Barack Hussein Obama has a cult-like following. He will increase taxes and place further burdens on an already struggling economy. He will constantly be raising the minimum wage and representing a threat to drive small industry owners out of business. Obama stands for abortion-on-demand, he is pro-gay on almost everything and he'll likely infringe on the 2nd Amendment right of honest citizens to protect themselves and their families. Please refer to my following articles regarding these topics:
"7 Reasons Why Minimum Wage Harms the Poor"
"Convenience Abortion: A 'Choice' for Wrongdoing"
"Are we Ready for Gay Marriage in Society?"
"A Well Regulated Militia: The Military or the People?"
The liberal media are remaining silent on many of Obama's liberal positions, because they know it's strategically correct to do so. They want him to be the next President very badly.
I was talking to my friend, Stuart, a conservative analyst, yesterday. He had some interesting thoughts about all of this, so I asked him to do an interview. He agreed, and it is my pleasure to introduce him at this time.
M: Stuart, welcome!
S: Thanks!
M: My first question is: "Why do you believe that certain people love Obama, and why are they so caught up with him?"
S: It's actually a fundamental problem that goes very deep. There's a segment of the population that lives in a perpetual state of denial and they reject everything real and factual. This has been going on for decades. We have always regarded them as harmless liberals, but they're far more treacherous than that. They're actually "anti-reality" people. Instead of taking responsibility for their own lives, behavior and actions, they blame everyone who has understanding and exposes them for what they are.
M: Okay, so you mean they see something wrong with the people who see something wrong with them?
S: Absolutely; we are their worst nightmare. The people who love them and agree with them are their friends and saviors. Your Hillary's and Obama's are actually like messiahs to the fallen masses.
M: What happens when these types of people in a nation become the majority?
S: First, the hard-working, family oriented people who believe in right and wrong are cast out as the new minority. Secondly, the people who ascend to power are the biggest liars and they become our dictators.
M: Wow, this is pretty heavy stuff. You know, Stuart, I was shocked when Bill Clinton got elected and I thought he was really bad.
S: From his time until now...
M: We've descended?
S: Yes. Our younger generation has grown up, they've been corrupted by these values and now they represent the voting block.
M: We do hear the young people are actually supporting Obama, so this seems to confirm what you say.
S: Indeed, and it's created a crisis. America has nothing standing in the way of this demagogue because he has the power base and the backing to achieve his end.
M: Stuart, how do you feel about John McCain, and is he basically a decent man? Could he be persuaded out of his liberal positions and would he be a lot better than Obama?
S: He might be decent; he is a veteran and at least he connects with the military.
M: Do you think Obama would be harmful for the military, and how would he handle terrorists?
S: First of all, Obama has no concept of what military service is all about. He appeals to the lowest in people and it would be hard for military types to connect with him or respect him.
M: What are some other dangers he would represent?
S: Being the liberal he is, he would never stand up against anything wrong. He would always try to appease people instead of taking a masculine position and addressing issues in a firm manner. We the people must ask ourselves, "Is it worth it to have a leader such as this, and what price will we pay?"
M: Stuart, thanks for chatting with me. We could continue, but I honestly believe you've made people aware of the most critical issues. You have successfully and eloquently presented what you conveyed to me yesterday.
S: You're welcome; take care!
Apropos to the excellent points Stuart brought forth, I will conclude with the following:
1. Barack Hussein Obama remained aligned with the fanatical Reverend Wright, who expressed hatred for America in the view of most people. He lingered in Wright's controversial church for about 20 years. When the pressure was on, however, he bailed. "Right move; wrong time."
2. Obama has displayed contempt and disrespect for hard working Americans in small communities, making demeaning remarks about them "clinging to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them." This truly shows how out of touch he is with everyday people, just as Stuart explained how he would be like a "duck out of water" with the military.
3. Obama has tried to inhibit freedom of speech regarding those criticizing his wife's blunders, when she is in the public limelight fighting on his behalf. She stated, "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud to be an American."
There is more, of course, and I'm really concerned about all of the questionable instances adding up. Even if they're considered minor by some, everything does not lead to an overall favorable picture. The Commander in Chief really must have his act together and it is proper to hold candidates to the highest of standards. The President of the United States also reflects the values of those who vote him or her into office.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
One sheet, where MacCain's was over 1000.
even capable of understanding America. Why Americans are infatuated with him? Its beyond me.
"Anytime anyone uses his middle name 'Hussein' you know their agenda."
So then, Catherine, by your own admission, Barack Hussein Obama has an agenda, because HE is using the name "Hussein," as you indicate.
"It's a cheap display of bigotry and fear mongering..."
Why, because you say so? Stuart and I presented a lot of respectful, accurate information. Your statement is a typical response from a liberal, when the said liberal is unable to dispute the facts. Furthermore, the reason I use his middle name is because (1) That is his name, and (2) I use it because I feel that liberals should not be trying to restrict my Freedom of Speech and tell me what I can use and what I can't use.
His name is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, just as we have presidential names such as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William Jefferson Clinton and many others.
Because you can't argue the facts, YOU are the one attacking ME on something as trivial as a middle name. You search for something such as this when you can't win on real merit.
Besides, using his middle name is no different than Bush bashers calling him "dubya".
(when he was first elected in 2000, I called him George Walker, Texas Ranger, Bush)
George Bush is a liberal??!!
is he pro-gay on arsenic levels in drinking water? I heard he want straight people to drink more arsenic than gays.
A masculine position? In a firm manner? Marty, are you really trying to tell us you or Stuart are gay? It's okay, Marty. You can come right out with it. Us liberals are very accepting. We won't condemn you, dear.
Why? Because this shell of a man, this political hack, this complete and utter loser, has a very real possibility of becoming President of the greatest country in the world.
And, that makes many of us very sad, indeed. Sad and angry.
I will respond only to the writing, since I don't think the content deserves a response. This is poorly researched, doesn't contain enough humor to entertain, states inane accusations as fact, and sends the reader to articles that don't verify what the writer has stated. I consider this a tad below average and rate this 4.
I think the sad part is that, from Sandy's seat, all of the negative qualities she mentioned are just "a tad below average,' a rating of 4.
For the record, I write "B. Hussein Obama" for the same reason that Ann Coulter does (and she has actually stated why she does this): because it riles up liberals. We know that Obama is not an Islamofascist. We just like the reaction liberals give us. It's a taunt.
And you want us to think you are intelligent? It makes you look like a small person, and not very smart.
Reassess the situation, madam.
We're electing a President here, not playing some sort of parlor game.
Frankly, the immature, inaccurate, and biased drivel like this article and many of the comments are why we aren't actually dealing with the important issues that we all face. We have such low standards for ourselves that we make up stuff to babble on about rather than debate real facts and find real solutions that incorporate the valid viewpoints of all Americans - conservatives and liberals and everyone in between (i.e., the other 99% of us).
We have a chance to change the dynamic here. Let's focus on real debate.
You're wrong about me, TJ. I don't say anything I don't mean, and I don't have to use cheap shots about names.
I use my (real) initials to protect my identity.
I use B. Hussein Obama's initials because I feel like it.
What's the matter? Are you frightened of a name?
And, finally, I have studied the Senator.....unlike most of the electorate....and I'm not the least bit moved by his "hope" and "change" mantra.
I am very moved by is inaction as a Senator, his off-the-cuff remarks, his consistent (and constant) flip-flopping on issues, and his overall smarmy demeanor.
I mean, if he can so inspire folks, he must have a solid plan, right?
Right?
P.S. And, with your specifics, I'd like for you to also tell me how we are going to pay for all the new entitlements that you will, no doubt, be listing.
Thanks bunches.
and I wnat my taxes to pay for something other than killing people and bailing out corporations that make bad business decisions based on greed,
Gee ain't Obama's middle name the same as the spidy hole guy, the axle handle of evil?? If it's the same, America is in PERIL cause all them Hussains and people that like Hussain and wear rags on their head will storm ashore and build mosques and other fairy stuff right down on the town square where the nativty is supposed to be!! And you liberal gay lovin Commies are just gonna let it happen???? What's wrong with 4 buck gas anyway?? It's Americun!
You nutcases on the right have never owned a shred of legitimacy even though a small number of truly skilled con artists managed to finagle their way to power. The current disaster is the result. Keep up the good work. America needs the daily reminder of stupidity.
This is why the Republicans have no credibility right now. They've done it to themselves.
My hope is that the Democrats will use the power they will have wisely. They will capture additional seats in Congress, perhaps enough to have a supermajority in the Senate as well as the majority in the House. They will also have the White House [yes, John McCain will be screwed yet again by Bush and Rove]. So it will take a responsible leader in the White House to keep Congress focused on the real issues.
It's time for the adults to take over management of the country.
Amen!
Bravo, Chive. Funny the Republican reaction to Democrat anger. They're just not used to it. They can (and have) developed an incredibly hateful language over the past years a la Rove, Coulter and Limbaugh, which they have come to find very amusing. But only when used by Republicans. And not that Democrats should stoop to those basest of levels, but I think it is time that we actually communicate our deep anger about the way conservative Republicans have managed to flush our country down the toilet over the past 8 years, and communicate in a way that the small minds on the receiving end of the message can understand. Let them keep giggling at our anger.....the joke will be on them in November.
YEAH!
Great, good, wonderful...and we are ALL paying more - every. single. day. - for foreign oil than for funding the war, but run screaming for the nearest liberal when talk of offshore drilling (or ANWR drilling) starts.
Again, yee-haw..or whatever...
So, how will we pay for this huge entitlement program? Especially since the Senator's own campaign speeches (and foreign trip photo-ops) now seem to indicate that not only will we NOT be leaving Iraq anytime soon, but we will also be re-energizing the war in Afghanistan....and possibly Pakistan?
Perhaps I missed something, but there IS no majority in the Senate...and with the slight majority in the House, they do not have enough to overcome Bush's Veto spree. I don't call that a majority, CA. Honestly, do you? There's nothing wrong with compromise...and the Dems started out by trying that tried and true method. But, the Republicans were more interested in playing politics than in getting anything accomplished so they continued to block almost all legislation...and the stuff that passed by narrow margins where a few individual Rep reps actually had the balls to break from their party line and use common sense for the good of the nation, Bush just vetoed away.
What's even more absurd about that statement is that it ignores the fact that the problems were created before "lately" and suggests that this new majority should be able to correct in a short time what that old majority destroyed over many years. That would be an irrational expectation at best, and is even more so considering what Sheryl explains.
C A., Jul 23, 2008, 11:25am EDT
_______________________________________________________________________
C. A. - I would not think it would be necessary to remind an astute political observer such yourself that President Bush has vetoed or threatened to veto everything that congress has done int the last 18 months. The Democrats do not have enough votes to override the vetoes without the help of the Republicans so nothing gets accomplished. The exception being the recent override of the medicare payments bill veto. The Republicans blame the Democrats without acknowledging that the real obstructionists are President Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Mercifully that will all change after the fall elections when the Democrats will have even stronger control of congress and a president in the white house.
Remember boy there probably is a little "we we '' under that miniskirt.
Conservatives joke about things because humor is a good way to reduce stress. That is our stress-reducer. Liberals use meaningless sex and abortions. I think we're even.
PS: Thank you liberals for proving that "B. Hussein" is still as potent a taunt as ever.
Do any of the low fliers know this?
Enslisted yet TJ?
TJ Thompson , Jul 23, 2008, 4:40pm EDT
_____________________________________
Your fooling yourself TJ. You have far too much venom in your heart to have any respect for God.
Sandy, you said earlier that you have never used a cheap shot against a conservative. Really?
Sandy said: ...the women he most admires are Ann Coulter (with the Adam's apple)....
Robert, what you call "venom" is patriotic passion. You have no idea what my relationship with God is, so I suggest that you stop trying to be the gatekeeper to heaven.
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." -- Abraham Lincoln
Why would you consider that a cheap shot, TJ. You have been all over this site the last few days telling everyone that Ann and Condi are your heroes. Unless you changed your profile, you also state it there. How is my repeating what you keep saying a cheap shot?
TJ, you do yourself no favor by bragging that you are "smart". If you possess positive qualities, others know without you having to tell them.
The part about the nonexistent Adam's apple is the cheap shot.
I wasn't making a point about my intelligence. I was making a point about liberals.
Hey, Marty K, how about another article by you:
"7 Reasons Why Tax Cuts Harms the Wealthy"
Huh?
JP4Ob!
I've said it before in other articles, and I'll say it here - - I love his middle name!
It sounds soooo much better than Sidney!
In fact, I love Barak's entire name. It sounds very Presidential!
The man and the name, you just can't help loving them both!
And I am glad he is acting Presidential while overseas.
After all, he will be our next President.
If those voting machines work correctly.
And don't worry Marty, Barak shares the same concerns that you address in you article:
"7 Reasons Why Tax Cuts Harm the Wealthy."
He agrees with you when you say that these current tax cuts have had a devastating effect on our economy, and so therefore, have hurt the wealthy.
He will fix those problems!
So Marty, and all you others here, relax, take a chill pill, lie back, and enjoy the ride.
JP4Ob!
CA - What a dazzaling man you are, want a back rub?
Lois you look darling!
Coulter the transvestite/shew definitely has an Adams apple 'acauz he is still a man.
Tj come on out of that closet and into polite society.
Did I say anything that indicated hatred?
As far as spin, I detected a fair amount of spin in Marty's article, as well.
But, of course, it depends on your and my perspective.
The other day I was on at in an interview and apparently a sore busted open and christ I guess I had been sitting there for enough time to pass that I became somewhat stuck to the chair. Then the ambulance and knife, by then I passed out... Needless to say I didn't get the job.
Other than that dearest, I am heavenly. How are you my gentle flower?
Terry, I didn't know you had a point, am I missing something? Because someone reacts to your obvious distain for a certain point of view does not prove any POINTS, just makes you look more like an ass..
Also Terry, a fashion faux pax you might want to try some Vaseline under your eyes, it will get rid of the dark lines..
Otherwise, all is well sweetie-kins, I may be going blond, we'll see. Kisses.
Oh, how I regret missing this laugh-riot in the run-up to the presidential election.
Here we have the congregation of Bush-worshippers complaining that "liberals" are "anti-reality".
It is too delicious.
The Bush White House proclaimed that they had no need of "reality-based" thinkers. Contact with reality is despised by the GOP.