for comments and e-mails reminding me that Bush is good friends with has met the bin Laden family that have been estranged from Osama for decades and once said “good evening” to the President of Halliburton.)

So what would Reagan say?  Would it be: “I’m sure he’s very patriotic but his relationship to Ayers is open to question“?  Somehow, I think not.  But it’s certainly what John McCain said.  Someone ought to remind Mr. McCain that sometimes to advance yourself politically, it’s not always best to “play politics.”  Sometimes we have to call a spade and spade.

Put all this together: Obama’s ties to an angry-black-racist-pastor, an indicted slum lord, and a proud-former terrorist now teaching students at the University of Illinois, I’d say Americans have a really good excuse to be pissed off at the media and people like Oprah for putting this dangerous individual out to the American people.

Or they could concur with Michelle Obama’s recent statement: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” 

To Liberals, 9/11 Victims Are Just as Dispensable as Cindy Sheehan

The funny blog, News Hounds wrote a whine-fest in response to Ward Churchill for finally getting his ass sacked and decided to draw a parallel between Ann Coulter and Ward Churchill.

Let me make the distinction for them — Ward Churchill actually INSULTED 9/11 victims as a whole.  Ann Coulter on the other hand spotlighted FOUR WOMEN from New Jersey who were using their husbands’ deaths to get rich and promote the same half-baked liberal ideology that someone like Churchill promotes.

News Hounds (We Watch Fox, So you Don’t Have To Because MSNBC is Boring), in their article draw the real parallel for what is acceptable to liberals.  You ready?  Whichever one is promoting their insane agenda is the one they are sticking up for. 

Liberals once again make me sick to the point of upchuck with their phony compassion for the troops, for 9/11 widows, and for Cindy Sheehan.

It’s no secret that when Cindy Sheehan was running around as the anti-war spokesperson, the left gave up on reasoned debate immediately and latched onto Sheehan as their terrority (just like they claim possession of the blacks and the gays).  Once Sheehan started to hold Democrats responsible as well, suddenly the left-wing blogs wanted nothing to do with her, even going so far as calling her an “attention whore” and threatening to remove her from their blogs if indeed she chose to run against Nancy Pelosi.

Liberals really are stupid and inconsistent in times like this.  See, we Republicans have always been happy to call the Jersey Girls “harpies,”  we have always been happy to call Sheehan an “attention whore.”  Our positions have never changed unlike those of the Democrats that shift weekly based upon who the victim is and what political position of the left’s can be supported by exploiting their pain.  It’s sick, like making a deal with Satan.

When Coulter factually points out how four women from New Jersey are harpies, liberals are outraged, not because they care about the Jersey Girls, but because Coulter just happens to be on the right side of the political debate.  When Churchill actually insults ALL 9/11 victims and blames 9/11 on his own country, it’s free speech and supported by the Constitution.

Laughable to say the least.  Churchill was fired because he was uninspiring, a plagiarist, a phony, and another “attention whore” used by the left long enough to promote their idiocy. 

Comparing this burnout to someone as intelligent as Ann Coulter is hilarious in and of itself.  But what’s even funnier is how apparent it is that Churchill and his attorney have now sold their souls to the left.  

My advice to him based on what happened to Cindy Sheehan: NEVER TURN ON THEM, WARD.

Mitt vs. Fred: My Top Two Picks

I watched the Republican debate on CNN while simutaneously switching back and forth to Hannity & Colmes to watch the Fred Thompson interview.

McCain is really starting to alienate Conservatives with his immigration bill.  Moreover; he responds by asking detractors to come up with something else.  Romney last night answered this question, though I have a feeling McCain missed it and is still walking around today believing that he can still use the “do you have anything better to offer?” line.  Romney said that the visas issued to the 12 millions illegals should not be permanent.  Rather, they should be temporary.  In his words, to do otherwise is “not fair” to all Americans.

I did not like that Thompson split-voted during Clinton’s impeachment.  Basically, Fred Thompson presented himself as a good potential and I would have to support him.  However; Mitt Romey is still my favorite among the official candidates.

Ann Coulter was interview on H&C immediately afterwards and made two excellent points:

1.) Thompson is a true conservative from a very conservative state.  What this means is that Thompson had to live up to a minimum amount of conservatism to get elected in Tennessee.  Romney on the other hand holds many of the same values but manages to get elected as a red-stater in a massive blue-state.

2.)  Since Thompson was elected as a conservative in a red-state, we are left to judge him on the outside points.  According to Ann Coulter, the split vote on the Clinton investigation was indeed one of those moments and in fact Thompson failed that test.

 The fact that Romney got elected in a blue state holds A LOT of weight.  He is not shy in answering McCain’s shamnesty bill and is excellent on spending. 

At this point, it’s very hard for me to give all of my support to just one of them.  I will make sure to observe in the weeks to come before making my final decision.

It’s all about the little things:


 I absolutely love when Democrats get all “serious” as Alan Colmes did with Ann Coulter when she started laughing at his and Jane Flemings’ assertion that 76% of Americans are against the war.  France, Canada, Australia, England are all prime examples of how liberal the rest of the world is!  While the America-hating left goes around spouting their phony concerns about the rest of the world hating us (trust me nobody could hate America as much as liberals do), they seem to keep forgetting that the rest of the world are electing conservative leaders! 

 Now, after the Democrats (the same Democrats that gained control of both houses almost a half-year ago) have sold out their lunatic-base, we can point out that apparently these stupid-phony polls that nutball liberals like Rosie O’Donnell keep yapping about are INACCURATE.  Democrats’ votes in the House and Senate, and ACTUAL elections all over the world are what we like to call true and OBJECTIVE evidence of the nation’s AND world’s opinion on security and conservatism.

Say, can we get Hillary and Obama to make statements this week condemning the same bill that the Democrats passed this week?  That may be too much to ask, I suppose.

Just looking at how unhappy Jane Fleming and Alan Colmes look is good enough for me.  They sound like such sore-losers when Coulter consistently giggles throughout the debate.