Did you ever wonder why the only things that Barack Obama talks about are “hope”, “unity” and “change” and “unity”, “change” and “hope” and “change”, “hope” and “unity”? And pretty much nothing else, much less anything to do with his positions on any issues or policies. It is probably, because he is hiding his true radical background.
The man is a complete and utter fraud and a brilliant liar. He is playing the ignorant American people for fools. Absolute, complete and utter fools.
Why do I say this? Well, do any of you even know about Barack Obama’s relationship with the sharia supporting Raila Odinga in Kenya? Do any of you even know what is going on in Kenya? (heck, can any of you even, like such as, find Kenya on a map?) The Muslim violence? The efforts to institute Islamic sharia law and Obama’s support of it?
Yeah, I didn’t think so. And neither do 99% of Americans, I bet.
You may want to start with Googling “Barack Obama Odinga Kenya Sharia” and read up. Or you can simply start here:
The Spectator: The Kenyan Jihad
For years, Kenya has been subjected to creeping Islamisation and jihadi violence by elements within the country’s ten per cent Muslims against the Christian majority. Yet unaccountably there was no mention of this key fact in the media coverage of the post-election violence. Well, fancy!
In the Christian Post, this article, (which was picked up by Stephen Pollard) written before the disputed election which led to the violence, put events in a rather more accurate context. Raila Odinga, it said, who was then the current presidential frontrunner, had promised to implement strict Islamic Sharia law if he received the Muslim vote and was elected president. Odinga had signed a secret memorandum of understanding with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Leaders Forum, in which Odinga had allegedly stated his intention, if elected, to
‘within six months, rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions’.
The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Odinga
‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law for all Kenyans.’
Anyone care to explain why “Christian” Barack Obama is supporting an Islamic sharia and jihad supporting Muslim in Kenya? Hmmm?
Obama and his paternal 1st cousin Odinga, wanted to bring the whole of Kenya under Sharia law. Obama campaigned for Odinga in August of 2006, just before he filed with the US Federal Elections Commission for his presidential candidacy.
The idea was simply to have the Luo tribe, mostly Muslims, to take over Kenya from the inheritors of colonial power, the Kikuyu, and bring the country under Sharia law, kick out the Western investors in the nation that had made it one of the most stable nations in Africa, and supplant those Western investors with wealthy Arab oil money. It all failed. Then Odinga yelled election fraud, and put his Luo Islamofascists into the streets of Nairobi to “protest” by murdering, raping and maiming Kikuyu people, including the recent burning alive of a church full of Christians.
If Obama and Odinga had succeeded, the next step in the plan would be for president Obama to help Odinga consolidate his power over Kenya by international recognition and trade. That will NOT happen. Obama wanted to expand Islamofascism, and annex Kenya to Somalia and the Sudan in an Islamofascist axis.
It now makes complete sense that Barack Obama would be part of an Afrocentric, racist and anti-semitic “Christian” church in Chicago and align himself with the radical Islamist Louis Farrakhan. His loyalties are with Africa and Islam, not the United States.
And now look at this on Atlas Shrugs which, after railing at the media for failing to report what is actually going on in Kenya, makes the following cl..
Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a ‘close personal friendship’ with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi: Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s ‘stooge.’
Oh dear. Maybe this is what Obama means by being the candidate of ‘change’.
Atlas Shrugs: Kenya, Islam and Obama Hussein
Atlas Shrugs: Obama Odinga Atlas Sightings
Israel National News: Obama, the Muslim Thing, And Why It Matters
Free Republic: Barack Obama’s Involvement in Kenyan Politics
Discover the Networks: Barack Hussein Obama
AJacksonian: Odinga, Obama and the lack of courage
[ ... ] So, when a man like Raila Odinga is linked with Abdulkader al Bakri, you are not making a minor connection, but one directly into al Qaeda. [ ... ]
Then there is Raila Odinga’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Moslems in Kenya to turn the Nation into an Islamic State. Here is an excerpt from that agreement (via Wikileaks) and thanks to Pamela where I am cribbing this from:
b) Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.
c) With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.
g) Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions."]
The entire document is really quite an eye-opener, but the import of it is most chilling, considering the connections to Al Bakri and Kaddafy. Add that in with suspicious assassins at hand and one really does start to wonder just what is up with Raila Odinga.
A quick recap on Raila Odinga:
-Son of a former leader Oginga Odinga
-Utilizing a position of power to enrich his family business
-Utilizing a position of power to get contacts with a Saudi backer of al Qaeda
-Utilizing a position of power to get contacts with the Libyan leader Mohammar Gaddafy
-Utilizing a position of power to assure himself of petty luxuries, junkets and spending time with the rich and powerful across the globe
-Seeking to influence the constitutional drafting committee to ensure that the Prime Minister under the revised constitution will be more powerful than the President
-Feeling “owed” the Prime Minister’s position
-Signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Muslim population (roughly 10% of Kenyan’s are Muslim) to shift Kenya towards Islam and becoming an Islamic state.
-Utilizing his contacts to bring in political advisor Dick Morris
-And close association with US Senator Barack Obama
So, to sum it up: Mr. Odinga feels ‘entitled’ to be Prime Minister of Kenya so as to turn it into a Sharia law following Islamic State.
Given that one wonders why Barack Obama decided to take sides in the Kenyan problems, beyond his heritage there and talks with Raila Odinga who considers Obama to be a friend.
That article is long, but very comprehensive. I suggest you take the time to read it all and educate yourself with the radical Muslims that Barack Obama supports. Especially when those radical Muslims have links to al Qaeda, thus linking Barack Obama himself to al Qaeda.
Wake up, people. Barack Obama is an Islamic wolf in sheep’s clothing. Wake your fellow Americans up to this fact before it is too late.
Also, ask yourself why the mass media drives Republicans out of office for their toe tapping in bathrooms, but has done nothing with regards to asking Barack Obama about his relationship with a Kenyan politician who is working to instill Islamic sharia law and supports jihad and al Qaeda.
And then ask yourself why you are wasting your time “debating” with leftists online and competing for “FIRST!”s on blogs, instead of educating and informing yourself about these matters. It is only the future of your country that is at stake…
Many pundits defending John McCain are now taking “he’s at least better than Obama/Clinton” line. While I disagree with that and see not much difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I also think this argument is completely short-sighted and completely unfocused on all of John McCain’s liberal policy positions that will destroy this country much more than any terrorist attack ever could.
Here is my response to Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive in his call for Conservatives to get over their criticism of John McCain and support him solely to keep Obama or Clinton out of the White House: President McCain or President Obama?
Not voting for McCain. Ever.
‘Be careful what you wish for”, folks. I see a reverse Jimmy Carter scenario coming.
Jimmy Carter wrecked the country for 4 years and ushered in arguably the nation’s most conservative President in history and 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. I see the same thing happening in reverse if John McCain wins the Presidency. 4 years of his liberal policies messing up this country, from his anti-free speech laws to his big government global warming crap to his big government destroy the nation amensty nonsense to his calling any Republican/Conservative who disagrees with his policies “bigots”, “racists” or “foolish” (and continuing to stick his finger in our eyes and giving us a nice big FU and STFU for 4 years) thereby pissing off the conservative movement/base even more than he has over the past 7 years all the while cozying up to his fellow liberals in the Democrat Party and the mass media.
Not to mention not giving us good Justices, since he will never nominate (1) anyone who will declare McCain-Feingold un-Constitutional and (2) anyone the liberals in the Senate deem unworthy (remember Gang of 14 which McCain led, based on his reasoning that the Constitution stated that the President needed to consult with Congress before nominating a Justice in order to gain their approval first, when it says nothing of the sort). This should be of considerable interest to you, Uncle Jimbo, considering that McCain-Feingold was going to affect bloggers with regards to the F.E.C. You are a part of Pajamas Media, are you not? How do you like the prospect of getting the permission from the FEC before you can talk about anything political on a blog? Sound like fun?
Or how about the Fairness Doctrine? You really think John McCain would be against that? The liberal Congress will be working to bring that back and you can bet your straight talkin’ ass that McCain would be all in favor of that to shut up all his detractors in talk radio. He would absolutely looooooove to stick it to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and the rest who have called him out on his liberal policies and especially his Amnesty bill.
So, let’s recap… what do we get with a McCain Presidency.
* Big government program with global warming legislation. The global warming programs serve to continue to destroy the auto industry in which I work with more ridiculous environmental regulations and taxes. The global warming programs also serve to increase government control over our lives, like the government controlled theromstat program they have in California and the banning of flourescent light bulbs. Then we have higher taxes to pay for all this big government nonsense.
* No good justices to the Supreme Court, since he will not appoint anyone who disagrees with McCain-Feingold
* Probable expansion of McCain-Feingold to include political bloggers in the efforts to shut them up in their criticism of government
* Likely efforts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to shut up all his opposition, since liberals do not like the free exchange of ideas
* And last, but not least, the biggest big government economic program in history with amnesty for illegal aliens, with no border enforcement and no enforcement of any laws that have been on the books since at least 1986, which haven’t been enforced since then and never will, because the government establishment wants it that way.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget that if you disagree with any of these things by McCain, he’ll call you a racist or a bigot or foolish or tell you to f— off, a–hole.
Yeah, that sounds wonderful to me. Not.
I will be hoping for Romney/Thompson and then writing in Thompson, if McCain gets the nomination. Period.
Again, be careful what you wish for. I see a McCain presidency ending up being the reverse Jimmy Carter effect: 4 years of McCain will wreck the country and then lead to 8 years of the most liberal President and policies in our history. Personally, I’d rather have 4 years of Clinton or Obama now and then see them wreck the country and have the American people wake up and get a conservative back in the White House to fix everything. But hey, if you would rather have 4 years of McCain and then a decade of extreme liberalism after that, go right ahead.
UPDATE at 23:50 EST on 30 JAN 2008: I’m adding some responses I left at Blackfive and my MySpace blog in reply to some commentors:
I am fairly new to politics (started paying attention on 9/12/2001), so I am still hold fast to my convictions and idealism. I became inspired by fellow conservatives over the course of the years following 9/11/2001 and in the 2004 campaign, but have become completely disillusioned with conservatives and politics over the course of the past year+ and during this primary campaign. I am seeing the same people who made fun of Democrat voters in 2004 for running John Kerry based on “electability” and “Anybody But Bush!” now throw their conservative principles and convictions to the wayside to exact the same strategies: “electability” and “Anybody But Hillary/Obama!” It disgusts me.
Personally, from my limited time following politics, I feel that the problem with government is not the politicians, but the American people. Sure the politicians are 99% power hungry scumbags who care nothing for the country, but simply for their own power and fortune. BUT… BUT… why are they allowed to get away with being this way? Because of WE, THE PEOPLE. WE, THE PEOPLE, with our “oh fuck it, they all suck, I’ll just vote for the lesser of two evils” attitude.
If We, the People, would actually stand on conviction and hold to account our elected officials, and stop our bitching and moaning and complaining about government and politicians and actually DO SOMETHING to put an end to it, things would be better. BUT… We, the People, continue on with the “lesser of two evils” attitude and, guess what? The politicians take full advantage of that cynicism, apathy and ignorance.
This is OUR country. If we want things to be different, the Founding Fathers gave us the power to do so. If we don’t see things the way we like it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
The only way to get our government to behave how it should is to become more active and to actually stand on our convictions. And to inspire others to do so as well. Inspire others to get informed, get educated and get engaged in the political process.
If we do that, our country will be much better off. But the first thing that must be dealt with is this cynical, do nothing “lesser of two evils” bitching and complaining attitude most Americans have.
Posted by Michael in MI on 30 Jan 08 Wednesday at 11:26 PM
My reasoning that McCain will be there for 4 years is based on my reverse Jimmy Carter scenario. With a McCain Presidency, we will have had 12 straight years of Republican rule in the White House. In addition to that I see McCain wrecking the country as much as Jimmy Carter did, if not worse. What that happens, the attitude of the American people will be “enough of this failed Republican rule, we need liberal Democrats in office” and we then usher in 8+ years of extreme liberal policies that continue the downward spiral of policies from a McCain Administration.
So that’s where I get my reasoning that McCain would only last 4 years.
If I had the choice between McCain and Ron Paul, I’d write in Thompson.
You know what would throw the political world for a loop? McCain taking on Ron Paul as a VP candidate.
Posted by Michael in MI on 30 Jan 08 Wednesday at 11:30 PM
So John McCain tries to explain that he opposed the Bush Administration Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003, because he wanted cuts in spending along with the tax cuts. Hmmm, the record seems to show otherwise, Mr. Crooked Talk. It seems as though the so-called conservative hero opposed the Bush Administration tax cuts for the same reason the Left did: class warfare, ie the “tax cuts for the rich!” excuse.
Just another one of Mr. Crooked Talk’s lies that he is flaunting in this primary campaign, which gullible, ignorant schmuck voters are falling for, hook, line and sinker. Too bad for the Senator, though, that his record is readily available for all to see, if we bother to check it and call him on his “straight talk[ing]” bullshit. Luckily, Human Events did just that:
Oh yeah, keep in mind that John McCain himself has explicitly stated that he doesn’t have the first damn clue about how the economy works. A man who has spent 25 years in Washington as a legislator, who has voted on countless economic bills, does not have the first damn clue about the economy and is just now brushing up on it, because he wants to be President. 25 years. No economic knowledge. Brilliant.
1. “I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big — it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans — and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. … Gov. Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. …
“I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich.”
–Discussion with media, reported in “Bush, McCain Snip Over Tax Cut Plans,” Los Angeles Times, and “GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,” Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
2. “I have never engaged in class warfare. I am very much in favor of tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans. I’m deeply concerned about a kind of class warfare that’s going on right now. It’s unfortunate. There’s a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it’s unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines.
“I feel very strongly that we ought to have middle-income and lower-income tax cuts, and we’ll be getting into it, I’m sure, later on in this program. Mine are basically comparable to Gov. Bush’s, in some cases far better. But I’m not sure we need to give two-thirds of that tax cut, of that money, to the wealthiest 10% of America.”
–Michigan Republican Debate, Jan. 11, 2000.
3. “I always thought that class warfare was to take away from the rich. I always believed that that was what class warfare was all about. As I said, there are tax breaks and money for the richest in America and the very rich, but I think that it’s clear that there’s a growing gap between rich and poor in America, the haves and the have-nots. And many studies have indicated that, and I think that the people who need it most and need the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that’s what I want to give to them. And at the same time, the greatest benefit that I can give them is to make sure that their Social Security benefits are there. And I also don’t think it’s fair for us to lay a $ 5.6 trillion debt down on future generations of Americans.”
–NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Jan. 16, 2000.
4. “We give the millionaire a $2,000 refund. Gov. Bush gives him $50,000.”
–Quoted in “John McCain: How Straight a Shooter?” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 2000.
5. “There’s one big difference between me and the others — I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”
–McCain campaign commercial, January 2000.
6. “I don’t think Bill Gates needs a tax cut. I think you and your parents do.”
–Michigan State University rally, Feb. 20, 2000.
7. “Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most — lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
“I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.”
–Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.
8. “During the debate on the Senate version of the tax reconciliation bill, I had urged my colleagues that substantial tax relief to middle-income Americans should be our top priority. While I regret that my amendment to cut the top rate by one percent to 38.6% so millions more middle-class Americans would fall into the 15% tax bracket failed on a tie vote, Sen. Grassley did move in that direction in the Senate bill by insisting that the top rate should be cut to only 36%. As a result, I reluctantly voted for the bill but pledged to vote against the conference report should further reductions in the top tax rate be made at the expense of the majority of Americans who are in much greater need of tax relief.
“Unfortunately, the conference report did just that by jettisoning the commendable work both Senators Grassley and Baucus did in crafting a Senate reconciliation bill that provided more tax relief to middle-income Americans. This conference report lowers the top rate cut to 35%, at the cost of delaying, for several years, much needed tax relief for married couples unfairly penalized by our tax code. …
“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”
–Senate floor statement before voting against President Bush’s tax cut, May 26, 2001.
9. “I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20% of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91% of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. …
“We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. … We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account.
“We will need resources to deal with … responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”
–Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
10. MCCAIN: “Shouldn’t we give relief to average citizens who also are double taxed every single day?”
HOST KATIE COURIC: “But, Sen. McCain, if you listen to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and he just appeared on this program, working Americans, the middle-class Americans, under the Bush proposals will get a major break. A family of four making $39,000 a year, according to Mr. Evans, will get a $1,100 tax cut for several years, allowing them to plan their individual budgets. That sounds like something that won’t just simply benefit the wealthy.”
MCCAIN: “Well, I think it will. But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that — as the previous tax cuts — that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans. … A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a — low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”
—NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003.
So there you have it. John McCain did not oppose the tax cuts due to lack of spending cuts. He opposed them on the grounds of class warfare arguments.
Thus, John McCain is blatantly LYING during this campaign. And he knows he is lying, but he is counting on the ignorance of the American voters to get away with it. Scumbag.
I have posted on Barack Obama’s racist, afro-centric so-called “Christian” Church and its ties to radical Islamist group Nation of Islam and radical racist Louis Farrakhan extensively HERE. Now, from Debbie Schlussel comes this expose about the fact that Barack Obama has many other ties to the Nation of Islam on his Presidential campaign.
Here’s an exerpt:
[ ... ] But a former Obama insider says that Obama’s sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs. I have verified that this person–who agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity–held a key position in the Obama campaign. The insider was so close to Senator Obama that they frequently personally discussed and exchanged direct e-mail messages on campaign and policy matters. This person is not connected with the Clintons and is not a disgruntled employee.
The insider says he frequently objected to Mr. Obama’s placement of Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign. When I contacted Miller, now a Chicago real estate agent, to verify whether she was a member of the Nation of Islam and whether she shared Louis Farrakhan’s bigoted views about Jews, she responded, “None of your business! Where are you going with this?” She said her resignation as Obama’s treasurer had nothing to do with her Nation of Islam ties. Then, she hung up.
The Obama insider says he also objected to Obama’s involvement with Jennifer Mason, whom he says is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama’s Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama’s Senate interns. She did not respond to repeated calls for comment.
But it’s not just that he employed these individuals in positions of power in his office, it’s that when the former associate raised objections, he says Mr. Obama’s position was that he saw nothing wrong with the Nation of Islam and didn’t think it was a problem. If true–and the fact that Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position bears that out–Obama’s condemnation of Farrakhan, this month, is phony.
But the insider says there is more to it than that. Obama’s Illinois State Senate district consisted of prime Nation of Islam territory, including Hyde Park, home to Farrakhan’s mansion. It is not possible, Illinois politicos say, to win that district without the blessing of the NOI leader. NOI members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign.
How many Nation of Islam members will work in an Obama White House?
Then, there is the issue of Israel. When Obama first ran for the U.S. Senate, he gave militant responses to the Chicago Jewish News about Israel. Obama denounced Israel’s fence — which he called a “wall” and “barrier to peace” — to keep out terrorists and favored working with Yasser Arafat. When members of the Chicago Jewish community circulated his responses, Obama said that the answers were not his positions, but the work of a low-level intern. He submitted new answers. But that was a lie, the insider says. In fact, they were the work of Obama’s Policy Director, Audra Wilson. Moreover, Obama told the insider that he blamed the Mideast conflict on the Jews:
Barack told me that he felt that Jewish community was too inflexible, and that was why the situation in the Mideast could not be resolved.
This is the man who says in a new campaign ad that Hillary Clinton will say anything but change nothing. Barack Obama will say anything, but change his answers. Palestinian activist and Islamist Ali Abunimah, who was a close friend of Obama’s, attended an Arab fundraiser at which the late Edward Said — plagiarist, fabricator, and prominent PLO/Arafat advisor — was the keynote speaker, and at which the Obamas were notably in attendance. Pictures on Abunimah’s site, posted above, show Obama and wife, Michelle, sitting next to Said and engaging in conversation. Abunimah, in a must-read article, says the Senator has since “changed” his proclaimed views from those he expressed privately, in order to get Jewish donors and votes.
And he has succeeded in spades. Lee Rosenberg a top Illinois official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby is a big Obama donor. Ditto for former national AIPAC official Bob Asher. And Penny Pritzker of the pro-Israel family that owns Hyatt hotels. And there are so many others who have bought in to Obama’s newly pro-Israel views. The insider says Obama pulled the wool over their eyes. [ ... ]
Ms. Schlussel has much more. Go read it all HERE. This guy is an utter fraud who is getting a complete pass by the mass media. It is despicable. The man holds radical views and associates with racists and radical Islamists. He needs to be exposed. Hopefully Hillary Clinton and her campaign are reading about this stuff and attack him with it. He needs to answer for this.
Yes, yes, we all know that John McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) rating is 82.3% (since he never fails to remind us whenever his conservative credentials are called into question). However, did you know that his average rating for the years 1998-2006 is 74%? And did you know that this rating makes him one of the most LIBERAL Republicans in Congress? As Randall Hoven at The American Thinker notes, this would make sense for a Republican Congressman in a northeastern liberal state, but John McCain is representing a mostly Conservative State of Arizona. Did you know that the lifetime rating of Arizona’s other Senator, John Kyl, is 96.9? And half of the other Arizona Congressmen have ratings of 94.7 or higher?
John McCain a Conservative? I think not.
First, a rating of 82.3 is not really that high. It puts Senator McCain in 39th place among senators serving in 2006, the latest year for which the ACU has its ratings posted online. For that most recent year in particular, McCain scored only 65, putting him in 47th place for that year. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), for example, scored 64 and 75, respectively, in 2006.
Generally, McCain has voted less conservatively in more recent years. His average for 1990-97 was 88, but was only 74 for 1998-2006.
[ ... ]
So where did McCain differ from the ACU? The big areas were taxes, campaign finance reform, the environment and, most recently, immigration. There was also a smattering of support for trial lawyers; federal intervention in health, education, safety or voting issues; internationalism; and some social issues. He was more consistently conservative on spending and defense issues.
[ ... ]
Another piece of information from the list above is that many of the votes were close. In one third of these votes, a swing of only two senators would have changed the outcome. In over two thirds, a swing of ten senators would have changed the outcome. As someone remarked, McCain is like a baseball player who gets all his hits after two outs and no one on base, and all his outs with men in scoring position.
As might be expected, ACU ratings essentially reflect party affiliation. At the halfway point, ranking 50th, we have Richard Shelby (R-AL, formerly D-AL) with a lifetime score of 74.2. But Robert Byrd (D-WV) ranks just slightly lower at 58th, with a score of only 29.6. By the time you get to 66th place, all scores are below 20.
What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)
How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction? [ ... ]
So, in summation, what do we have from the current John McCain. No, not the Vietnam war hero John McCain of 30 years ago. Not the “lifetime 82.3% ACU rating” John McCain. No, I’m talking about the John McCain of the last 10 years. That John McCain has
(1) led legislation to take away our free speech
(2) voted against tax cuts
(3) led legislation that would start the biggest government programs in history: global warming legislation and Amnesty for illegal immigration.
So here we have a Congressman who is against free speech, against tax cuts and in favor of growing government in HUGE ways.
Sorry, that is NOT a man who is a Conservative. You can take your “straight talk” and shove it, Senator.