Obama on Christians: “We Have to Reach out to People We Don’t Like”
I first heard about this on Rush’s show today. Barack Obama appeared on Meet The Press, and was asked the following question:
Do you believe homosexuality is a curse? Do you believe it’s something that you are born gay or that you can change your behavior?”
To which Obama answered the following:
I do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice, and so I disagree with Reverend McClurkin, but understand, Tim, part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don’t agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile, we haven’t been reaching out to them, and I think that if we’re going to make significant progress on critical issues that we face, whether it’s education, or health care, or energy, or our foreign policy in this country, we’ve got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don’t like (pause) or just talk to people we like, or people that we agree with on every single issue
As the caller to Rush’s show pointed out, Obama started talking about Democrats and how they as a whole view Christians as hostile, he then goes on to say WE, meaning the Democrats, have to reach out to people WE don’t like. He has just said that Democrats don’t like Christians. Democrats don’t like Christians, but as president he will reach out to them? When you hear the audio clip, which I don’t have, you can clearly hear him pause and stutter after he used the words “don’t like” as if he knew he just screwed up. He probably just slipped up, but the question remains, does he really believe what he said? Or did he just use the wrong words to express what he meant?
We’ve all heard the old phrase “many a true word is spoken in jest”, well in this case I believe that Obama let it slip how he actually feels about Christians. Does the whole Democrat party feel this way, as Obama appears to suggest? I don’t think so. However all of their social views are opposite of Christian values so maybe privately many of them do.
Anti-War Movies Flop at the Box Office
With the latest anti-war movie, Lions For Lambs, flopping at the box office I thought I would discuss this a little bit. There have been a few anti-war, anti-American films released recently and it appears as though none of them have done well. But there are more due to be released in the near future. Hollywood just doesn’t get it. They will continue to saturate the market with these films until they get one right. They will never get one right though, because they are all anti-war propaganda movies and the movie goers don’t want that.
“These movies have to be entertaining,” Harris told AFP. “You can’t just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.
“That’s what happened with ‘Rendition’ and it has been a disaster,” he said.
People on the whole do not want to go to a movie and hear how bad America is. This whole idea of making anti-war movies DURING a war in unprecedented, even during Vietnam there were no anti-war movies until after the war. Hollywood had the decency to at least wait until our soldiers were out of harms way. Not any more though, they just couldn’t wait to start bashing America.
This is how Lions For Lambs fared in it’s opening weekend:
even with a very moderate budget of $35 million, the political polemic was killed by moviegoers and reviewers alike this weekend, opening to a paltry $6.5 million from 2,215 theaters with an anemic per screen average as well. Even with only a 92-minute running time, the pic even fell far short of the studio’s rock-bottom expectations of $8 million.
The film got some of the worst reviews ever for a prestige project like this — only 27% positive according to Rotten Tomatoes, and Redford’s direction was roundly criticized as was the talky script that played like a stage production.
So why does Hollywood continue to make these movies with the dismal numbers they are drawing? The answer may be quite disturbing. While listening to a local talk show the other day I heard a theory about this. Michael Graham was interviewing a guest, I think it was Jonah Goldberg, but I am not sure. That was the question that was asked and the answer given by Goldberg was along the line of this, I don’t have the exact quote. While anti-war, blame America movies don’t play well in America, Hollywood is marketing aggressively in Europe, the American movie industry is more of an international market now and these movies will play well over there.
Just think about that. We have men and women overseas risking their lives to defend this country and Hollywood is going to market anti-American propaganda to Europe while these people are still fighting. I find this extremely offensive. This is actually very irresponsible but I don’t find it surprising given the character of the people involved.
They are just pushing their agenda without regard to who may be hurt by this. It is appalling.
You can read about Hollywood’s war movies and their non success in America here and here.
Video Tributes for our Veterans
I can’t put into words how much I want to say thank you to all those who have served this country so hopefully these videos I found can do it for me.
Thank you. Happy Veteran’s Day.
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Planted Questions at an Iowa Event
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Part of what makes the New Hampshire primary great, at least in the eyes of us New Hampshirites, is the fact that the candidates can be up close and personal. Many events are held all over the state where there is an intimate setting and voters can really get to ask candidates anything. It helps to git voters to know the candidates better than perhaps you can in a larger state. From what I understand, Iowa is the same way. So when Hillary Clinton goes into Iowa and really connects with an intimate crowd in a one-on-one situation that is totally spontaneous, uh what- oh, it appears as though her meetings weren’t quite as spontaneous as we were led to believe.
After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.
I seem to remember something like this happening to President Bush a couple of years ago. I can’t quite remember the details, but wasn’t he seen on video rehearsing answers to an event that was supposed to be spontaneous? Perhaps someone out there can fill me in on those details. I do remember that a huge deal was made out of it by the media though. Now the media darling, Hillary Clinton is exposed for putting plants in her audience, I can’t wait to see the media react to this. It goes without saying that the media hasn’t reacted to this. It has been swept under the rug by the media, never to be heard again. However, two of the other Democrat candidates have come out against this practice.
The practice of planting audience members to ask specific questions does not appear to be a common practice, or at least not a politically acceptable one. “Our campaign does not plant questions,” said Lauren Rose, Communications Director for Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign. When asked what she would think of other campaigns who did plant audience members, Rose said, “I think campaigns should give Iowa caucus-goers the chance to ask the questions they want.”
When asked if the John Edwards campaign employed such practices, Jenni Lee, Edwards’s Iowa Press Secretary said, “No, they ask whatever they want.”
But Mrs. Clinton is just a girl, stop piling on her, stop picking on a girl. You mean, evil Democrats, you are no better than Republicans. That was the strategy Hillary first tried to use after her disastrous debate the other day. Why not play the gender card here also.
Did the Hillary campaign deny the charges, you decide:
But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions.
But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.”
“[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said.
That doesn’t sound like a denial to me, It sounds like someone hedging their bets. Stay tuned, I’m sure someone will come out and clarify Hillary Clinton’s position on this. They always do. They always have to. Perhaps she should answer a question directly, then there would be no need to clarify.
Read the article this post was based on here.
Congress Looks for a Major Cigarette Tax Increase
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
Cross posted on Political Grind
The Democrat congress is now attempting to pass a tax increase that will disproportionately affect the poor. I am talking about a significant increase on the federal tax on cigarettes.
House and Senate negotiators are trying to craft a veto-proof version of the bill. President Bush says he would veto it because it calls for a 61 cents-per-pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, taking it to $1.
What smokers will be hurt the most by this tax? Poor smokers of course. The group liberal Democrats are supposedly trying to help. Do you think Sean Penn will be affected by this tax? I don’t think so. The average American smoker will also be hurt by this. I am so sick and tired of Democrats trying to say they represent the middle class only to raise our taxes. While the cigarette tax doesn’t affect me, as a non-smoker, except for an occasional cigar, once the doorway to taxes is open, more are sure to follow. Remember the bridge collapse and how liberals used that as an excuse to raise gas taxes? Who does that affect the most? Middle class and poor, that’s who. These people are frauds.
We need to stand up against this taxation now before it is too late. Currently the president has the votes so that his veto of this tax increase will not be over-ridden, but how long will that last. This is a sign of what’s to come if in the 2008 election we send a Democrat to the white-house with a larger majority than they already have.
A new Democrat president may start with a politically correct tax like a cigarette tax, but they won’t stop there. You can guarantee an increase in the gas tax next. Then what follows will be anyone’s guess. I’m sure alcohol will face taxation, hell we will be taxed for the air we breathe in order to stop global warming. Remember this when you go to the polls next year. Think about this before you pull that lever. For if you do not, remember you have been warned.
New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg is Cosponsoring a Resolution Condemning Driver’s Licenses for Illegals
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
I know how ludicrous it sounds that we actually have to have the senate vote on a resolution such as this, but that is the world we live in today. If you break the law you are rewarded for it. New Hampshire senator Judd Gregg has stepped up on the issue of handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and is cosponsoring a bill condemning the proposed practice.
“Like most Americans, I believe common sense would dictate that someone who is here illegally should not be allowed to obtain a driver’s license. It is irresponsible for states to loosely hand out these documents without checking that the recipients are here lawfully. This poses a national security risk, encourages illegal immigration, and is an affront to our sensibilities about the rule of law. Over the years, I’ve supported legislation to make sure that illegal immigrants cannot obtain driver’s licenses, and I hope this resolution sends a clear message to the states that they must act responsibly.”
77% of Americans oppose handing out driver’s licenses to illegals but that hasn’t stopped New York governor, Elliot Spitzer from trying. It hasn’t stopped Hillary Clinton from saying she understands why Spitzer and other governors would do it. Hillary said she would support handing out drivers licenses to illegals but if they commit a crime they should be deported, forgetting conveniently that the committed a crime by being here in the first place.
It is good to know we have a senator here in New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, who is vehemently opposed to this whole idea. At the same time it is sort of discouraging that we have reached this point in our country. The politically correct, appeasement, everyone is a victim mentality has crept into society to the point that senators have to pass a resolution condemning governors for trying to hand out rights and priveledges reserved for American citizens and legal residents to illegals who don’t belong here, and frankly, are criminals just by being here in the first place.
The founder of The Weather Channel has written an article about global warming that can be read in it’s entirety here. In this article he is not only skeptical of global warming, he calls it an outright scam and a lie.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
There it is in a nutshell. Scientists and politicians in bed together. The scientists claim we are destroying the planet, the government gives them huge grant money and everyone is happy. But why would the government want to give grant money to something they know is a scam? Because they consider it an investment. The return on that investment will come in the form of tax revenue. Believe me, the government is poised to make a killing off of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens.
This is where the problem lies. The debate is over according to Al Gore. Humans are destroying the planet. News outlets are reporting the man made global warming theory as fact, and the most gullible of all, our children, are being taught by other environmentally gullible teachers that we must change our habits of the world as we know it will end.
As John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel goes on to say in his article, I do not oppose environmentalism. What I do oppose is the fact that we are being told America is the biggest polluter in the world and that America is most responsible for destroying the earth. How can it be that America, which has strict environmental laws and restrictions be a bigger contributor to global warming than Mexico or China, countries with very little environmental regulations? I’ll tell you how, in the liberals eyes, America can be responsible, we have more money. More money that can be taken by the government and spent on whatever the hell they want.
I was always of the belief that the whole global warming issue was a hoax to get people willing to accept more taxes as a means to save the planet. Money to me, was always the real hidden agenda of global warming. But there may be an even more sinister ideal at work here behind the scenes. We all know that all the Democrat candidates for president are socialists, that is the debate that is over, Hillary even said, ” we’re going to take things away from you on the behalf of the common good.” If that’s not socialism, I don’t know what is.
So with the knowledge that the Democrats are socialists, and the fact that we are going to be taxed out the ass in the name of global warming, I ask you, as arclightzero mentions in this post, could the real hidden agenda of global warming be socialism?
It is time for us to stand up and be heard on the global warming debate NOW, while we still have a voice.
Republicans in New Hampshire Upbeat After This Weeks Local Elections
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
This week Republicans at the local level in New Hampshire did very well, much to the credit of New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Cullen Fergus. Fergus is now very upbeat about the Republicans chances here in 2008, but is trying to keep it in perspective.
Cullen said he did not want “to overstate what a round of municipal elections means, but certainly there is a lot of encouraging news in yesterday’s results.”
One thing he’s happy about is that the Republican Party showed that it can do the “block-and-tackle” basics of campaigning.
No big deal? Well, consider that in 2006, the GOP had no get-out-the-vote operation to speak of, and paid dearly for it statewide.
“We demonstrated that we still remember how to do that and that we’re back doing it,” Cullen said.
Manchester Republican mayor, Frank Guinta, who was supposedly on the hot seat easily won re-election despite a fiercely negative campaign run against him. Guinta was the man that Fergus Cullen dubbed, the last Republican standing after last year’s blue wave swept over New Hampshire. Much like a sunami, this blue wave has left much destruction and devastation in it’s path and we must start rebuilding NOW by putting Republicans back in charge.
Cullen also credits allot of the Republican presidential candidates who helped including Rudy, Romney, Huckabbee, and Paul. All of these candidates realized that New Hampshire fell in a big was to Democrats last year and recognize the importance of turning New Hampshire around.
After this week’s elections I am beginning to get a little more optimistic about New Hampshire’s future and the upcoming elections. Have New Hampshire voters realized their mistake? Have New Hampshire voters had enough? I don’t know, but I am hoping the elections this week are giving us a hint of what is to come in the 2008 elections. Maybe we are turning the corner.
Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell
After hearing about Ron Paul’s one day internet fundraising effort of $4.3 million dollars, New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen had this to say about Ron Paul:
New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said Paul has the potential to upend the early primaries with a third- or fourth-place finish in the state, above some of the candidates who are expected to be among the top contenders.
“He’s got potential because there is a segment of the Republican electorate that is opposed to the war and is maybe anti-internationalist,” Cullen said.
I have been of the opinion lately that Ron Paul is surging up in the New Hampshire voter’s minds as a viable Republican candidate. The latest New Hampshire poll had Ron Paul in fourth place, the first time he has polled that high here in New Hampshire. I am beginning to wonder if the voters of New Hampshire are so disgruntled with the liberal Democrats that got swept into power in the last disastrous election that they are now looking in the exact opposite direction, hence my perceived surge in the popularity of Ron Paul. I have a feeling he may finish higher than fourth place in the New Hampshire primary.
There is a little precedence for something like this as recently as 1996:
Pat Buchanan used an isolationist message and opposition to international trade deals to win the 1996 Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire.
Pat Buchanan at the time of the 1996 primary was polling very low before he won the New Hampshire primary. Of course he wasn’t able to build this into any type of momentum and lost the nomination to Bob Dole, but it shows us that New Hampshire may return an unexpected result.
As I hinted at earlier, I feel as though New Hampshire voters are fed up with the result of the election of 2006. In 2006, New Hampshire voters gave Democrats control over every branch of state government for the first time in over 100 years. The results have been horrific for the usually independent, small government, non nanny state, able to think for themselves residents of New Hampshire and I feel as though we are ready for a change. I have a feeling that those disenchanted with our liberal governor are beginning to do a 180 and may be ready to vote for someone they feel is a strict constitutionalist.
I sense something happening in New Hampshire, I can’t prove it but I feel it, and I think Ron Paul is going to surprise people here.
Just for the record, I will not be voting for Ron Paul, I am not schilling for Ron Paul, I am just trying to share a feeling that I am getting from New Hampshire voters.
Read the Union Leader article here
