What was missing From Barack Obama’s “Plagiarized” Speech?
Everybody has heard by now about Mrs. Clinton trying to claim that Barack Obama plagiarized parts of a recent speech. She tried to assert that because Obama used lines that a member of his campaign, and good friend, told him to use that it constituted plagiarism. This was a desperate act by a desperate woman.
That is enough defending Obama for one night, I want to get into his speech a little bit with a different angle. I don’t want to focus on the lines that he used from Deval Patrick’s speech, I want to focus on the words he decided not to use from Deval Patrick’s speech.
Here are the lines that Barack Obama used that were taken from Deval Patrick’s speech:
“I have a dream.’ Just words,”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words.
`We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words.”
These were powerful words spoken by powerful men that had the courage of their convictions to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Even if it meant dying for.
But there was another famous line that Deval Patrick used, but Barack Obama decided not to use it for some reason, and here it is:
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
Now, it is true that Deval Patrick never really believed these words, they just sounded good in his speech. Patrick believes in handing out free rides to illegals in the form of free tuition, and the like. But at least he made the pretense that he believed those words.
Barack Obama makes no such pretense, he couldn’t bring himself to utter those words that were uttered by Deval Patrick, and of course JFK before him. He couldn’t even pretend he believes them. Barack Obama is promising to give everything to everyone for free in order to get elected.
The following numbers come from this article that appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
He has pledged $4,000 credits to help pay college tuition, he has promised to rebate the first $500 of Social Security payroll taxes, Obama proposes tax cuts for senior citizens and college students, and $500 for every wage-earner, totaling $80 billion-$85 billion a year. And then there is this $18 billion per year boost in education spending. And on and on it goes.
In today’s Democrat party it is what can you do for me? This is a far cry from JFK’s Democrat party. Somewhere JFK is looking down and wondering whatever became of his party. Somewhere he is frowning.
I just find it funny that everybody, including Hillary Clinton, is focusing on what he said, I find it more troubling when I think about what he didn’t say.
Video: Barack Obama’s Scary National Defense Policy
Here is a video I found of Barack Obama and I had to share it. Obama shares his military plan in this video and it is downright scary. He talks about cutting investments in missile defense systems, and most disturbing to me, talks about slowing the development of future combat systems. He also shares his view that is frightening in it’s naivety of a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
This sounds too much like a return to Bill Clinton’s policy of de-prioritizing the military, and military spending in order to spend more money on social, and welfare programs for the lazy that led to September 11th.
HAT TIP: That Political Blog
“Shame on You” Quote by Hillary Sums up All her Problems
Hillary Clinton’s problem with many Americans, men especially, can be best illustrated by looking at three words she recently spoke to Barack Obama, “shame on you.”
That is her problem right there. That kind of verbal berating as if she is America’s mother. As if she is the one who is always right and we Americans, and her rivals, must be put in place. Her angry rhetoric, and condescension is what drives voters completely away from her.
The fact that she comes across as overbearing is going to be her downfall. When she tries to give an impassioned speech she comes off as shrill and hateful. This is what is turning so many people off about her. She comes off as preachy and lecturing. Adults do not feel as though they need to be lectured to or to be reprimanded like a little child who has accidentally pooped his pants. That is what Hillary represents to many Americans.
I can’t even begin to describe the chill that she sends up and down my spine when you hear her say, “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” It’s like fingers on a chalkboard. You would think that someone who has 35 years of experience would have somewhere along the line learned a little bit about public speaking.
Now, all you feminists might think that I am just being sexist or chauvinistic but that is not the case. You can sit there and say that males need their egos stroked and they need to be told that they are manly, but that is not the problem men have with Hillary. Her problem isn’t that she sounds merely lecturing, it is that she comes across as all knowing and unquestionably right. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION HER!
Barack Obama is simply questioning Hillary Clinton, to which she says, “shame on you.” How dare anybody question her. She knows what is best and someday everyone will realize it. That is her attitude. That is why she is so unlikable. She was trying to sound tough, but she sounds arrogant and condescending.
This is the woman who wants to lead the free world.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
New Hampshire state representative Betty Hall has decided that she will go on a hunger strike until proceedings on President Bush’s impeachment are carried out. This 87 year old, senile Democrat legislator has decided that this issue is the most important issue New Hampshire faces.
“I want the investigation of the Bush administration in Washington to get started,” said Hall, who said U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is sitting on impeachment legislation in the House Judiciary Committee at the behest of Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
“I don’t want to die and I don’t want to hurt my health,” said Hall, “but I need people to understand how important this issue is.”
New Hampshire faces a $50 million budget deficit this year which will balloon to $150 million if liberal governor John Lynch continues his irresponsible spending.
The state education funding is in shambles, and governor Lynch’s plan is sure to add additional taxes that will weaken the middle class even more and force them out of New Hampshire.
New Hampshire residents are seeing individual choices being taken out of their hands and personal freedoms being eroded because the government feels they have to babysit us because they know what is best for us.
The state government is taking parental rights away from the parents and handing them over to the state government.
All of those are real issues that New Hampshire faces, and what does one of our state representatives think is the most important issue? The impeachment of a president over policy disagreements? Since when did differing policies become an impeachable offense? If you want to change policies, you change the president, Betty. You change the president through something called elections, Betty. We have elections every four years, Betty. We have an election this year, Betty.
Betty Hall has also proposed a resolution to debate impeaching President Bush, and VP Dick Cheney, to which New Hampshire GOP Chairman Fercus Cullen released this statement:
“Today’s hearing is another sign that the angry, extreme left-wing has taken over the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Really, do political disagreements over foreign policy rise to the level of impeachment? This is a hyper-partisan resolution, and the fact that it is even seeing the light of day, never mind getting a full public hearing in a House Committee, is a disgrace and an embarrassment. Democrats at the Statehouse are wasting taxpayers’ time and money to make a foolish political point. Will Governor Lynch ever stand up to the angry left wing of his party? Do Jeanne Shaheen, Paul Hodes, and Carol Shea-Porter agree with this impeachment resolution? Their silence signals agreement.”
I just still find it hard to believe that New Hampshire has moved so far to the left that Betty Hall’s hunger strike and resolution won’t be seen as outrageous. I like to think that there is at least a little sanity left in this state and that most of our state representatives realize that New Hampshire faces some real important issues in the upcoming year, and the impeachment of the president is not one of them.
President Bush will be gone in less than one year, can we please move on in this state and try to solve the real problems this state faces?
Read more about this fool here.
Hillary Clinton says Taxpayers Need to Pay More to Help Illegals
Hillary Clinton wants to do more to help communities that are most affected by illegal immigration. Does that mean deporting illegals as they are found? No. As a matter of fact she would “consider” just the opposite. Here is her answer when asked if she would stop immigration raids on homes and businesses:
“I would consider that, except in egregious situations where it would be appropriate to take the actions you’re referring to,” said Clinton.
So how would she help those communities?
“I’d like to see more federal help for communities like Austin and others like Laredo, where I was this morning, that absorb the health care, education, and law enforcement costs,” she said.
She would like to take more of hard working American’s money away from them to help pay the expenses of the illegals. We, as taxpayers, have to pay more for the health-care of people who don’t belong here according to Clinton. Mrs. Clinton says she wants to ensure every American because health-care costs are too high, yet illegals get it for free in the emergency rooms and she wants us to pay more for them. Doesn’t the general public see what is going on here? One of the reasons health-care costs are so high is because illegals get it for free already, somebody has to foot the bill.
Hillary doesn’t think we pay enough for something she thinks costs to much? Does that make any sense?
Read the source article here.
Clinton and Obama Want to Leave the Mexican Border Open
In last week’s Democrat debate both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said that they don’t think the United States should build the 700 foot wall at the Mexican border. This despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans want the wall built.
This is what Clinton said:
“there may be limited places where it would work. But let’s deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.”
Here is Obama:
“This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree,” said Obama. “I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it’s on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.”
I am getting really tired about hearing about this virtual wall. Put up the physical wall first, that is what Americans want. What is so hard to understand about that? We can then use whatever technology you want to monitor the border.
This article then goes on to mention that both Clinton and Obama voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the border fence.
So what is Hillary’s excuse for being for the wall before she was against it?
“I think when both of us voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered,” said Clinton. “But as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.
Typical, blame Bush. She “thought” that the whole wall wouldn’t be built, that only part would be. She voted for the wall but President Bush isn’t correctly using the authority she helped give him. This excuse is basically the same excuse she gave for authorising the use of force in Iraq. Sure, she authorised it, but she didn’t think he would use it?
As for Obama:
“And so I will reverse that policy,” Obama said. “As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that’s going to be the better approach.”
He will stop the fence. But he might build some. Once again Obama can’t be nailed down on a position. Well, other than Bush is wrong. He opposes the wall because Bush authorised it.
The immigration problem in this country is my biggest issue in the upcoming election. I think it goes hand in hand with terrorism, I don’t see how we can fight terrorism around the globe and still leave our borders open, basically inviting terrorists across the border. This is why I can’t in good conscience vote for Clinton, Obama, or McCain for president. All three are so wrong on the immigration problem it is almost criminal what they would do to this country as president.
Did the New York Times do John McCain a favor?
Is it possible that the New York Times did John McCain a favor by running the article about his alleged affair with an intern, I mean a lobbyist? It is no secret the the conservative faction of the Republican party have real problems with John McCain. The media can’t grasp the depth of our contempt and disdain for this man. Conservatives seem willing to turn their backs on the man that turned his back on us, and it is not just Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity pushing their agenda that is doing this to John McCain.
Conservatives in general don’t like this man passionately, and many like myself will not vote for him. But then the New York Times ran a very flimsy story about McCain and suddenly talk show hosts were forced to defend him. Were they defending him because he is a Republican? I think part of it is due to his affiliation. But it has to go deeper than that. A big part of the defence of McCain has to come from the fact that this article appears to be inaccurate and totally false.
Suddenly conservatives were defending him. The New York Times endorsed John McCain even while they were sitting on this story. The Times never had any intention of endorsing him in the general election over a Democrat. The fact is that the media wanted McCain to win the nomination all the while knowing they were sitting on a story they hoped would bring him down. Conservative radio hosts, who knew this was coming, naturally went on the attack against the liberal media, regardless of the fact that they oppose John McCain. Conservatives in general may also jump to his side to defend him based on the fact that they are tired of the bias in the media and are ready once again to fight.
My answer to the question is yes. I think that by trying to take down a Republican candidate that conservatives aren’t fond of actually helped McCain to gather more of their support as conservatives may hold an even greater resentment towards the liberal media.
Is the Primary System Flawed?
As I sit here in New Hampshire, and my primary vote has long since passed, and I watch the rest of the primaries play out, I am left asking myself if the primary system is flawed.
Every four years the New Hampshire primary comes under attack by other states who try to become first in the nation primary states. When I see my state come under attack for not being diverse enough, or not being representative of the rest of the country, I get defensive. Hey, if anyone is going to bash my state it’s going to be me. I live here, I reserve the right to criticize at will. But when the attacks come from outside, I have always rallied around the idea that New Hampshire should remain the first in the nation primary. In defense of New Hampshire being first, I rationalize it by saying we are a small state with few delegates, in the overall scheme of things New Hampshire’s primary is really just a litmus test of sorts.
I am now beginning to wonder if the primary system is seriously flawed. I am not just saying this because New Hampshire helped to propel the worst possible Republican candidate to the nomination, well, maybe I am, I don’t know. But as I have been surfing through blogs I have seen several people complaining about the primaries, and how their vote doesn’t mean anything.
At first I laughed this off as sour grapes, of course their votes have meaning, but as I started to think about it these people do have a point. In New Hampshire I had the choice between six Republican candidates. I could chose between every candidate who declared they were running for president. I am one of a small minority of people in the country who can claim that.
Does that sound like a fair way to elect a nominee for president?
Since I cast my vote, millions of Americans have headed to the polls unable to vote for their first choice. Millions of Americans have had to vote for their second, third, or even fourth choice for president. I can’t help but start to think that there has to be a better way.
Republican voters now really have no say in the election because John McCain has basically sewn it up, so what is the point for those who oppose him? The only accomplishment they have is knowing that they can cast a protest vote against him. It may make them feel better, but it doesn’t accomplish anything.
I don’t know what the alternative is, perhaps a national primary day wouldn’t be such a bad idea. The only problem I see with a national primary would be if it was held to early, thus creating a general election cycle that was too long. If the national primary was held shortly before the conventions it may work.
I love the drama of the primaries. I love watching the ebbs and flows, the ups and downs. I love watching the candidates gain and lose momentum while they battle for the right to lead the greatest country on earth. But I have to wonder, would I love it so much if the candidate I wanted to vote for dropped out before I ever got a chance to cast my vote for him?
Probably not.
All Hail John Murtha, the King of Pork!
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the Democrat’s promises during the 2006 election to reign in out of control spending? The answer to that is, YES. So how have they fared with this promise? Not so well evidently.
John Murtha ( Democrat, Pennsylvania) was named by a taxpayer watchdog group called Citizens Against Government Waste as this year’s “Porker of the Year” award winner. Congratulations are in order for John Murtha, as this was a long and hard fought battle, but he managed to outspend all other representatives on his way to being the most wasteful spender of all.
In FY 2008, which began last October, Murtha secured 72 earmarks worth $149.2 million
Here is the official announcement from CAGW:
“For flouting the rules and playing games with reform, while filing spending bills with pork and arrogantly threatening anyone that challenges his authority, Rep. Jack Murtha is the 2007 Porker of the Year,”
“Rep. Jack Murtha has long been known inside the Beltway for using threats, power plays, and backroom deals to control spending decisions,”
“There is an area of the House floor known as ‘Murtha’s corner,’ where the legendary appropriator dispenses earmarks. The overwhelming vote for Porker of the Year vote shows that his shameful behavior is attracting attention throughout the country,” it added.
Another broken promise by the Democrats and their do nothing congress that was sent to Washington in 2006 to change Washington’s ways. Instead they have succumbed to the party insiders as most THINKING voters knew they would. There was never any way that the new members of congress would buck the party insiders and still be supported by those same insiders when their re-election came up.
Read my source material here
New York Times Attacks John McCain, Now he Needs Our Help
Republicans have nominated John McCain as their candidate for president. Many conservatives are not happy about this choice, but we have been told we must fall in line. Where else could we go? We have no other choice than to hold our collective noses and vote for the man who has repeatedly stabbed conservatives in the back.
Now that John McAmnesty has gotten the Republican nomination the mainstream media has begun to turn on him. This was very predictable, they loved Juan McCain when he was opposing president Bush, but now that he is just another evil Republican and has won the Republican nomination he must be brought down.
This is where I would normally begin my defence of John McCain. As the candidate chosen by Republicans to lead the party for the next four years I would write a scathing post about how this is nothing more than a hit-job on a conservative by the liberal media. But John McCain isn’t a conservative, and I do not support him.
What comes around, goes around. For the last eight years Juan McAmnesty has opposed the president on every single important issue. I was forced to listen to his bullshit for all these years and I was made to feel guilty about opposing him because he is a war hero. Not any more. John McCain consistently voted against beliefs that I firmly held and once he became the nominee I had to endure the Republican party telling me to suck it up and vote for McCain because there was no other viable option. I find this arrogance condescending, despicable, reprehensible, and unforgivable.
The media has predictably turned against John McCain now that he is no longer just a pawn in the chess game known as Bush-bashing, he is actually the party’s nominee for president. He is no longer the lovable maverick of the Republican party to the media, he is now the enemy.
The tables have turned. John McCain is under attack by the liberal media, it is now time for us conservatives to stand up and defend our candidate. But you know what? I WON’T!
John McCain deserves this, I am happy it is happening to him. You reap what you sow, and by hopping in bed with the Democrats and the media he is getting what he deserves. I don’t even care if the allegations against him are true or false, he abandoned me when the Republicans needed him most, and now I am abandoning him when he needs me most.
Turnabout is fair play, payback is a bitch. John McCain, you are on your own.
