Barack Obama

Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety.  The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".

A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships".  He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".

Of course this is all well and good.  Candidates who expect the votes of any Americans should make an attempt to address their concerns.  The reality however is more blatantly political in that, on the fundamental cultural and moral concerns of evangelicals, he has very little in common with them at all.

The differences are greatest on two fundamental issues: abortion and gay marriage.

On abortion, Obama just became only the second presidential candidate in American history to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood, which referred to him in its announcement as a "passionate advocate" for the right to abortion.

In a speech to the group last July, Obama stated that, "...on this fundamental issue, I will not yield...", and that, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act", (an act that would overturn hundreds of state abortion laws, including those regarding parental notification, and would guarantee public funding for abortion).

A hint as to just how "passionate" he is on the subject, as a state senator in Illinois, he actually opposed legislation, (known as "Born Alive Infant Protection"), that would mandate care for infants who were born alive in spite of attempts at abortion.  Not exactly a mainstream American position, much less for evangelical voters.

As for his views on the most fundamental institution in our society, the family, it gets no better.

He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", opposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

That's "change we can believe in" all right.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

He made his position on state marriage amendments known a few weeks ago in a letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club of San Francisco, saying: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states".

Well, that's pretty clear, right?  At least until his campaign went into spin mode, suggesting that he still opposes gay marriage, but supports gay civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In other words, he's suggesting that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes any attempts to keep it against the law.  Meaning he opposes the right of voters in any state to be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage from being redefined by unelected judges, (as happened in Massachusetts and California).

The truth is that he wants to play the political game of being for something without having to admit it.  Meaning he'll say he's for gay civil unions and domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage and hope nobody points out that it's gay marriage in all but name - so as not to upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters he'll need in a few swing states this November. 

For all the rhetoric of a new kind of politics, it turns out he's really just a repackaged version of the same old cultural liberalism most Americans have rejected for decades.  He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

As the Barack Obama World Tour continues, we're treated to another first.  This time, we have an American presidential candidate, holding what amounts to a campaign rally in a foreign country, and distributing campaign flyers to folks in that country in a foreign language.

Of course I'm talking about the upcoming Obamafest in Berlin, and the fact that it amounts to a campaign rally w/the good people of the Fatherland as props.

I'm quite sure that the over-arching message that the Obama campaign will be pushing as a result of the rally is, "see, the Europeans love OUR guy...they just hate America right now because Bush is President".  And, no doubt, the press will do their best to drive the message home.

Outside the Beltway take a look at polls that show Barry "running away" with the Euro vote.

Meanwhile, the RNC is doing a little counter-programming...running radio ads in Berlin that point out Obama voted against funding for our troops.  Good to see our guys take some initiative. 

***

More: Next Right - Stop the ACLU - Instapundit

This really gets on my nerves:

If anyone could lay claim totheir state's Republican Party, it's Deborah Burstion-Donbraye of Cleveland. The 53-year-old international business consultant is the former outreach director for the Ohio Republican Party, for starters. She helped deliver the swing state to President Bush in his 2004 re-election bid in which he garnered 16 percent of the black vote. ...

During the 2008 primary season, Mrs. Burstion-Donbraye cast her conservative lot with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. She staunchly opposes abortion.

"But there's been an 'Obama' sign on my lawn since Super Tuesday," she readily admits about her unusual support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. ...

Mrs. Burstion-Donbraye can be counted among the growing number of high-profile black Republicans, including Gen. Colin L.Powell, commentator Armstrong Williams and former congressman J.C. Watts, who say they might not vote for the Republican candidate this fall.

These black Republicans are struggling with the historic significance of the Obama candidacy. Their conflict is just one example of the ways in which race will affect the outcome of the general election between Mr. Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

I'm sorry, but if your conservatism is truly that shallow and easily abandoned based on skin color, then everyone has a right to question what you really truly believed to begin with...or what your motivations were for professing those beliefs.

They deserve any derision they receive.

Where does Barack Obama stand on Iraq?  Well, we could just ask him.  But, make sure you take note of the date, time and wind direction if you do!

This great video submission to Youtube.com reminds me so much of the famous quote by John Adams (often paraphrased by Ronald Reagan, as well):

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

John Adams - 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

These multiple statements comically presented in the video should be weighed against the comments made in an interview with CBS News' Laura Logan on Sunday's Face the Nation where he stated he has absolutely no doubts about his foreign policy and Commander-in-chief bona fides.

Logan: Do you have any doubts?

Obama: Never.

Well... If after looking at the Youtube video of Obama's swings on Iraq policy, you're just as confused as I am about his positions, I really don't think you're alone.  At least Obama is certain of his foreign policy stances... as of 2:30 PM, July 21st, 2008.

In an amazingly unbelievable revelation to us all, we have been presented today with evidence that Jesse Jackson may, indeed, be a hypocrite.  As hard as that may be to believe, once the shock wears off, read more at FoxNews.com.

Last week, as Bill O'Reilly was about to broadcast Jesse Jackson's 'hot mic' incident for the first time on 'The O'Reilly Factor', the program's highly rated host stated that there was actually some additional captured audio that, while damaging to Jackson, would not be aired due to it not adding anything to the present story.  I personally witnessed some snickering and doubtful comments about that on some of the more liberally-biased programs and networks in the days following O'Reilly's statement. 

Well, it appears that O'Reilly was being truthful all along.

“I’m not in the business of hurting Jesse Jackson — because it does hurt Jesse Jackson — and I’m not in the business of creating some kind of controversy that’s not relevant to the general subject: one civil rights leader disparaging another over policy. So we held it back. Some weasel leaked it to the Internet,” O’Reilly said.

Once a few internet blogs got hold of the full transcript of Jackson's off-air comments and published them, O'Reilly decided to go ahead and make comment on the additional content of Jackson's rant.

Anyway... Jackson referring to black people as the 'N-Word' in the process of denigrating Barack Obama seems just so rich, does it not? 

Jackson has been vocally critical of others’ use of the N-word, saying it is hurtful to the black community, whether it is used by blacks or whites.

For instance, after a November 2006 rant by “Seinfeld” star Michael Richards during a stand-up routine laden with the N-word, Jackson joined other black leaders to challenge the entertainment industry to stop using the slur. He also called for a boycott of the “Seinfeld” DVD series that was coming out because of Richards’ use of the slur.

“We want to give our ancestors a present,” Jackson said at a news conference at the time. “Dignity over degradation.”

Jackson’s comment came when he was discussing Barack Obama, saying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is “talking down to black people,” and “telling niggers how to behave.”

FOX News aired a portion of the tape last week where Jackson was criticizing Obama because they were deemed newsworthy. O’Reilly said the N-word was not deemed so, because it “did not advance the story in one way, shape or form.”

So, let this be a lesson to all.  Nothing is impossible in this world.  If Jesse Jackson can be a hypocrite, anything can and will happen!

If there is one area of focus that John McCain should be given undeniable praise on, it would be his push for the surge strategy in Iraq.  It was upon adopting his proposed military strategy that we were, finally, able to begin taking control of the situation on the ground. 

Today, McCain called for a similar strategy to be undertaken in Afghanistan.  In doing so, he took the opportunity to also take some swipes at Barack Obama's military strategies, or lack thereof, in the region.  Read more here.

McCain has described Obama's call for withdrawal from Iraq as tantamount to declaring defeat and points to the lower levels of violence in Iraq as evidence that sending additional U.S. troops there has been a successful strategy.

"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards," McCain told a town hall meeting. "It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan."

McCain added: "I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

McCain laid out a blueprint for intensified military efforts in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 14 injured in a militant attack Sunday, the U.S. military's highest death toll there in three years.

As part of his reasoning for this needed change in strategy in Afghanistan, McCain noted the recent regrouping of our enemies in the region - much of which can be attributed to the seasonal nature of their abilities to fight improving following the bitterly cold months where they have been forced to hold up.

"The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive," he said. "From the moment the next president walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions and crucial decisions about Afghanistan."

Three more brigades should be sent to Afghanistan, McCain said, as well as a presidential envoy to deal with countries vying for power in the region.

I have little doubt that the present increase of violence in Afghanistan will once again be quelled to a large degree once the harsher, colder months once again arrive.  The question that remains to be seen, however, is who will be our Commander-in-Chief come next January?  Who will determine the strategy our military leadership should employ come May, 2009 when that next wave of barbarians emerge from their caves?

I wondered how long it would be before we got another dose of how the likes of Jesse Jackson (and other black "leaders") feel about Obama.  Last year we had Jackson saying things like Obama was "acting white", guys like Sharpton indicating that he didn't have "real" black roots, etc..  Well now, thanks to an open mic at Fox News, we've got this from Jackson:

In a shocking blast at Barack Obama that was caught on tape, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, “I wanna cut his nuts out.”

He made the astonishingly vulgar remark as he accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of giving moral lectures to African-Americans.
“See, Barack [has] been talking down to black people . . . I wanna cut his nuts out,” Jackson said.

His whispered comments - accompanied by his hand-miming a cutting motion - were picked up by a live mike before an interview on health care in Fox News Channel’s Chicago studio Sunday.

In an effort to blunt the controversy, Jackson apologized publicly at a news conference before the tape aired last night on Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” show on Fox News Channel.

Also, Jackson had not plans to even admit that it was true (despite being on tape) until he learned Fox planned to air the comments.

Some are saying that this helps Obama...because he's being dissed by Jackson for saying things that should be said to the black community.  But I disagree.  This just reveals what we've already known was there.  Dissention.  Yes, the Jacksons and Sharptons will salute when needed, if just to maintain their credibility, but how hard will they work this fall?  How hard wiill Jesse work the Rainbow-PUSH coalition when it comes to voter turnout for a guy that, should he win, obviates the need for guys like himself and Sharpton?  I don't see it.

In the meantime, Obama's not making his peace treaty with Hillary any easier to maintain...

NEW YORK - It was all part of a careful arrangement: Democrat Barack Obama would get fundraising help from his erstwhile rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in exchange for his help retiring about $10 million of her campaign debt.

But Obama momentarily forgot his part of the deal at a major New York fundraiser Wednesday night, forcing him to retake the stage after he had concluded the event and said goodnight to the audience. ...

The Democratic nominee-in-waiting then wrapped up his speech and thanked the audience, moving to shake hands along a rope line.

After a minute or so, the music was cut short and Obama returned to the stage.

"This is not the speech part, but it is important," he said sheepishly, urging the group to reassemble.

"Senator Clinton still has some debt, and I could have had some debt if I hadn't won. So I know the drill," Obama said, encouraging donors to use the forms under their seats to make a contribution to help her.

"It's very important to us, and obviously Senator Clinton will be grateful as well," Obama said.

Don't think that slight went un-noticed by the Clinton folks.  And don't forget, she's not the only one he has to make happy here, by helping her retire a multi-million dollar debt.  And not just the hold-out Clinton supporters who "just don't like him"...  But he's got to figure out what to do with the Clinton elite.  The folks who've been running the Democrat party's power structure for the past twelve years.  So far, they haven't been trhown a bone and don't have a spot in the Obamasphere.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - Ace 

The U.S. Senate has passed an update to the nation's FISA laws by a margin of 69-28, which finally brings the 30-year-old standards for electronic surveillance into the 21st century. See the story at FoxNews.com.

The new standards that have passed the House and Senate are now being sent on to President Bush for his impending signature.  These updated measures will now give the communications companies - that are a necessity in assisting the government - immunity from being sued by individuals for those efforts to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorists planning to wage war against U.S. citizens within our country and against our troops on foreign soil.

I find it interesting that Barack Obama, in earlier attempts at amending the bill, voted for failed efforts to keep out the immunity for our telecommunications companies. But, when the rubber actually hit the road, this turned out to be just another one of the instances of late where his campaign rhetoric over the past year did not serve his new found political needs to move away from his ultra-liberal views and towards the center.  It's basically a case of him being fine with engaging in all of the self-serving, left-wing chatter he can spew out to the liberal masses when he needs them, but when it actually comes down to going along with sound and vital national security policy, the actual right thing to do is as plain as day.

It really makes you wonder how much longer it will be until those at 'MoveOn' & Company go all out in their support for Ralph Nader?  Obama is clearly aware of the fact that the fringe left is not going to be able to serve him the presidency on a platter - the Democratic nomination was another story.  Their seperation anxiety from Obama must certainly be getting intense right now.  The question is if they can hold out until November.  It is only after he would be elected that he would surely placate them once again.

... after he reversed his position on Iraq policy, that is.  Could this be Election '08's version of 'I reversed my position on Iraq before I was for reversing that position on Iraq'?

In what is turning out to be an almost daily event, Barack Obama announced today that he may have an upcoming policy revision on another major national issue.

Early on Thursday, Obama made statements that left the door open for major alterations in his plans for Iraq in the unfortunate event he happens to become president.

This from Politico.com based on statements from earlier in the day:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.

Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded” to a specific timeline.

Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

It was in that 'second news conference' of the day that Obama had to try to wiggle out of the pickle he was creating for himself with his inconsistencies.  One of the more telling moments of the later news conference came in this exchange between the Democratic nominee and reporters:

Obama: ... I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I did not take facts on the ground into account. Alright?

Reporter: You just said that when you use the phrase "refine policy" that it did not refer to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?

Obama: (Laughs, Scratches his head, thinks a few seconds) - Here's what I will tell you. I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month. And at that pace, we will have our combat troops out in 16 months.

So, how does Obama and his supporters reconcile a 16-month timetable being a "done deal" with his self-admission that he is working blind, having no idea of what is currently going on in Iraq until he is able to meet the military leadership over there on the ground - once he actually gets around to making the trip?

By sticking to his latest news conference position of saying "we will have our combat troops out in 16 months", is he not admitting to being a potential "poor Commander-in-Chief" from his words just two sentences previously stated, admonishing any decision-making before taking "facts on the ground into account"?

As more and more time passes and Obama has more and more position changes, I'm almost feeling sorry for his supporters having to figure out what the talking-point is for the current hour.  Karl Rove puts it well when he simply says that Obama is a candidate that is "unanchored and untethered".  Some "leadership", huh?

Given that we're about to celebrate our Country's birthday, it's fitting to note that a great number of Democrats, in fact half of Obama's supporters, don't support the Constitution "as-is". 

So often conservatives get laughed at when we suggest that Democrats/liberals want to change the Constitution.  Well, now Rasmussen has polling evidence to back up that belief.

Democrats favor minor revisions to the Constitution far more than Republican voters—51% of Barack Obama’s party say that either minor (41%) or major (10%) changes are needed. Just 23% of Republicans see the need for even minor changes. Overall, 76% of Republicans say the document is fine as is. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats agree.

So when we talk about liberal activist judges, re-writing the Constitution from the bench - and the Democrats who support them - now you know where we're coming from.  In other words, liberal judicial activism is more likely to result in changes to how the Constitution is applied by virtue of the fact that most liberals/Democrats support such changes to begin with.