Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (0)

Ali Sina, Faith Freedom.org

 

Muhammad is worshipped by over a billion Muslims. Many non-Muslims also think of him highly. “He must have been a great man for so many people to follow him,” they argue. “You can’t fool so many people for such a long time,” they say. 

 

Well, you can. I have written a book where I have proven that Muhammad, far from being a great man, was a thug, a pervert man with no conscience or scruples. He was a cult leader who fooled people with the power of his oratory and his big lies. If you wonder how Muhammad influenced so many people with nothing but lies, watch Obama. The secret of the success of narcissists is in their ability to lie convincingly.

 

This is the secret of the success of narcissists, from Muhammad to Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam. Narcissists succeed because they are audacious. Their strength lies in their over confidence. The narcissists’ rise is grand, but so is their fall. When they fall they also bring down all those who followed them blindly. Read article.

 

Amil Imani, NMJ.us

 

A major problem with Obama is that there are as many different versions of Obama as there are leftist pundits and there are legions of them.

 

Another reason why Obamamania is engulfing this nation is because he is all things to all pundits. Even a cursory study on Mr. Obama's past will reveal his abnormal body of contradictions and even outright deception. It is a fact that over the years a clique of masses on the left have been heavily indoctrinated with selective teachings that promote anti-Americanism, a love for socialism, hostility toward capitalism and free enterprise.

 

This bombardment of indoctrination combined with a siege mentality that creates the cradle of socialism which generates a fury of hatred , has the potential of devouring America. If only the far left Useful Idiots could purge the negative aspects of their dogma and practice the positive teaching of diversity, our community would be at peace with one another. This is the question. Is that possible or are we headed for the clash beyond the ideas? Read article.

 

Jim Brown, OneNewsNow.com

 

Conservative author and counterterrorism expert Andy McCarthy is criticizing the Los Angeles Times for not releasing a 2003 videotape it obtained of Barack Obama giving a toast to an anti-Israel professor who formerly served as a spokesman for late PLO leader Yasser Arafat.

 

The LA Times is being accused of "suppressing" a 2003 tape of a farewell gathering in Chicago for then University of Chicago Mideast studies professor Rashid Khalidi, who is a longtime virulent critic of Israel and has justified Palestinian terrorist attacks against the Jewish state. Barack Obama paid a special tribute to Khalidi that night and noted that he and Michelle were frequent dinner companions of the Khalidis.

 

Former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn were also in attendance at the Khalidi bash. While Obama and Ayers served on the board of the left-wing Woods Fund together, they underwrote the Arab-American Action Network (AAAN) to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Read article.

Lee Boyland, NMJ.us

 

It is past time for Senator Barack H. Obama to provided his vault birth certificate, and other relevant documents pertaining to his past and his qualifications.

 

It is past time for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to provide proof that its candidate meets Constitutional requirements. Failure to do so, combined with the actions of Hawaii’s Governor Lingle, allegations of voter fraud in several states, and Obama’s questionable association with ACORN, will lead to the conclusion that the election is being stolen. The DNC’s actions will demonstrate their respect—or lack of respect—for the Constitution.

 

The U.S. Constitution requires the president of the United States to be a natural born citizen. No court, including the U.S. Supreme Court can change this. Only an amendment to the Constitution can. Barack Hussein Obama’s ability to meet the Constitutional requirement to be president has been challenged. He must respond, for if he does not, his presidency, should he win in November, will be challenged, and he will not be accepted as president by many Americans.

 

A Constitutional crises will occur, a crises that will place the country in jeopardy, and could end in bloodshed.

 

America has never been faced with such a crises—a crises of the sort that could conceivably spark a civil war. Read article.

 

Henry Mark Holzer, NMJ.us

 

Putting aside that Obama is plainly a white-hating, white-using radical, and probably a Marxist Elmer Gantry, it needs to be said that if the fate of the federal judiciary, let alone the Supreme Court, falls into his hands (especially with a compliant Senate), our Nation will be crippled in its domestic battle against socialism and our foreign war against Islamofascism.

 

This is not a charge that I make lightly, but rather one rooted in the words of Obama himself.

 

On July 17, 2007, Obama made a speech in Washington, D.C. to the country’s leading abortion-meisters, “Planned Parenthood.” In the words of NBC reporter Carrie Dean, Obama not only “leveled harsh words at conservative Supreme Court justices,” but “he offered his own intention to appoint justices with ‘empathy’.”

 

“Empathy,” according to Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, is “the projection of one’s own personality into the personality of another in order to understand him better; ability to share in another’s emotions or feelings.”

 

Thus, we have been unmistakably warned that Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices who will not honestly interpret the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Fourteenth Amendment—let alone on the basis of what they say and meant to those who wrote them—but who, instead, will project their own personalities into others to understand them better; justices who can share in those others’ emotions or feelings.

 

And who might Obama’s empathy-receivers be? Read article.

 

Jonah Goldberg, LA Times.com

 

There's an old saying: The oldest word in American politics is "new." Only in that sense is there anything new to Barack Obama.

 

Obama prefers the word "progressive" to "liberal" because it makes it sound like he's shedding old liberal ideas. But if he is, it's only to embrace older ones.

 

America first encountered the vision Obama espouses under Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president, and the first to openly disparage the U.S. Constitution as a hindrance to enlightened government. His new idea was to replace it with a "living constitution" that empowered government to evolve beyond that document's constraints. The Bill of Rights, lamented the progressives, inhibited what the government can do to people, but it failed to delineate what it must do for people.

 

The old conception of individualism needed to be replaced by a new system in which the citizen "married his interests to the state," in Wilson's words. This would allow the state to fulfill the progressive pledge to "spread the prosperity around." Obama shares Wilson's faith in a living constitution and has argued that Supreme Court judges should be confirmed based on their empathy for the downtrodden. Read article.

 

Monica Crowley, HumanEvents.com

 

Whenever confronted by difficult questions posed by people who haven't succumbed to the creepy Obama Hypnosis, the Obama Team’s reaction is to silence them. They did it to a Chicago radio station that dared to interview someone critical of Obama's past. They did it to Joe the Plumber, seeking to destroy him for daring to ask Obama a question about taxes. They are threatening to do it nationwide with the Fairness Doctrine.

 

You aren't allowed to raise Obama's middle name, Hussein. You aren't allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren't allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren't allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren't allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren't allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren't allowed to say he's lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.

 

If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced.

 

If this is the chill that has set in already, just imagine what it will be like once they take the White House. Read article.

 

Tony Blankley, JWR.com

 

As Obama's election has seemed to become more likely in the past six weeks, a quiet but public debate has arisen among both Republicans and Democrats that wonders which Obama we might get. Will it be the prudent, moderate, pragmatic, sensible president who will apply non-ideological, centrist policies? Or will it be the Obama who sought out the company of radicals, black racists, faculty-lounge Marxists and studied the methods of Saul Alinsky?

 

Throughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn't believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers.

 

But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left. Read article.

 

Bill Sammon, Fox News.com

 

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

 

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

 

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

 

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union." Read article.

 

Editorial, OnlineWSJ.com

 

We've all read a lot about the "politicization" of the Justice Department in recent years, and that political pounding is having an ironic effect. The prosecutors who are supposed to guard against voter fraud don't seem very interested in running the political risk of doing their job.

 

If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn's history of deceit and the national sweep of today's scandal demand a federal probe. Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.

 

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn, and warning Justice to focus instead on "voter suppression." Barack Obama has also joined in this political intimidation, demanding in two letters that Mr. Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justice staff who he claims are engaged in "unlawful coordination" with John McCain's campaign to pursue "so-called 'election fraud.'" Read article.

 

Glenn Beck endorses...

PittsburghLive,com

 

Here is Beck in his own words. He prefaces it by saying that his view is probably wildly unpopular, but Glenn being Glenn really does not care about being part of the "in" crowd:

 

“I'm endorsing Sarah Palin.”

 

“My hope is in Sarah Palin. Here's why. A lot of people will say, oh, she's too inexperienced. Yep, yep, she doesn't have a lot of experience in Washington. She doesn't have a lot of experience in being a community organizer. She doesn't have a lot of experience in the Senate. She certainly doesn't have a lot of experience sitting there and playing the Washington game. She may not know the names of every leader in every country. She may not know all of the things that she needs to know right now on absolutely anything that could possibly happen, but she will. She's a smart woman. I would trust you in the Oval Office more than Barack Obama. I believe in the American people. I would trust a farmer in the office of the President of the United States much more than I would John McCain. I believe in the American people.

 

And I believe that there needs to be somebody that is listening to the American people, somebody who isn't so far removed with academia and lawyering and posturing and political handlers and community organizing groups. We need somebody who is a reflection of you, not a bogus reflection of you that talks about talking to people in diners that have been closed for 15 years and is Joe Six-Pack because he pays $90 one way to get to work on an Amtrak train. That isn't the subway, Joe. I hate to break it to ya. Read article.

 

Bret Stephens, Online WSJ.com

 

Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.

 

Then again, maybe there is.

 

When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.

 

And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction." Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons." Read article.