The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

posted at 11:59 pm on October 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey


A Roadmap for Campaign 2008’s Homestretch

By Guy Benson ( and Mary Katharine Ham (

Editor and Contributor, Ed Morrissey


Allow us to put our cards on the table at the outset: We are two young conservative journalists—both in our 20s. Unlike many of our peers, we are not swept up in Obamamania and would prefer John McCain to win the election. We’ve teamed up with seasoned blogger extraordinaire, Ed Morrissey, whose careful and thoughtful pursuit of the truth—even when it benefits his political opponents—is respected across the blogosphere. In that spirit, we are not at all interested in perpetuating lies, rumors, and innuendo about Barack Obama. Promoting such information does America a disservice, allows Obama’s supporters to justifiably cry “smear,” and damages our own credibility.

What follows is by no means comprehensive, but it does shed some much-needed light on a number of Obama’s positions, statements, and associations about which he has been less than honest. We’ve attempted to boil each issue down to a succinct explanation with an accompanying, brief video clip—often starring Barack Obama in his own words. Before pulling the lever for someone who hopes voters will ignore his paper-thin resume, unsavory associations, and hard-left voting record, each citizen has a duty to do his due diligence.

In short, we hope this “closing argument” is compelling and clear, and we encourage you to share this essay with undecided or wavering family members, friends, and co-workers.


If recent polls are to believed, freshman Senator Barack Obama has a better than average chance of becoming America’s 44th President, the Commander-in-Chief of the planet’s most powerful military, and the proverbial leader of the free world. It’s worth mentioning that just four years ago as President Bush and Senator John Kerry were vying for the White House, Obama was still a part-time State Senator representing a liberal district in Chicago. Before that he was an attorney and, famously, a community organizer. In 2008, Obama has positioned himself as a post-partisan, thoughtful moderate with the superior judgment required to lead the country. These are lofty promises from a man with precious little executive experience, and a Senate career that lasted exactly 143 legislative days before he launched yet another campaign for higher office. No one can deny his ambition. In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another.

Barack Obama promises “change,” which is an appealing concept to an American public weary of a beleaguered administration and worried about the future. They are faced with a candidate who promises them everything: Tax cuts for 95% of Americans, universal healthcare, peace, saving the planet, and—according to his wife—the “healing” of Americans’ souls. As the saying goes, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Questions abound: Is this man prepared to be president? Does he hold mainstream values and policy preferences? Who has influenced his thinking, and where does he want to take the country? Has he been honest with the people from whom he seeks votes?


Barack Obama is out of the political mainstream on abortion. Don’t take our word for it, just listen to Sen. Obama’s own statements. In his final debate with John McCain, Obama asserted that “nobody is pro-abortion.” If you don’t have the time to read Princeton University professor Robert P. George’s detailed argument that Obama may actually fit that description, consider the candidate’s own record. In the clips below, you will hear Obama say three things.

First, he tells an audience that if his own daughters experienced an unexpected teen pregnancy, he wouldn’t want them “punished with a baby.”

Second, he pledges to a Planned Parenthood gathering that the very first thing he’d do as president is sign the Freedom Of Choice Act, which—according to the bill’s own supporters — would abolish bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws nationwide while implementing tax-payer funded abortions. All three positions are wildly unpopular with the vast majority of Americans, yet they are Obama’s top priorities—just ask him:

Finally, Obama argues against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois Senator in 2002. Despite Obama’s protestations otherwise, he voted three separate times against this legislation, which was designed to require life-saving care for infants who survive botched abortions. This is a matter of record. Not only did an identical bill pass Congress without a single dissenting vote, the explanation Obama has offered for years to defend these votes has been exposed as a lie. Furthermore, Hot Air has a long list of supporting posts on this very subject:

Listen to Obama complain that providing care to these accidentally-born infants would place an undue burden on the woman and her abortionist:

Americans of good faith are divided on this issue. Many are pro-life, and many are pro-choice. Obama’s extreme record should horrify the former group, and should even give significant pause to the latter. Ask yourself, are babies “punishment”? Would you vote for the Freedom of Choice Act and against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act…three times?


As a skilled rhetorical magician, Obama presents himself as a tax-cutter. Even though he’s voted dozens of times to raise taxes, he assures Americans that 95% of us will have our taxes slashed under his plan. The Wall Street Journal isn’t buying it. Once again, though, the best way to assess someone’s positions is to listen to his own language. Note the two telling exchanges that follow:

First, Obama tells newly-minted national celebrity “Joe the Plumber” that his tax hikes on the so-called rich are designed to “spread the wealth around,” which Obama explains is “good for everybody.” Does that sound like a genuine tax-cutter to you?

Second, Obama is challenged by ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson at a primary debate in Pennsylvania. Gibson asks Obama why he insists on raising capital gains taxes (which affect millions of American investors) even after history has proven that raising said taxes actually decreases government revenues from the taxes, and cutting capital gains taxes actually brings more revenue into federal coffers. Obama has no answer, other than to blow off all the evidence, and say that raising taxes is the fair thing to do—practical consequences be damned.

Someone so obsessed with the concept of “fairness” is unlikely to be a friend to taxpayers. Obama’s record over his brief legislative career confirms his tax-and-spend impulses.


Barack Obama does not want anyone talking about his radical associations. He’s even sought criminal prosecutions against those who have dared to speak out on issues that make him squirm. Average Americans are judged by the company they keep, and our leaders ought to be held to the same standard.

Even though Obama says the issue is resolved (and John McCain refuses to raise it) voters must consider the case of Jeremiah Wright. Think of it this way: Barack Obama has himself estimated that he attends church twice a month. He spent twenty years at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ under the leadership of Rev. Wright. Within this metric, a rough calculation concludes that Obama sat through approximately 500 sermons at that church. 500. Still, he claims he never heard outrageous, racist, or anti-American comments from the pulpit. Watch the following clips—you probably saw them back when this controversy erupted—and ask yourself if you believe Obama’s self-serving selective deafness. The man featured in these clips is the same man who performed Obama’s wedding and baptized his children. Notice that his unhinged rantings did not elicit stunned silence from his congregation, but approving cheers. Is Obama’s “this isn’t the Jeremiah Wright I once knew” a credible excuse? Can you imagine anything like this being said at your church or house of worship—much less applauded?

Bill Ayers is another name many Americans have heard by now. He is a former terrorist who detonated bombs at federal buildings and plotted to blow up an army dance at Ft. Dix, New Jersey. He remains proud of his actions, and only regrets not having bombed more. Obama has been personal and professional friends with Ayers for more than a dozen years. When confronted with this association, Obama has said Ayers is (a) just a guy in his neighborhood, (b) a local professor, and (c) someone with whom he’d served on a charitable board. These are all true statements, but they obfuscate a much deeper relationship about which Obama is not being honest. In fact, the two served together on two boards—The Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where together they funneled huge sums of money to a who’s-who leftwing causes. Obama’s 1995 political coming-out party took place in the home of Ayers and his wife, a fellow unrepentant terrorist. Obama now denies this, but it’s a matter of record, confirmed by individuals who attended the party. Investigative journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, has written many thorough and indispensable articles on Obama’s substantial ties to Ayers. If you don’t have time to read them, consider the following videos.

First, CNN looks into Bill Ayers and the Obama connection. The report concludes that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama says.” It also confirms the 1995 political party Ayers hosted for Obama.

Second, Obama repeatedly states that Ayers’ violence took place 40 years ago when he was just eight years old. This is true, and it’s irrelevant. Would you shake hands with, let alone work comfortably with, someone who bombed the US Capitol and Pentagon, and remains proud that he did so? It is implausible that Obama didn’t know about Ayers’ sordid past, just as it’s implausible that he was unaware that Ayers’ hatred of this country continues to fester to this day. The following video features a 1998 ABC News interview with Ayers and his wife that showcases their continued defiance. It also portrays Ayers at a 1960s radical reunion just last year during which he describes the United States as he sees it today. Why did Obama feel comfortable around these people, and is it any wonder that he’s been less than forthcoming about their relationship?

ACORN is a community organization whose fraudulent voter registration activities have drawn indictments and investigations in more than a dozen states. Their intimidation tactics in the 1990s forced banks into issuing unwise mortgage loans to low-income individuals, setting the stage for the recent mortgage crisis that send the economy into a tailspin. Barack Obama has denied any connection to ACORN beyond performing some minimal legal work on their behalf in the distant past. Once again, this is an intentionally misleading understatement. As it turns out, Obama was a top ACORN activism trainer for several years. The charitable boards he and Ayers controlled funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN. His campaign paid ACORN more than $800,000 to register voters in the primary, but tried to disguise the purpose of those spent dollars in official expense reports. He’s since scrubbed his “fight the smears” website after these untruths were exposed.

This is a complicated issue, so it plays into Obama’s hands: Team Obama’s gameplan of spinning half-truths and muddying the water is in full effect as he tries to “run out the clock” on the election. Although Stanley Kurtz did the heavy lifting , syndicated columnist Mona Charen’s explanation summed up the issue quite well: Putting Obama in charge of cleaning up the mortgage mess would be akin to hiring an arsonist to put out a fire.

As we mentioned above, the Obama/ACORN nexus does not lend itself to quick and easy videos. Nonetheless, two stand out: CNN—not the other cable news channel Obama ritually bashes—filed an investigative report on Obama’s ties to ACORN, and once again found Obama’s explanation wanting. In addition, the McCain campaign produced perhaps the best succinct summary of Obama’s ties to ACORN in a 90 second web ad, the details of which have not been disputed. Watch and decide for yourself:

For fear of lingering too long on the “associates” question, we will refrain from exploring the convicted felonwho helped Obama buy his Hyde Park mansion.

Remember, though, these issues are “distractions.” Nothing to see here, folks.


Barack Obama gained much of his early traction by speaking out against the war in Iraq. He cites his initial opposition to the war as the crown-jewel example of his judgment on foreign affairs. Although many people credit him for being “right” on the war from the beginning, it’s indisputable that he did not have an actual vote on the war resolution. As a state senator from a liberal, antiwar district, one wonders how much political risk he assumed by speaking out against a Republican-led conflict. Regardless, after he was elected to the US Senate, Obama was faced with an actual vote on a controversial issue: The surge. John McCain and others said the strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from our missteps there. History has proven them correct. Obama not only opposed the surge, but actually predicted it would make matters worse. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate. He stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. This may be the kind of judgment that’s expected from a partisan rookie Senator, but not a Commander-in-Chief:

During the CNN-YouTube debate in the summer of 2007, Obama unequivocally promised to meet without preconditions with the rogue leaders of America’s worst enemies—all within the first year of his administration. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have called this approach reckless, expressing concerns that Obama may be playing into our enemies’ propagandistic designs. In October 2008, the Iranian government announced its own preconditions for one-on-one meetings with the Unites States: Pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for “Zionist” Israel. These absurd demands further expose Obama’s very poor judgment vis-a-vis a regime that is actively aiding and abetting terrorists in Iraq who are killing US servicemen. Iran’s “preconditions” prove that negotiating with bad-faith actors who hate Americans and Jews would accomplish nothing other than handing their regime a PR coup. In recent months, Obama’s campaign has continually claimed that he didn’t actually make the promise that he did. The tape does not lie:


Barack Obama was rated the most liberal United States Senator in 2007 by the non-partisan National Journal — farther left than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. He rarely mentions this extreme voting record as he campaigns throughout the heartland, just as he refrains from telling middle America what he really thinks of those who live there. Obama waits until he’s in San Francisco to do that. At a chic fundraising dinner, Obama sniffed that average Americans get “bitter” and “cling” to their guns and religion—as if these were shameful crutches. He may look down his nose at you, but he still wants your vote:

Obama also expressed disapproval of Americans’ (apparently) selfish way of life, scolding his fellow citizens for doing awful things like driving SUVs, heating their homes to a comfortable temperature, and eating as much as they’d like. Note the return of John Kerry’s “global test” in his remarks. If this is how he lectures Americans while he’s still pandering for votes, one wonders how preachy a President Obama might get:


Millions of Americans oppose Senator Obama’s candidacy for many different reasons. For a small number of bigots, one of them is almost certainly race. That being said, Obama’s surrogates and media supporters have shown very little reluctance to ascribe racism to virtually anyone who supports another candidate. This is shameful. Worse still, Obama has personally played the race card several times, accusing Republicans in general, and the McCain campaign specifically, of whipping up race-based ugliness. When McCain’s objects, Obama has disingenuously denied he was referring to race in his initial comments. Really? On one occasion, Obama accused Republicans of trying to “scare” voters by mentioning that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” At another rally he made a similar claim, adding “…did we mention he’s black?” to his interpretation of the GOP’s supposed scare tactics. As someone who presents himself as a unifying figure, what does it say that he shamelessly injects racial politics into the campaign, casting aspersions on his opponents’ motives? Watch and listen for yourself:

With the exception of one time each by the Washington Post and ABC News (on their blogs), the media did nothing to expose this tactic by Obama and his campaign employed on these occasions:


After an embarrassing exchange on a talk show, the Obama campaign scrambled to arm its surrogates with talking points about Obama’s grand legislative record. What did they come up with? Two bills—and Obama talks about them endlessly. One deals with securing loose nuclear weapons and was so uncontroversial that it passed on a voice vote in the Senate. The other created a “google for government” system, allowing citizens to track government spending. Both were laudable efforts for a wet-behind-the-ears legislator, but Obama wants to be President. Beyond those two meager accomplishments, what has he done? It’s a question that has baffled official campaign surrogates and regular Americans alike:


All three of us have written many, many times on all of these issues. Taken individually, most of them would create doubt about the readiness and honesty of any political candidate. Put together as a narrative, we believe this paints the picture of a man who has few real credentials for the office he seeks beyond the Constitutional minimum, and a politician who has succeeded in obfuscating his hard-Left ideology.

Perhaps if Barack Obama had taken more time to build his resumé – especially with executive experience – he might have made a more compelling candidate, and might have demonstrated at least a little of the moderation he has claimed. Instead, Democrats want America to support at once the most radical and least qualified candidate for President in at least a century. They have tried to conceal this with the complicity of a pom-pom-waving national media that has shown much more interest in the political background of a plumber from Ohio than in a major-party candidate for President.

America deserves better than that. Voters deserve the truth from the press, not vague cheers of “hope” and “change” while willfully ignoring or air-brushing Obama’s record. We hope to set that record straight with our essay.

Update: We may add a couple more videos as the day goes along, so keep checking back. If you want to see more, please visit Mary Katharine Ham’s YouTube channel or the Weekly Standard.

Update II: Here’s one video we forgot in our comprehensive argument. Barack Obama offered his insights into his military policy in the middle of a war — cut everything that might make us secure:

He’ll cut missile defense, new weapons systems, and just about everything he can.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

I’d love to read “The Case for John McCain”

ernesto on October 21, 2008 at 11:29 PM

ernesto, i’m afraid you dont understand. did you read this post at all?

you should probably pay attention to what joe biden has been saying about a barack obama presidency… then get a better idea what a new government, with the most liberal, inexperienced candidate for president of all time in combination with a liberal majority in congress, would be like. if you think what happened recently was bad, you ain’t seen nothin yet.

read this

and ask yourself: how is it that a hero like john mccain is passed over in the press, his running mate dragged through the mud, while barack obama walks on water with a history of radical liberalism, anti-american sentiment and questionable, at best, associations? did i mention no experience?

a different, more qualified candidate, would be a different story. the lefties, with their lofty ideals, and zealousness for anything anti-bush has lead them to nominate someone who may set our country back PERMANENTLY.

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 12:21 AM

How about Obama on government sponsored health care?

Does anyone trust the government flu shots any more?

desertdweller on October 22, 2008 at 12:23 AM

I’d try to pull a few heartstrings… here is the gist:

American men & women fought and died in multiple wars to keep this kind of freedom-robbing, always-a-failure-wherever-it-has-been-tried evil (Socialism) from spreading around the world… and now we are going to blindly and eagerly vote it in to become our national foundation?

electric-rascal on October 22, 2008 at 12:29 AM

ernesto on October 21, 2008 at 11:29 PM

If you’re serious and not just firing for effect, you’re voting for a man who will try to unleash socialism on America. He’s the perfect storm of the perfectly wrong man, a done nothing politician from the do nothing congress.

Mojave Mark on October 22, 2008 at 12:54 AM

ernesto – Every word out of Obama’s mouth screams a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. If Obama were Bill Clinton — a relatively centrist Democrat — you might have a case. But every indication is that Obama has more in common with LBJ than with WJC.

As for McCain, I can tell you several things he would do differently than the past eight years. Off the top of my head:

1. McCain is and always has been a staunch opponent of runaway government spending. (Yes, spending ballooned under Bush. But McCain fought it.) And judging by Obama’s stated plans, spending will balloon under his administration just as it did under W’s.

2. McCain was aware of the looming subprime crisis and tried in 2005 to impose new regulations to avert it. Obama (and many other Democrats) opposed those efforts.

3. McCain knew how to win the war in Iraq. If Bush had listened to him earlier, we may have saved 1000s of American (and even more Iraqi) lives.

Those are 3 very big differences with the past eight years. Curiously, Obama tends to be on the wrong side in all three of them. In other words, Obama may have more in common with the Bush presidency than does McCain.

Cato on October 22, 2008 at 1:50 AM

American men & women fought and died in multiple wars to keep this kind of freedom-robbing, always-a-failure-wherever-it-has-been-tried evil (Socialism) from spreading around the world… and now we are going to blindly and eagerly vote it in to become our national foundation?

electric-rascal on October 22, 2008 at 12:29 AM

I’d like to hope that wont happen but it looks like the odds are in favor of exactly that happening. Add to that if a majority of American voters are somehow foolish (foolish being the kindest word I could think of to use) to increase the Dem majority in Congress then the question becomes, what can we as conservatives do about it? What can we do to quite literally save this country (from itself as it would be) from the impending disaster we all know is coming from such a scenario?

Yakko77 on October 22, 2008 at 2:08 AM

The McCain campaign should produce a robo call featuring the most interesting bits of his speech and ending with McCain saying whatever he wants to say. Must be short and sweet so people will not hang up before McCain’s statement.

Birdseye on October 22, 2008 at 6:00 AM

You had me at “LIAR”.

marklmail on October 22, 2008 at 7:02 AM

Need to make a video out of it, and then find the funding to run it. Even if it just ran once during some high-peak in ratings, that could be enough

Dorrahs, I know.

Reaps on October 22, 2008 at 7:15 AM

This is very good but you haven’t dealt adequately with Obama’s foreign-policy judgments and inclinations. Anyone, including Colin Powell, who thinks Iraq could have been conceded to al Qaeda and Iran without disastrous results is nuts and it’s therefore important to point out that Obama was against the policy which has resulted in the defeat of a Qaeda in Iraq and the emergence of peace throughout the country.

But it’s not enough to point out that Obama was spectacularly wrong about The Surge it’s also important to point out how he arrived at his decision. He said he didn’t know any generals who supported The Surge. One would think that if he was really interested in knowing whether The Surge would work he would’ve talked to America’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency namely General Petraeus. Obama was, in fact, incurious about whether The Surge would work. His opposition to The Surge was political, not military.

And Obama’s opposition to the war was also wrong. The conventional view among the war’s opponents is that Saddam was so concerned about Iran that he pretended to have WMD programs. These same people apparently believe that despite such concern Saddam would today be doing nothing while Iran pursues nuclear weapons.

The real intelligence failure concerning Iraq is not the belief that Saddam had not destroyed his stockpiles of WMD but the inability to grasp that even if Saddam did destroy his stockpiles -sometime between 1991 and March 19, 2003- he would have re-constituted his programs not the day after the world turned its back on him but the day of, the moment after, such turning away.

Basilsbest on October 22, 2008 at 7:32 AM

What a great article. I second (or third, etc…) the view that McCain should buy a half-hour to counter Barry’s and run a Power Point presentation using this material…

“Porky sez: “A vote for Obama is the vote of a moron”

Porkky on October 22, 2008 at 8:59 AM

If Obama wins the election and it’s close (which means he will not have a “clear” mandate) and Republicans retain enough of their seats in congress to be able to thwart the really bad Democrat legislation through filibusters and the likes, I think the country will be OK….we will survive.

If Obama wins in a landslide and the Democrats pick up a filibuster proof majority….the country is screwed.

We will pretty much be Canada from here on out. The difference being there’s alot of money in Canada and a very small population, so socialism works there.

The US being the fourth largest country on the planet, will go bankrupt trying to switch from capitalism to socialism. The hard left (marxists) in the US is a particularly rabid strain and there are no limits to the horrors they can inflict.

We can’t out socialize the socialists in the world, i.e. beat them at thier own game. Say goodbye US dominance and hello China, India, Venezula, and Russian dominance. With a neophyte like Obama at the helm, these countries will also soundly beat us at the UN and G-8 or in general on the world stage politically. The US agenda will be the LEAST influential factor of the 21st century.

Once this happens, will the US still have the huge burden of maintaining our status as breadbasket for the world? I just get a sense the American citizenry is about to be raped, pillaged, and plundered and there’s NOTHING we can do about it short of an armed revolt.

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 9:04 AM

Since one of Sen. Obama’s business associates via Rezko has seen fit to threaten me for a post I did, I did answer back to them at the top of the post and kept the rest intact. That post actually goes after both candidates, to show the high level links both have that are questionable. And as I have posted voluminously on the Red Mafia, terrorism, and a notorious international gun smuggler in cahoots with Hezbollah, I can say that I was doing my best to give all the record I could find. Wikileaks has added to that record with the Inspector General’s report on contracts in Iraq involving said friend of Sen. Obama. Just before that I take a look at the Oil For Food scandal just a bit more and look at one or two other connections that bring some things into the light.

After that I took a look at Sen. Obama’s associates and friends, and came away less than impressed in his judgment and character. That included Rev. Wright as so many wanted his sermons put into ‘context’, so I tood a random one and found it to be ahistorical, politically motivated and an outright misrepresentation of the text he was talking about.

It is interesting that no one has asked Bill Ayers about the report that the Weather Underground trained in Cuba under Fidel Castro’s organization, along with many other groups at the same time. That question comes up because of the various contacts of FARC over the decades, and their contemperaneous training in Cuba, along with many other groups. Pretty much a ‘who’s who’ of modern terrorism has trained in Cuba.

Back to Sen. Obama and his ongoing contacts, which continue to leave me very unimpressed. It really is amazing what a small world of friends he has in Chitown before going National: it is a group that apparently works together and is very chummy with each other both socially and via their business and financial workings. It is that group of common friends, particularly the Rezko associates, that show up for the local and State funding of Sen. Obama’s early campaigns. So nice to see so many people connected to a Presidential candidate under federal criminal scrutiny!

That does bring up the question of Sen. Obama flip-flopping about Iraq, which starts with the individuals involved in his circle of friends with a contract there. Over at PJM Richard Fernandez goes through the fine tooth detail of the flips, flops and relationships.

So before going deeper into Ayers and ACORN, I really had a good outline of the character, judgment and just what Sen. Obama thought was important by gaining those friends. Can’t say I cared much for it. And as that is his main reason for running that he started on during the campaign I considered those all to be ‘fair game’. And, yes, I have also looked at all the other major candidates, so only consider this to be special attention once the fields thinned out…

ajacksonian on October 22, 2008 at 9:23 AM

Case for McCain?

Foreign policy — Keep America strong. Has seen and done it all. Understands world politics and diplomacy. Pro free trade.
Domestic policy — Always been a fiscal hawk. Concern about earmarks a bellweather for his approach to the rest of the budget. Wants to freeze spending across the board! Understands govt is way too big and we’re crashing. Realizes nuclear power is an integral part of energy independance. Realizes the engine of the economy is private enterprise, not govt spending.
Character and person — A steel sword forged with hammer blows and heat. Honest. Straight talker. Will go against own party. Compassionate. Will be fine if he doesn’t become prez.

Paul-Cincy on October 22, 2008 at 9:34 AM

I just read an article in Drudge about “Socialist” being the new code word for “Black”. Wow, Let’s hook up a few dots here.

Barack Hussein Obama (supporter, close friend and tribe mate of Raila Odinga of the socialistic and Islamic leaning “Orange Democratic Movement” in Kenya) becomes President of the United States.

Hate crime prosecution (An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation) becomes increasingly popular.

Political tags like “socialist” or “communist” are perpetrated as code words for “Black” or “n_____r”

So by calling Barak Obama a socialist or communist you can be cited and prosecuted under hate crime laws.

Political decent becomes prosecutable hate crime.

Think about it. Are we already seeing the signs?
Is this possibly Barak’s brave new world of CHANGE?

Ernest on October 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Also … McCain — strong leader in the Senate. In his book “Combat”, Warren Rudman divided the Senate into 3 equally sized sections — the bottom, who do little; the middle, who do work on their pet projects; and the top, who set the agenda and run the Senate. McCain is at the top of the top group. Obama hasn’t been in the Senate long enough yet to fit into any of the 3 groups!

Paul-Cincy on October 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Cato on October 22, 2008 at 1:50 AM

So your saying that besides mortgage insanity, spending, and the war in iraq…the same direction gets us different results?

what about energy
what about immigration
what about international cooperation
what about education
what about health care

It sounds to me that for all his maverickyness, mccain looks to the standard republican orthodoxy of the last 8 years for ideas for “change”

how can that be?

ernesto on October 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Obama ‘admits’ Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn’t respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate

AdrianS on October 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Obama ‘admits’ Kenyan birth?
AdrianS on October 22, 2008

WOW !!
I read your link and it even mentions the city in Kenya that Barack was most likely born in.

I think this is a case of where there’s smoke there’s fire.
I would bet 100-1 that the truth is, Obama was NOT born in the US. The birth certificate posted online is a phony.

The problem is the second arm of the Obama campaign (national media) will not look in to this.

I wonder if after Obama is elected, can he be removed if this can be proven?

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM

I think this is a case of where there’s smoke there’s fire.
I would bet 100-1 that the truth is, Obama was NOT born in the US. The birth certificate posted online is a phony.

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Yep. All the available evidence certainly points to that, and the actions of BHO and his band of thugs says as much as anyone with a brain should need to know. He won’t produce a simple document because it just doesn’t exist.

Even the “embarrassed” conservatives who thought this citizenship issue was tin-foil hat territory have to start acknowledging that BHO’s actions are nothing more than those of a con man who doesn’t have the goods and is fighting tooth and nail to not be discovered before the election.

progressoverpeace on October 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Obama ‘admits’ Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn’t respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate

AdrianS on October 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Until it’s verified and Obama is forced to step down then I’m not buying any of this.

Yakko77 on October 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Until it’s verified and Obama is forced to step down then I’m not buying any of this.

Yakko77 on October 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM

I think you mean that you’re not “counting” on this, but it’s pretty obvious that BHO has huge problems with the Hawaiian birth certificate – most probably because it doesn’t exist. The fight to resist is just far too vigorous for any other reasonable explanation.

progressoverpeace on October 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Obama: The Manchurian Candidate

I’m sure his puppet masters have done their ground work early on to “change” his place of birth. How difficult would it be to purge an old bith certificate and create a new one?

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM

I wonder if after Obama is elected, can he be removed if this can be proven?

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Under the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, it states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

*I added the emphasis to the above text.

eanax on October 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Under the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, it states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

eanax on October 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM

The living document whackos have just announced that the term “natural born” means only that the person was not delivered via Caesarian section, but through a natural birth. Problem solved.

They’ll get the Caesarian section people eligible later under an Equal Protection argument. :)

progressoverpeace on October 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM

ernesto, your ignorance is laughable.

what about energy

democrats sealed off all viable locations to drill domestically besides parts of the gulf and we now see the largest transfer of wealth of all time. mccain is for all forms of energy. barack obama just wants to spend billions of tax-payer dollars for his brand of energy.

what about immigration

john mccain supported legislation that would have, at least, been a more difficult path to citizenship than pure amnesty (even tho many were still not happy with it). barack obama will simply open up the borders and call off any work being done to prevent illegal immigration and legalize 10s of millions of illegal aliens with the idea of millions of additional votes.

what about international cooperation

exactly what kind of international cooperation are you talking about? nations that have joined with us in the fight against radical extremism or nations that will test barack obama because he is weak and inexperienced? or that will get what they want because obama will give it to them? losing all credibility and diplomatic respect in the process? please clarify.

what about education

more programs like affirmative action from obama? more state sponsored programs and bureaucratic agencies that just soak up taxes and never get anything done? tell me exactly what the department of education has accomplished besides billions in taxes and bureaucracy? get ready for a lot more. obama just promises people he’ll make sure they can afford to send their kids to college… sounds so good to everyone naive… but how will he do this? big government and higher taxes and redistribution… that’s how.

what about health care

you would have to read mccains entire policy on this. the main thing is that he wants to uphold a free-market (let me reiterate FREE) solution to health care including tax breaks for families with children. barack obama says he’ll enact nationalized healthcare but says you’ll be able to keep your own insurance and your own doctor if you want… tell me, who would like to keep paying for something the government offers for free?? everyone will drop their coverage and opt for the free, big government, tax-payer supported healthcare. the billions upon billions of dollars it would take to run this system would mean raising taxes on everything and everyone, including the 95% of americans obama says he’ll give tax breaks to. not to mention the millions of people who will have to wait in line or get sent home rather than get treatment… read up on european and canadian healthcare systems and see for yourself the problems they have. read, on this website, the problems that hawaii had within the first 7 months of enacting state-run healthcare… they have to drop it because people dropped their own coverage and ran over to get the free stuff. hawaii ran over budget in less than a year.

this is a guy who will tell you whatever you want to hear so you will vote for him. he is dangling the carrot in front of you and you are the donkey. do more research rather than listen to obama’s rhetoric.

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Here’s how I’m exercising my free speech for the next two weeks. My truck is now a rolling McCain ad.

cannonball on October 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM

on the healthcare reply, i should have said:
… he wants to uphold a free-market (let me reiterate FREE- as in freedom to do business, not free, as in provided by government) solution to healthcare

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 1:11 PM

My truck is now a rolling McCain ad.
cannonball on October 22, 2008

You might need someone to guard your truck when you’re not around or some retarded lib might be tempted to take a sample out of your paint job.

Goodeye_Closed on October 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Excellent summation of the arguments against BS Obama, the mixed media presentation is very powerful. The Connie Chug interview alone should drive a stake through the dark heart of Obama (O’Reilly is tool, opportunism vs.ideology matters? keep spinning zone pilot) Why McCain refuses to persue Obamas lack of character, bad judgment and hypocrisy is incomprehensible.

Identity politics like identity theft is a crime of deception and fraud, what say you Barack?

dmann on October 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Is there a summary/cliff notes version of this? I think a bullet list with the topic and main points would make an excellent email thread. :-)

cannonball on October 22, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Here’s how I’m exercising my free speech for the next two weeks. My truck is now a rolling McCain ad.

cannonball on October 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Well done. Can you take the next two weeks off and travel to battleground states? Maybe we can have a collection for gas money. :)

neuquenguy on October 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM

I just read an article in Drudge about “Socialist” being the new code word for “Black”. Wow, Let’s hook up a few dots here.

Barack Hussein Obama (supporter, close friend and tribe mate of Raila Odinga of the socialistic and Islamic leaning “Orange Democratic Movement” in Kenya) becomes President of the United States.

Hate crime prosecution (An offense committed against another person, with the specific intent to cause harm to that person due to their race, gender, sexual orientation) becomes increasingly popular.

Political tags like “socialist” or “communist” are perpetrated as code words for “Black” or “n_____r”

So by calling Barak Obama a socialist or communist you can be cited and prosecuted under hate crime laws.

Your comments are a very direct extension of what Ed has published, so I understand where you’re coming from. It’s time to fear the coming of these radical blacks who are probably Muslims and socialists as well.

Perhaps people like Dick Lugar and Warren Buffet are mere patsies. Isn’t is plausible that Obama will continue using these type of national figures for show and secretly call Bill Ayers for the real policy advice?

bayam on October 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM

As with the John Edwards affair, we are being treated to an evident news blockade. When John Edwards was busted jockeying around the hotel where his lover lives, the MSM kept quiet for several days and blocked the story from getting out. This is amazing, but it shows how much the MSM is in collusion with some one or some organization — could be communists.

The “official” Obama “birth certificate” has been proven to be faked. And then the question becomes why? Why does Obama allow such fraudulent acts or even tolerate them. But here is the real stickler: Mr. Obama and the DNC were sued by Phllip J. Berg to have a judge order Mr. Obama to produce a valid, verifiable, legal birth certificate in order to fulfill the constitutional requirement that persons running for the Presidency of the United States by natural born citizens — and Mr. Obama and the DNC have, instead of producing said certificate, filled a motion to dismiss. Interestingly enough, Mr. Obama and the DNC did NOT file a response — and affirmative defense — to the effect that the certificate was already on the Internet and viewable. Why? Because 1) it’s a fake, or 2) Mr. Barack Obama does not have a valid birth certificate for the U.S. and/or is NOT a natural born citizen and therefore does not qualify to run for president.

Ask yourself, you are reasonable person — why would Mr. Obama not want to fulfill the requirement of the Constitution? What is he up to?

Judah Benjamin has much to say regarding Mr. Obama’s lack of openness:

Mr. Phil Berg was interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy this morning (Wednesday) and stated that he will be filing today a motion for summary judgment.

One interesting point that Mr. Benjamin reveals is that Mr. Obama has no reasonable claim of privacy regarding the requirement that he present valid proof that he is a natural born citizen. But interestingly enough, Mr. Berg is adamantly convinced that Obama cannot provide such proof.

I suggest we all raise our voices in concert and demand that Mr. Obama comply or remove his name from contention. Obama is trivializing the Constitution and really shows a great deal of contempt for the citizens of America.

The best safeguard for our country at this time is to overwhelmingly vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

God bless America.

Other link:
Obamalies or lies Obama tells

AdrianS on October 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM

AdrianS on October 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM


If only it was JUST THE MSM that seemed to be blocking this story, but it is not even getting a fair shake on conservative blogs LIKE THIS ONE!
We depend on people like Michelle, Allah & Ed to do “the heavy lifting”- research, contacting their “inside sources” etc. Where have you seen any mention of Obama’s citizenship here on HotAir? Bloggers like you, Gohawgs, me and a couple of others who I can’t recall have been the only ones bringing this up. WHY ISN’T THERE A THREAD ON OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP? that list all 3 (that I’m aware of) lawsuits.

NightmareOnKStreet on October 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM

THIS ISN’T A CONSPIRACY THEORY. If John McCain had refused to produce his “VAULT”/long form birth certificate, or had substituted a “short form” COLB (a lesser, not acceptable form for driver’s licenses etc) proof)IT WOULD BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF EVERY PAPER & THE LEAD STORY ON TV NEWS.

NightmareOnKStreet on October 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Why have NOT HEARD ONE WORD from Michelle, Allah or Ed. Have you guys read the lawsuits with links we have provided? WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

NightmareOnKStreet on October 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Again, MOST of that comment was “heres why NOT to vote for Barack Obama”

You still didnt tell me why McCain’s orthodox republican views on things like education will bring about better results than they have over the last 8 years. Stop using democrats to make excuses. If the fact of the matter is that a McCain administration will follow the broad policy guidelines of the Bush administration…just say so. But thats not change. Thats not a new direction.

Own it man, McCain should own up to the fact that talking like he will lead us in a “new direction” is a bold faced lie. Many may feel that we dont need a new direction if we are to ably face the challenges ahead, and i understand theres a real argument to make to that effect…but its still not anything new.

Paul-Cincy on October 22, 2008 at 9:34 AM

You say McCain’s foreign policy will “keep america strong”…what does that mean exactly? Does that mean we kick Russia out of the G8 and guarantee ZERO progress on overcoming our differences…does that mean further isolation of iran (which IS NOT WORKING)…does keeping america safe mean ignoring the Israeli situation, as Bush largely has during his 8 years?…what about North Korea? will McCain undo the diplomatic headway made by Condi Rice in the past year? Will he go back to no negotiation?

I ask again…what does “keep america safe” actually mean, with regards to real foreign policy decisions?

ernesto on October 22, 2008 at 4:01 PM

ernesto, i think you’re just making arguments for the hell of it. have fun

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Well at least you haven’t taken issue with anything I said in that last post

ernesto on October 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM

The first hour of Mark Levin’s Tue. Oct. 21st show is a winner:

On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: What else can we say about Obama? He has practically told us how he will destroy our economic and private sectors if he were going to be elected. The amount of taxes will be enormous and the federal government will not be able to withstand the pressure of such a huge welfare state. The liberals have told us that they have no problem with redistributing and spreading around wealth – is this where you want your hard earned money to go to? The media has been endorsing and proposing Obama regardless of who or what stands in their way. Mark also discusses immigration, the importation of poverty, socialized health care and how the government sets standards that can’t be met.

electric-rascal on October 22, 2008 at 5:11 PM

hehe, no? i took issue that you’re just making arguments, ha! sorry about the ignorance thing. i regretted i didn’t delete that before. you’re asking questions and wanting to know. THAT is good. peace.

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 6:47 PM

hey ernesto, i saw this and thought you might take a look. haven’t read it all, but it will tell you a lot about mccain. going to home to read it myself.
Massive NYT magazine piece on McCain campaign finally online

thedude on October 22, 2008 at 7:03 PM

Here is Neal Boortz’s well written essay on why NOT to vote for Obama. He published it in his nuze blog today:

karenhasfreedom on October 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Audio does not work??? I have re-booted many times but still no audio.

pgmrmatt on October 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5