Barack Obama Slams Clarence Thomas for Being Inexperienced?
By now you have heard about what President Obama had to say about Clarence Thomas, but in case you haven’t let me refresh your memory.
“I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution,”
Not a strong enough jurist or thinker? As can be read here this is a lie. But I am not even interested in writing about President Obama being caught in a lie, that has been covered endlessly. The words that he said do not translate on paper as well as how he said them, so I have included the video of what he said. Listen closely as he stumbles to find the right words before he says, ” a strong enough jurist.” I will give you my take after you hear what he said.
I heard him begin to say, ” I don’t think he was an experienced enough jurist.” But he caught himself in mid-word. Listen again if you have to. President Obama came so close to calling Thomas inexperienced before he realized what he was about to say and the fodder this would have provided the right about his own inexperience. Knowing he of all people could not use that word he quickly stumbled upon the word strong. This is priceless.
Obama’s Been Lying About Why he Opposed Protecting Babies Born During an Abortion Attempt
Barack Obama voted “present” while he was a senator on a vote that would have required doctors to administer care to babies who were born during an abortion attempt. This was effectively a “no’ vote. His defence of his position of letting breathing babies die without any attempt to save them was to claim that is was a ploy by “evil” Republicans to overturn Roe vs Wade. The name of this bill is Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It really is incredulous to me that such a bill would even have to be proposed.
Now he is coming under fire and naturally he is being misunderstood. Whenever you question Barack Obama’s position on an issue he considers it a personal attack. We are not allowed to question him.
“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”
Barack Obama is right, someone is lying. And it is he. He claimed that if this born baby was actually called a baby that it would eventually lead to pre born babies being called babies and that would lead to overturning Roe vs Wade. He also claimed that he supported a federal version of this bill because it contained language in it that protected the killing of unborn babies. However one version of the Illinois bill contained virtually the same language as the federal bill yet he still refused to vote on it.
“Nothing in this section,” the added sentence reads, “shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.”
A federal version with that added clause passed Congress unanimously in 2002, with the support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy, among others. Mr. Obama said in 2004 and again on Saturday that he would have supported the federal version.
Finally his campaign came out and admitted that he had in fact had the opportunity to vote on a version of the bill that he claimed didn’t exist. An almost identical bill to the federal bill that he was supposed to have supported did come up for a vote on the state senate floor.
Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate,
There it is, Obama once again “misstated” a position. Why then did he refuse to vote against this bill? He is beholden to the extreme left wing and anything that can be seen as an intrusion on abortion rights can never be accepted. Yet he knows how radical this view is so he is trying to excuse his refusal to vote on the wording of the bill and not his approval of the procedure currently being practiced in his home state.
Some comments to my two previous posts on this issue have bought into the notion that it was just the wording Obama was against (as if that makes it acceptable to let the babies die in the meantime) and that is why Obama refused to vote on the bill. Hell, one blogger even dedicated a whole post to my previous post on this issue, claiming that I was twisting President Obama’s words around. I admit that Barack Obama’s words have been twisted, only it is Obama himself who has been doing the twisting.
Barack Obama got the wording that he wanted in this bill and had a chance to vote on it and he still refused. And that is the truth.
Video: Barack Obama on When Life Begins
The question was simply stated. The question asked “in YOUR opinion” yet Barack Obama refused to answer and tell us his opinion. He said he was pro-choice but refused to say when a baby deserved human rights. He blathered on about whether it was being looked at by a theological or scientific perspective and said he couldn’t answer it with specificity. He couldn’t specifically give an answer to his own position? Why don’t you use the perspective that you would look at the issue from? That would be the way to answer a question that asked for a personal position, not twisting in the wind.
Considering he answered a question about his faith by saying that his faith guides his every decision this bullshit answer to a question directed at HIS personal belief is doubly insulting.
Nancy Pelosi to Offer Bill that Would Allow Offshore Drilling
According to this article it appears as though Nancy Pelosi is ready to offer a bill that will expand offshore oil drilling when the house returns from recess. All the politicians seem to be scrambling to support filing legislation after years of opposing it. John McCain was the first to flip-flop on this issue, followed by President Obama, and now Nancy Pelosi.
Either Nancy Pelosi is feeling pressure from her constituents since she returned home or she is upset by the good press that Republicans have gotten by refusing to stop debating the issue even after Pelosi turned the lights out on them and adjourned the session. Or both.
The timing to me is very suspect, just before the elections Pelosi is going to bring forward a bill that would expand offshore drilling? It leads me to believe that the American people are demanding that congress do something. That includes drilling, a position that the Democrats have opposed for years because of environmental concerns. Funny how environmental concerns are trumped by the desire to stay in office, isn’t it? Suddenly when faced with angry constituents the environment doesn’t seem so important to this group of politicians who are in the back pocket of the environmental groups.
Americans rose up when President Bush, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy tried to grant illegal aliens amnesty and they stopped that bill. Now Americans appear to be doing the same when it comes to oil drilling. It seems the threat of losing power has various former anti-drillers suddenly willing to drill.
It is great to watch what Americans can do when an issue unites the people, or a majority of the people, and demand that the politicians take action. This is just such an issue.
This is a story that I have written about once before an you can read my previous post here. When in the Illinois senate President Obama refused to vote to save the lives of living, breathing babies who survived an attempted abortion. Under the Illinois law these babies were left on the operating table to die while no medical attention was given to them. The babies were then just thrown away like trash. This, simply stated, just isn’t humane. It is barbaric.
This makes me so angry:
The tiny newborn baby made very little noise as he struggled to breathe. He lacked the strength to cry. He had been born four months premature.
“At that age,” says nurse Jill Stanek, “their lungs haven’t matured.”
Stanek is the nurse who found herself cradling this baby in her hands for all of his 45-minute lifetime. He was close to ten inches long and weighed perhaps half a pound. It’s just a guess — no one had weighed or measured him at birth. No happy family had been there to welcome him into the world. No one was trying to save his life now, putting him into an incubator, giving him oxygen or nourishment. He had just been left to die.
If do not see anything wrong with the policy of letting a BORN baby die without administering any medical assistance to try to save it’s life than I just don’t know what has happened to society and the respect for a human life.
There was only one senator that stood up and spoke in opposition of saving these babies lives and guess who it was. President Obama, that’s who.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”
Let me get this straight, the senate tried to define a person as any homo sapien who was born alive and President Obama not only opposed this legislation but spoke against it? First of all I don’t understand how America got to the point in society when you actually have to put into law that any living baby born into the world is a human being, but that is how far we have sunk in this country.
And secondly the fact that someone could actually stand up and oppose defining a living, breathing baby as a human is not only disgusting, it is reprehensible and indefensible. But defend his position he did:
it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
What the fuck? He is opposed to saving a living baby that survived abortion because murder is illegal? The equal protection clause does not allow us to kill a child so we can’t call this dying baby a child? He is so afraid of any restrictions on abortion and the possibility that this bill could lead to tighter regulations on abortion that he finds it more palatable to let babies die on the operating table.
President Obama continues to defend this reprehensible mindset by claiming that is was all part of a conspiracy by Republicans to ban all abortions. That is no excuse, I can’t state firmly enough that these were babies who were born alive and left to die. How can anyone ever think that this is okay? How could anyone ever vote for a man that is this extreme?
How can someone look at a tiny baby, with heart beating, breathing and crying, and refuse to acknowledge that this person is alive? How could someone watch this baby die and wash his hands of it? How did the pro abortion crowd become so powerful that a life is lost just to keep the movement in tact? What kind of a man is President Obama?
If America can put a man like this in officethan I don’t know what kind of country we have become.
Nancy Pelosi is Pissed at Joe Lieberman
Here is what Nancy Pelosi recently said about Joe Lieberman:
You are right. Joe Lieberman has said things that are totally irresponsible when it comes to Barack Obama
Evidently she considers a man who is standing up for his beliefs instead of putting partisan politics first is acting irresponsible. ( I understand that technically Lieberman is an Independent but we all know he is a IINO. He is a democrat, that’s what McCain likes about him.)
President Obama is the candidate of change, the man who will bring us all together, the man who will work in a bi-partisan manner to save Americans from themselves. Yet how can the man who claims he will unite the country actually achieve this if his own party feels it is irresponsible for a party member to not put partisan politics ahead of his own beliefs?
The liberal rhetoric and hypocrisy is on full display here. The rhetoric of working in a bi-partisan manner is shown to be untrue by the speaker herself. Is not what Lieberman doing in his support of John McCain showing bi-partisanship? The Democrats publicly say that they want to work with Republicans yet that is exactly what Lieberman is doing and he is being shunned by Pelosi and other Democrats who are poised to punish Lieberman after the election for his indiscretion of working with a Republican in just the manner Democrats claim that they want to do.
“it will be interesting to see what the leadership in the Senate, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, does (after the election) in terms of Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship of his committee.”
There has been speculation that if Democrats bolster their Senate majority this fall, they could seek payback by stripping Lieberman of the chairmanship.
In truth what the Democrats mean when they talk about bi-partisanship is that they expect Republicans to capitulate to their every whim. That is not bi-partisanship, did the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans when the Republicans extended their majority in 2004? No, they talked about the rights of the minority and fought Republicans every step of the way. There has been no talk of the rights of the majority since the Republicans have been in the majority.
The ironic part of this is the fact that one presidential candidate has worked in a bi-partisan manner in his time in the senate and one has not worked in a bi-partisan manner in his 400 or so days in the senate. President Obama claims that he wants to work with Republicans as president but nothing in his record indicates a willingness to do so. He never has worked with them in the past. Yet John McCain has shown that not only has he worked in a bi-partisan manner, he actually prefers to work with Democrats than Republicans. (Much to my chagrin.)
Nancy Pelosi has shown us that she is more interested in the good of the party than the rhetoric that President Obama has been spewing. Joe Lieberman has been practicing the politics that President Obama has been touting and he is in danger of losing his committee chairmanship because the Democrats have shown us that while they talk a good game they have no intention of backing up their promises.
FCC Says Fairness Doctrine Could be Used to Control Web Content
The FCC commissioner has recently come out and said that if the fairness doctrine is reinstated that it could be used to regulate web content. In other words the fairness doctrine could be used to regulate what private citizens, such as you and I, can and can’t write about every day.
There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”
That is from the FCC commissioner himself, not from some fringe blogger like myself who predicted the same exact scenario here just last week. Here is what I wrote just seven days ago:
we have had numerous Democrats come out and say that the fairness doctrine is something that needs to be re-examined. The fairness doctrine is designed to shut down conservative talk radio and that is why Democrats are in favor of it. So is it so out of character for them to want to go after bloggers next? I don’t think so.
That is the nagging question that has had me thinking for a few weeks before I read this story. If Democrats are ready to try and shut down conservative talk radio, could bloggers be next? It appears that this could really be the case.
Bloggers have no “checks and balances”, there is no editor or fact checker. Someone can simply write whatever they want and it is out there for everyone to read, so if Democrats are so interested in shutting down talk radio it is only natural that they will come after bloggers eventually.
Let us not forget that it was a blogger who took down one of the left’s own in Dan Rather. The left tried to downplay the blogger’s story about the forged documents that Dan Rather used to try to take down a sitting president but they couldn’t. The blogger was right. Democrats haven’t forgotten that lesson and when the time comes I am certain that heavy restrictions and regulations will be imposed on bloggers when the Democrats gain control of every branch of government.
I don’t want to toot my own horn here, yes I do, I wrote about this very idea just last week and now I have been justified. It is a natural progression that bloggers would be next, and here it is from the FCC:
“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”
Just think about this for a minute, the Democrats are ready and willing to infringe on the freedom of speech and of the media by regulating talk radio if they are elected. But it is much worse than that, they will go after you and I. Citizens who are just sitting at home writing our opinions on the government and politics.
There is nothing more un-American that I can think of than stopping everday Americans from expressing their opinions and ideas. As a matter of fact it is unconstitutional. Yet that is what Democrats are poised to do.
Nancy Pelosi Might Allow a Vote on Offshore Drilling
According to this article Nancy Pelosi may now be willing to allow a vote on offshore oil drilling. It seems to me that Democrats and Republicans alike who went home for the Summer recess are hearing very loudly from angry constituents and are now being pressured to change their position on this issue. The American people rose up loudly in protest of John McCain’s illegal alien amnesty bill and stopped a bill that appeared to be destined to become law and now the American people are being heard once again.
Another factor in her decision has to be the “Republican revolt” in the house, in which several Republicans have refused to stop debating the issue of offshore drilling even though the session was called into adjournment by Democrats. I had called this both a publicity stunt and also an effective way to draw attention to an issue that Republicans and Democrats differ on. It appears as if I was right.
While it may have been done as a publicity stunt the effects of it are being felt by Democrats who went on vacation during a time where Americans are worried about energy costs. They are hearing it from constituents who are fed up and who are seeing what the Republicans are doing and may actually agree with it, or at least the idea of calling an emergency session.
It doesn’t appear as if Nancy Pelosi cares enough about the will of the people to call the emergency session but the fact that she may now be willing to allow a vote on offshore drilling tells me that she and other Democrats are taking many phone calls from angry constituents and are going to have to reconsider their positions. Both John McCain and President Obama have already “reconsidered” their position on offshore drilling, for political reasons,and may now be open to offshore drilling.
Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats have called what the Republicans have done since the adjournment of the house session nothing but a hoax and a stunt. Nancy Pelosi has said that she would not respond to it. But the American people want something done and they see what the Republicans have done and are trying to do with the “revolt”. It may be a publicity stunt but it has worked. Enough pressure has been applied between the American people and the Republicans who refused to go home to force Nancy Pelosi to change her position on drilling. Image conscience Democrats will not let themselves be one upped by Republicans. Or will they?
Nancy Pelosi has already promised to let a vote take place on drilling once before and rearranged the house schedule to avoid it. She may do that again, but I think this time it would be fatal.
Video: Barack Obama’s Accomplishments
Below is a video of a state senator and President Obama representative who when questioned about the future president’s legislative accomplishments could not come up with one example. He just kept saying that President Obama inspired people.
Hat tip: Conservatism WIth Heart
Manny Ramirez; an Illustration on What is Wrong With Society
It has been a couple of weeks since Manny Ramirez was traded from the Red Sox to the Dodgers. Let me start off by saying that from a baseball perspective I will miss watching Manny hit. I loved to watch him swing the bat. I was going to write this post whether Manny was traded or not. I offer this disclaimer so that people who think that I am just jumping on him now that he is gone will understand that this is not just a case of kicking somebody on their way out of town. Besides this post is more geared to Manny’s loyalist followers that to Manny himself.
Manny Ramirez has had many baseball transgressions over the years he was in Boston, from the lack of running out ground balls to turning a single into a double while in left field, or a double into a single by not hustling out of the box. All of these transgressions where laughed at by Boston fans as “Manny being Manny.” I will be the first to admit that many of them were comical. Some of them were aggravating, but never were they malevolent.
Some Boston sports talk show hosts didn’t find all of these transgressions comical and often wondered when would the fans think that Manny went too far. Yet the fans vehemently defended him because he could hit.
But there comes a time when certain “issues” are not so comical. In early June Manny Ramirez punched his teammate, Kevin Youkilis, in the head (in the dugout). Some sports radio talk show hosts fumed, while fans and other talk show hosts defended him. Most fans justified this action by saying that is probably happens all the time in the clubhouse but that fans just don’t see it. It’s just Manny being Manny. HAHAHA just look at the funny baseball player.
In late June Manny Ramirez became angered at Jack McCormick, a Red Sox employee, because McCormick wasn’t able to come up with 16 tickets to a sold out Red Sox road game just hours before game time. Manny was so furious with McCormick that he threw him to the ground. Jack McCormick is in his sixties, yet Manny pushed him hard enough to knock him to the ground because he felt McCormick wasn’t doing his job. Now Manny was being malevolent and this behavior should never have been tolerated by Red Sox fans, but it was.
Again some talk show hosts fumed while others said “stuff like this happens all the time”, fans agreed with the latter philosophy. Shit like this happens all the time according to the most loyal Ramirez defenders. It’s just Manny being Manny. Ramirez loyalists also defended him by saying that nobody knew the whole story.
Critical sports talk show hosts began to ask the question, “what would it take for fans to turn on Ramirez if punching a teammate and pushing a sixty year old man to the ground didn’t?”
It didn’t take us long to find out. The week before the trade, Manny faked an injury and sat out of the first Red Sox- Yankees game in a three game series. This began to draw the ire of the fans. Less than a week later in the seventh inning of a game in which the Red Sox were being no hit Manny didn’t hustle out of the box on a grounder that would have been a hit with just a little bit of hustle. The boos reigned down.
This whole sequence of events has had me thinking over the last few weeks about where we stand as a society. The last transgression that ownership was willing to put up with was Manny pushing down a senior citizen yet the fans still supported him. When did they turn on him? Not until he sinned by missing a Yankees game.
Fans didn’t give a damn about the fact that Manny assaulted a sixty year old man, a crime that would have led to charges if he were not a baseball player. This was the act of a thug, a punk, and an ungrateful piece of shit. But just let him sit out a Yankees game or not try to break up a no-hitter and the fans can’t overlook that.
Where have we gone wrong as a society when we are willing to overlook an assault because a man can hit a baseball but are unwilling to forgive someone for missing a game against an arch rival? What is a bigger sin, a sin against baseball or a sin against another human being?
I find it laughable, if not sad, that people are willing to overlook a baseball player assaulting a senior citizen, but not a baseball transgression. This seems to me to be misplaced priorities at best and misguided morals at worse. It seems as though the whole idea of right and wrong is being lost on the American people. The idea that a behavior is just misunderstood and therefor not necessarily bad has crept into the minds of the American people as liberalism spreads the “no consequences for your actions” mindset.
There was a time when assaulting a senior citizen would have been unthinkable as would be defending and routing for the man who committed the crime. That time has passed us by as liberalism has taken away all judgement of right and wrong. As a society of morals we are losing ground and this is just one case that I chose to try to illustrate this.
Manny committed an act that should not have been overlooked or defended by Red Sox fans, he committed a violent act against another person, that is much, much worse than anything he ever did on the baseball field (even taking a piss inside the wall and not getting back on the field in time for the first pitch) yet it has been overlooked and defended.
After all, it’s just Manny being Manny.
