More Obama Gaffes, This Time It's the Constitution, Stupid!

H/T to my buddy from the great Republic of Texas, Reverse_Vampyr!

Hillary! voted for raising the Sec/State's salary, among other things.

From Reverse_Vampyr:

Why does this matter? January 7, 2008, President Bush signed an executive order implementing the federal employee pay raise for 2008 that was included in the Congressionally-approved Omnibus Spending Bill for 2008 (HR 2764). Therefore, Hillary is constitutionally barred from service in the cabinet of the Executive branch.

Click here for the entire post.

B.


Read Full Text/Comments

Redistribution of Wealth I'd Like to See

Read Full Text/Comments

Obama is a Sonovabitch

Whiskey-Tango_Foxtrot?



Stay Classy, Barry, you a$$hole!

HT to John Lewandowski at PAWaterCooler.com

Read Full Text/Comments

More on Barry-O, Advocate of Infanticide

---

---

Barack Obama and the Comfort Room

---

Posted: June 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008

In March 2002, then Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama and I engaged in an interesting exchange during my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member.

I was speaking in favor of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act for the second time, which had failed the year before.

The previous year, I had told Obama and the committee of my experience holding a live aborted baby until he died in my capacity as a labor and delivery nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill.

That year, I described Christ Hospital's Comfort Room, unveiled in December 2000 to counter my public statements that personnel were shelving babies to die in the department's soiled utility room next to dirty linens, bloody and biohazardous waste, and a urinal:

Four months ago, Christ Hospital unveiled its "Comfort Room." So now I can no longer say that live aborted babies are left in our Soiled Utility Room to die. We now have this prettily wallpapered room complete with a First Foto machine, baptismal gowns, a footprinter and baby bracelets, so that we can offer keepsakes to parents of their aborted babies. There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.

I did not mention the Comfort Room when I testified again in 2002. But Barack Obama remembered.

Part of Christ Hospital Comfort Room

Click on the link below
to read the rest of this incredible article.

Of over 4,000 pieces of legislation introduced in the Illinois General Assembly in 2001, Obama apparently recalled my description of Christ Hospital's Comfort Room. He stated, according to the State Net transcript:

Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them.

Obama had actually not agreed with me the year before. He had agreed with ACLU attorney Colleen Connell that "living is not the same as viability" when he voted against Born Alive in committee and went on to be the sole senator speaking against it on the Senate floor.

And "we" suggested the Comfort Room? I was the one who told him about the Comfort Room four months after the fact, also providing photo evidence.

What was going on? Obama hadn't been coached had he, perhaps by fellow Trinity United Church of Christ member Dr. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, who also happened to sit on the board of Christ Hospital's parent company, Advocate Health Care?

Or by Rev. Dr. Ozzie Smith Jr., another Advocate board member and former associate pastor at TUCC under Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Or by Wright himself, who sat on the board of Christ Hospital's parent company from 1986-89?

Or by Christ Hospital CEO Carole Schneider, a UCC member?

Or by fellow state Rep. Renee Kosel, a Christ Hospital board member who opposed Born Alive on the House side?

I'd like Sen. Obama to tell us whether he received counsel from any of the aforementioned to oppose Born Alive.

Obama may have thought it impressive to wrap the baby one was killing in a blanket surrounded by silk flowers rather than leave him naked on a steel sink sideboard, but he was right – I was nonplussed. I responded:

What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead.

I didn't know it then, but I was describing future presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign: attempting to repackage liberal extremism to look comforting.

In this case, however, Obama was pleased with a neonatal Soylent Green killing room, taking American liberal extremism to a new place.

Read Full Text/Comments

Another Instance Where Obama Doesn't Practice What he Preaches

From "The Loft":

The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft

Obama: Equal Pay for Women... Just Not on My Dime

Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

Sen. Barack Obama talks a good game. There's talk about hope and change, and hope and change, and even more hope and change. What exactly is he hoping to change? No one really knows, but one thing is clear: the more we get to know him, the more we realize that his actions are quite different than his "hope and change" rhetoric.

As an example, take his recent speech about pay discrimination between men and women. Obama told the audience in Albuquerque, NM that he supports "a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination." Yet, upon a review of Obama's payroll, we learn that women are paid less than men. Keep talking Sen. Obama.

As reported by CNSNews.com, "While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men. That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men."

In his speech, Obama spoke about how his single mom worked to raise her family. He spoke of hardships of his grandmother, and also his wife. He set the stage beautifully by noting the successes of these women... then what did he do? He blasted Sen. John McCain, saying, "But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer. ... It starts with equal pay."

It starts with equal pay? Did he seriously say that with a straight face? As CNSNews.com notes in their analysis, "On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator." CNSNews.com also points out that "of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman."

In contrast, women outnumbered men on McCain's Senate payroll by 30 to 16. The women were paid an average of $3,000 more than the men.

Obama sounds less and less like an advocate of hope and change, and more and more like a typical politician. In his speech Obama said, "We can't afford an economy where folks keep working harder for less. We can't let the women in our workforce get paid even less for doing the same work." Oh really? It appears that Obama, as an employer, has no problems doing exactly what he is speaking against. I guess he means "other" employers. Certainly we shouldn't look at what his own hiring practices really are, right? This is just one other part of his record that he'd prefer be kept out of the spotlight.

Near the end of his speech, Obama said, "I want my daughters to grow up in an America where they have opportunities that are even greater than their mother had, or their grandmothers, or their great grandmothers -- an America where our daughters truly have the same opportunities as our sons."

Note to Obama's daughters.... Don't go to work for your dad.

And here is the rest of it. Read Full Text/Comments

Reading School Super Stands Behind Decision

Reading schools chief stands by decision not to charge Obama campaign
David Mekeel
Reading Eagle

Reading, PA - The Reading schools superintendent is standing by his decision not to charge Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama for a political rally in the high school in April.

Dr. Thomas R. Chapman Jr. renewed the defense Tuesday, a day after Republican board member William F. Cinfici challenged the fee waiver, saying it is possibly illegal and definitely unethical.

District Solicitor John C. Bradley Jr. said he would have a legal opinion by Thursday.

Chapman refused to say what he would do if Bradley said it was illegal.

"That's a hypothetical," he said. "I don't answer hypotheticals."

Cinfici said waiving the fees to use the Geigle Complex was an in-kind campaign contribution. He wants the district to bill Obama. (click link below for the rest of the article)

Cinfici said waiving the fees to use the Geigle Complex was an in-kind campaign contribution. He wants the district to bill Obama.

Chapman responded Tuesday: "Certainly I can understand Mr. Cinfici's questions or perspective. But I believe the decision to treat the event as an educational one is and was appropriate."

Lawrence M. Noble, a political attorney for the Washington, D.C., law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, said it isn't clear who is right.

According to Noble, the general rule is that the waiver might not have been a contribution if the district has a history of waiving similar fees for other organizations.

Cinfici conceded that the district has granted such waivers in the past, including for the inauguration of Mayor Tom McMahon.

Cinfici also rejected a suggestion that it was all right to waive a fee for Obama because his former opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also was offered free use of the Geigle Complex in the days before the Pennsylvania primary.

"We invited both likely presidential candidates to come to Reading (High School)," Chapman said. "My belief is that our children benefit from those types of events."

Clinton turned down the offer because Obama had reserved the April 20 time slot she wanted. She held her rally in Wilson High School on April 19 instead and paid that district $6,460.

Had Obama been charged, the bill would have been $6,500, Chapman said Tuesday.

Cinfici said he doubted it was legal for the district to excuse presidential candidates from fees other groups are required to pay.

And even if it is legal, Cinfici said, a waived fee is a political contribution.

He said he strongly doubted that the district is allowed to contribute to political campaigns and even if it is he still has two objections.

The first is that it is unethical to use taxpayer money to benefit a particular candidate. The second is the Obama campaign was not sent an itemized bill of the in-kind contribution for its campaign finance report.

Representatives from the Federal Elections Commission said they could not comment on the issue because if a challenge is filed, the FEC would have to hear it.

*******UPDATE*******

The School Board Solicitor has given an opinion! Click here to read the article in today's READING EAGLE.

Read Full Text/Comments

Without a doubt, Obama has to pay-up. I know, as treasurer for my committee, I can't take a postage stamp without listing it as a contribution in kind. For the school district to give away to Obama something they usually charge for is, in fact, a contribution to his campaign. The key principle in the determination is this–it is something of value? Answer: Yes...no brainer.

They'll try like hell to spin this differently, probably something like we don't welcome change.

Anyway, HT to JCS for this article.

The Associated Press

READING, Pa. - A Reading school board member says he doesn't think it was legal for the district to waive fees associated with a Barack Obama rally at the high school.

William Cinfici (sin-FEE'-see) says waiving the fees associated with the April rally represents an in-kind donation to the Democrat's campaign. He says that's illegal and unfair to taxpayers.

Other board members say the decision to waive the fees is not illegal. School officials say they don't know exactly how much the fees would total.

Cinfici has asked the board's solicitor to look into whether it was legal.

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton held a rally at nearby Wilson High School and was charged $6,460. Clinton won the state's April 22 primary, but Obama has since earned enough delegates to be the party's presidential nominee.

,,,

Information from: Reading Eagle, http://www.readingeagle.com/
And here is the rest of it. Read Full Text/Comments

The Audacity of Change

Below is a great article by Larry Elder sent to me by Joe Meo (Whitemarsh Republican Committee Vice Chair) via our new committeeman, Brian Rosenthal. The article points out something about Obama that reeks of a cheesesteak with swiss cheese...you know, John Kerry style flip flopping:

Warming Up to Obama's Message of Hope and Change
Larry Elder
Thursday, June 12, 2008

For Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the stars certainly seem aligned.

Seventy percent of Americans consider the economy in a recession. Two-thirds consider the war in Iraq a bad idea. A new Gallup Poll shows Obama leading presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain 46 to 44 percent. And the ratings for "American Idol" fell 10 percent. Given all this, plus a swooning, pro-Obama media, what's a Republican to do?

Guess it's time to look on the bright side, and find something positive about the possibility of a President Barack Obama.

I called Margaret, a Republican friend who lives in Chicago. Do me a favor, I asked her, and attend a prayer service at St. Sabina -- the church led by Father Michael Pfleger. YouTube star Pfleger, as a guest of Trinity United Church of Christ, called Sen. Hillary Clinton a white supremacist, resentful of the ascension of Barack Obama. Pfleger yelled that Clinton felt entitled because she felt, as he put it, "I'm white!" He also preached that any white person with a "401(k)" or a "trust fund" needs to surrender it -- presumably to blacks -- or consider themselves part of the problem. Rumor had it, I told Margaret, that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was expected to attend St. Sabina's upcoming prayer service.

She agreed to go. Take a Bible with you, I suggested, so no one will think you're a reporter. And should security refuse to let you in, scream, "I'm black!" Now, she's white, but still …

At St. Sabina a security team did, indeed, stand in front of the church, warily eyeballing newcomers. They stopped Margaret, despite the Bible in hand. She was about to scream as security shooed her away, "I'm black! I'm black!" But, she admitted, she was afraid that they would think she was deranged and call the authorities. (read more-click the link below)


"Mission aborted," she dejectedly e-mailed me. But she did go back to the church after-hours, and sent an attachment of photos of her dog with the church in the background. Cute dog.

Don't feel too bad, I told her, because I find myself warming up to Obama's message of change and hope. To lift her spirits, I offered a few examples.

Obama rejects the Bush my-way-or-the-highway "cowboy" foreign policy. Obama repeatedly said he wishes to meet with enemy/thug leaders without preconditions. But wait!

He now says only if he decides to meet in the first place. And if he decides -- to which he may not -- he'll do so without preconditions. And if he decides not to, his decision will have been made without preconditions, unless, of course, he decides to meet after all -- but only without preconditions. And if he decides not to meet, he'll make that decision without any preconditions, just as he would make the decision to meet without the precondition of no preconditions. But if he decides to meet, without preconditions, he'll do so solely when, where and if he decides to -- without preconditions.

That's change.

Unlike President Bush, who "neglected" the Israeli/Palestinian peace process until the waning days of his administration, Obama intends to immediately get on it. Last week, he told America's Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) -- America's leading pro-Israel lobby -- that he supports a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as the sole, undivided capital of Israel. (The Bush administration, currently in negotiations with the Israelis and Palestinians, hasn't taken a position on this thorny issue, preferring the parties to negotiate between themselves.) After Obama's statement, the Palestinians immediately cried, "Foul!" and said there would be no discussions with that stipulation! Hamas, the Palestinian terror group, called him no different from Bush. Thus, with this demand, a President Obama threatens to derail talks from the very beginning. But wait!

The next day, Obama said that, well, "obviously" the issue of Jerusalem should be decided by the Israelis and Palestinians -- adopting the same position as "cowboy" Bush.

That's hope.

On deterring Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Obama accused the Bush administration of "saber rattling." Obama's Web site calls for aggressive diplomacy, but mentions nothing about a military option. But wait!

He told AIPAC, "Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

What about Iran's Revolutionary Guard? When Sen. Clinton voted to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terror organization, Obama criticized her, and deemed the vote irresponsibly militant. But wait!

He told AIPAC that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is, indeed, a terror organization. So why did he vote otherwise, and attack Clinton? Well, said Obama at the time, it was an unnecessarily belligerent move. But apparently, now they are terrorists because, well, it isn't as belligerent to say so today as it was to say so yesterday.

That's more hope and more change. So, I told Margaret, here's hoping you find this hopeful. If not, I'll change it. Read Full Text/Comments

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?

Am I the only one who is picking up on the theme for this years democratic challengers? B.

Read Full Text/Comments

A Gaffe, an Absurdity, and a Policy

HT to Joe Meo of the Whitemarsh Republican Committee for this article:

Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 23, 2008

WASHINGTON -- When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has gone surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour. (click on the link below to read the rest of the article)

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...
Read Full Text/Comments

HUH? Lets Get Real...

I felt the need to resurrect this post, in light of what has been circulating on pawatercooler.com and tonyphyrillas.blogspot.com...click on their links to see what I'm talking about.

Dear Readers;

This is the man who wants to be our next commander-in-chief, quite possibly, the leader of the free world.

I can't believe people have the nerve to call President George W. Bush dumb...

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then I have 997 in the bank:

What a Moron!

Tip to Alexis for the photo!

B. Read Full Text/Comments

Too Good To Be True

Read Full Text/Comments