Saturday, March 01, 2008

Obamarama

"When the Jews return to Zion
And a comet rips the sky
And the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then You and I must die.
From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
'Til man exists no more."

~ Father Brennan (From "The Omen")

Barack Hussein Obama?

41 comments:

Gayle said...

Yeah, this guy is a real threat, BZ. Unbelievable that so many people aren't aware of just who he really is.

Jim said...

so he's the anti-christ?

Mark said...

I don't think so, Jim. I'm just sayin'...

What do y'all think?

Actually I'm getting a jump on the conspiracy theorists just so I can say, "You heard it here first".

Mark said...

Perhaps some numerologists can go to work and determine whether the number of his name is 666?

Jim said...

if you don't think so, then why are you "just sayin'"?

Mark said...

"cause it makes Liberals, like you, who have no sense of humor, crazy.

Dan Trabue said...

From the eternal sea he rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning man against his brother
'Til man exists no more.


What do I think?

I think that sounds a bit more like Brother Bush - Master Divider and Army-Maker - than it does anything I've heard from soon-to-be President Obama.

C'mon fellas, let's get behind your president-to-be. You a buncha commie traitors or something?

At least with Bush, the serious criticisms didn't come until after he started committing possible war crimes and supporting torture...

Lone Ranger said...

Drama queens. They're everywhere. Bush could raise his arms and cure all cancer and liberals would burn him as a witch.

Marshall Art said...

One can journey to such places as AmericanThinker.com, or Townhall.com and find numerous articles and columns by many who list all the downsides of an Obama presidency. I've put a few on my blog, and though they are largely opinion pieces, they have, like most conservative ones will, a basis on verifiable fact, that is, his record, such as it is.

And Danny-boy, is it "possible" war crimes now? You seemed much more confident in the past. I see you're still running that "supporting torture" nonsense. But don't worry. If Obama makes the final cut, none of that will be a problem. He'll welcome our enemies with open arms. Then you can try your "peace not war" philosophy up close and personal. BTW, have you tried it on gang-bangers yet? Just wondering.

Dan Trabue said...

BTW, have you tried it on gang-bangers yet? Just wondering.

As a matter of fact, I live and work and worship in high crime areas and have, on at least a few occasions, found myself in a situation where a peaceful response led to a successful intervention with violent people.

So yes, I have used and seen used non-violent interventions work. You?

Does that matter or shall we just assume the shoot to kill response is always the best? I was under the impression that facts and history didn't matter to you, you'll always feel safest with the biggest bombs approach?

Fear not, for lo, I am with you always.

ELAshley said...

Actually, Tony Blair is a far better candidate as he is poised to become the first President of the European Union Council, which unless I'm mistaken, is the unelected body that controls the EU; they hold the REAL power.

I'm not saying Blair IS the Antichrist, only that he better fits the template. Obama is just plain ignorant, especially in his support of Abortion rights which detrimentally affects the African American community more than any other. Sadly, however, there are too many people who will vote for him BECAUSE he's black... not for what he stands for. They're voting for him because he appears to walk on water. Not because he's actually done it. He hasn't done much of anything in fact but talk a good talk. THAT and support abortion-- which is MURDER, btw. Just thought I'd point that last bit out; some people are too blind to see it.

Dan Trabue said...

Sadly, however, there are too many people who will vote for him BECAUSE he's black...

BULL-LONEY.

Name ONE.

ELAshley said...

Calling it names, Dan, don't make it so. You can't possibly expect us to believe that Blacks aren't voting for Obama because of the color of his skin. Only a fool and the pathologically myopic would believe it.

As far as I'm concerned the onus is you. If you think it's BULL-LONEY, prove it. Otherwise don't expect me or anyone else to believe this fantasy you have about a good many of Obama's supporters.

Dan Trabue said...

You can't possibly expect us to believe that Blacks aren't voting for Obama because of the color of his skin.

Wow. Eric, I am almost certain that you are not a racist. And yet, with a comment like that, one can't help but wonder.

Are you really saying that blacks in great numbers will vote for Obama merely because he's black and not for more his positions?

Does that mean that you think if Condi Rice ran for president that blacks would vote en masse for her?

Please Eric, tell me you're not that deluded. Consider what you're saying here. I mean, I know you're a white guy from Alabama, but don't live down to the stereotype.

ELAshley said...

BECAUSE of where I live... south Alabama, I hear it all the time from black folk, "I'm voting for Obama because he's black." Are they racist too? Don't be naive, Dan. You may like to think better of your fellow man, and so do I, but I see the reality on the ground. Your head's too high in the clouds.

And for the record, none of the Black people I've talked to know ANYTHING about what he stands for. All they know is the color of his skin, and how great it would be to have a black president.

Mark said...

The reason none of them know anything about what he stands for is becuase he hasn't made clear what he stands for.

There is so much talk about his hurch and it's minister, but is there any evidence he actually goes to church more than once or twice a year?

I don't believe he is an anti-Christ, but I don't believe he is a Muslim,either. Muslims are not usually closeted. They are proud of being Muslim.

Ms.Green said...

"let's get behind your president-to-be"

Why should a president - to - be be respected when the president in office is not?

Seems hypocritical for someone who bashes Bush to make the statement "let's get behind your president-to-be"

Dan Trabue said...

You may like to think better of your fellow man, and so do I, but I see the reality on the ground. Your head's too high in the clouds.

Brother man, you don't know jack.

I live in an urban setting. I live, work, eat, worship and play with all sort of folk, black folk included. I've heard no one say such a thing.

So again, name one. Who do you know personally - which African American do you sit down to dinner with or worship with and know intimately - who says, "Duh... I don't know nothin' 'bout Mr Obama, but he sho' nuff black and that's all I need."

Give me a name and tell me how well you know them. Are they your friend or someone you saw once walking down the street? Have you been to their house and is their whole home made up of simpletons who'd vote for one reason only - and it wouldn't matter if it is Obama or if it were Rice?

I am sure that there may be a handful of folk out there who'd say something like that, just as there are a few folk who'd vote for anyone as long as he was white and male and a Christian.

But there simply is not a large number of African Americans (or white Americans, either) who vote based solely on skin color. Anyone who says so is itching to be called a racist and/or ignorant of the real world, dealing instead with harsh stereotypes and not real people.

Dan Trabue said...

There is so much talk about his hurch and it's minister, but is there any evidence he actually goes to church more than once or twice a year?

Oh, you mean like Reagan? Or George W Bush? (Maybe daddy Bush, too?)

Yeah, if you want a solid church attended (and sunday school teacher, to boot!), you have to go back to Jimmy Carter, I believe.

I haven't heard for sure about Obama, my impression is that he attends more than occasionally, but I could be wrong.

He certainly appears to know the Bible pretty well, regardless.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, my bad. Clinton ALSO attended church regularly, it seems.

Hmm, so the Bushes and Reagans DON'T/DIDN'T attend church and those poor sinners Carter, Clinton and Obama do? Wouldn't that be rich!

Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Dan Trabue said...

In case you didn't like my source for Bush not attending church, here's another source demonstrating the same: Carter and Clinton attended Church while president. Reagan and Bush didn't.

So, was your point about raising the question of whether or not Obama attends regularly to suggest that those who don't (ie, Bush/Reagan) are not worthy of serving as president? Or are of questionable moral character?

Maybe so. Maybe so.

Trader Rick said...

Doesn't matter what he is--he would make Jimmy Carter look like a genius if he ever got to the White House.

Dan Trabue said...

Seems hypocritical for someone who bashes Bush to make the statement "let's get behind your president-to-be"

And you would be exactly correct, Ms Green, IF I bashed Bush pre-emptively for no reason. I didn't.

When he was elected, I was sorely disappointed and questioned the process (and still do) but I didn't think Bush evil or bash him in any way UNTIL I started seeing his policies and even then, I rarely if ever criticized him, only his policy. In fact, he seemed like a likable sorta fella, at first.

But then, a few days into office and he hires some convicted felons for his cabinet and my alarms start going off. Then he pulled in oil/gas/coal people to staff his cabinet and to write energy policy and more red flags started flying.

So you see, I criticized his policies and actions once they revealed themselves as wrong.

That is what I'm expecting the US to do with President Obama. Unfortunately, Bush has contributed to a division in our nation rarely seen before by his divisive politics (again, not criticizing Bush the man, but rather his actions). So there are many people out there (right here, for instance) who are prepared to bash first and assume the worst and ask questions later.

Fortunately, those sort are still in a minority and soon-to-be President Obama IS a uniter in a way not seen in a while.

Mark said...

Dan, I find your revulsion of oil/gas/coal people rather disengenuous particuarly if you yourself drive a motor vehichle.

Now if you dont own a car, and you get around exclusively on foot or by bicycle, you don't need oil and gas. Either way, you have no grievance.

If you aren't prepared to practice what you preach you should thank God for the oil industry instead of bashing Bush for hiring people who have shown they have an innate ability to make money in the oil industry which is a particuarly beneficial asset for running a country.

Mark said...

I only brought up the question on whether Obama attends church because I don't think he is personally responsible for beliefs espoused by his pastor. I have attended churches whose pastors had beliefs disparate from mine but it doesn't necessarily mean I belied the same things.

However, if the beliefs espoused by Obama's pastors are beliefs Obama has endorsed, he should rightfully be questioned.

Dan Trabue said...

As a matter of fact, I do get around on foot and bike mostly. Bus sometimes. Car occasionally.

Regardless, it is not in any way demeaning gas/oil people to say that I don't want energy policy written by them or a cabinet staffed heavily with them.

The President should represent all people, not just his croneys or the highest bidder.

I wouldn't want a cabinet made up mostly of environmentalists, either. (Although, at least in their case, they're in it out of motives other than profit, which I trust more than just the greed motive.)

So the point is not that I'm revulsed by gas/oil people. I didn't say that, you did.

The point is that they are not the ones who ought to be writing our energy policy, or at least not alone. I would want their input. I would want scientists input. I would want environmentalist input. You get the idea.

If you load up any committee with a bunch of hammers, all the problems will look like nails and all the solutions will be of the hammer variety. Life doesn't work that way and doing so leads inevitably to corruption.

Timothy said...

Hi Mark,

Good question. I don't think he is THE antichrist but could very quickly become an antichrist. All that he has to do is offer hope in some other fashion than the hope we should find in God. In other words, when he starts offering hope to the people to be found in the government and in him, when it should be found in God, then he is an antichrist. The word simply means that he is a replacement Christ.

And given some of the press and his actions, he comes close to being that. What hope does he really offer? Change? Blah, blah blah. What is that? We will get change no matter who we elect. That is a given. But what kind of change is the question.
Blessings

Marshall Art said...

"Unfortunately, Bush has contributed to a division in our nation rarely seen before by his divisive politics..."

This is, pardon the expression, crap. One of Bush's first moves was No Child Left Behind with one of the biggest boobs from the other side of the aisle, Ted "Pour Me Another" Kennedy. The divisiveness has come from the whiners on the left who poisoned themselves on sour grapes after Bush legitimately won the election. From there, every move he's made has gotten nothing but obstruction from the Dems. If he broke wind, they'd complain that he lifted the wrong cheek off the chair. His policies weren't big surprises for anyone who paid attention during the campaign. But he won so half the voting pubic found him worthy of the position and those who didn't have whined about every move he's made.

The president is not the representative of the people (that would be senators and congressmen, also known as representatives), he's the leader of the people. He tells us what he will do, or hopes to do, if elected and we vote up or down accordingly. It's his vision and character for which we vote and his got the most electoral votes (the way it's been done for quite a while, so the process worked just as it's meant to).

Now Obama has told us nothing about what he intends to do, but we are beginning to find out. For me this is the most troubling. He maintains his momentum as his real self is beginning to be exposed and that speaks ill of too many in this country. Hopefully it's simply because it's still early and people will begin to step off the band wagon soon. I've got to believe our country is that smart or we'll begin a downward trend. God help us if I'm wrong.

In addition, Dan, you whine about Bush hiring convicted felons, but you want us to pour tons of dough into the penal system to rehabilitate criminals. Why are the "criminals" Bush hired unworthy of your affection, when the absolute dregs are entitled to a second education at taxpayer expense?

As to this:

So yes, I have used and seen used non-violent interventions work.

if they still are street thugs preying on the public, not having laid down their weapons and turned to righteous living, all you've done is saved your self an ass-kicking. I'd wager none of those of which you speak were gang leaders or even hard-core. Can it be done? I'm hoping it can. Will it across the board? Hell no. Not hardly. Peace talk is worthless if the targets don't become peaceful.

Dan Trabue said...

Why are the "criminals" Bush hired unworthy of your affection, when the absolute dregs are entitled to a second education at taxpayer expense?

Because they are unrepentant criminals proud of their part in covering up war crimes. Someone like that should have NO role in a presidential administration.

Simple enough when you think about it, right?

Mark said...

OOOOHHHHH! So the only criminals you think should be rehabilitated are the unrepentant ones?

Well, that covers about 99% of them. Usually, the only thing most criminals are sorry about, particularly gang bangers, is that they got caught.

Dan Trabue said...

So the only criminals you think should be rehabilitated are the unrepentant ones?

?? No. My point was that unrepentant felons are not good job material. Part of the rehabilitation process is, ideally, repentance.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I think I'm being fairly straightforward: Bush in his first year hired two felons - convicted for lying to congress about war crimes. They were and remain proud of their roles in lying to Congress.

That ex-con is a poor choice for a presidential cabinet. This should be an easy thing to agree upon.

Cons who are proud of their crimes = poor cabinet choices. People convicted of lying to Congress = poor cabinet choices.

What kind of person supports that sort of appointment???

Marie's Two Cents said...

I think Obama is dangerous and will get us all killed!!

Mark said...

"I'm not sure what point you're trying to make."

The point I'm succeeding in making, Dan, is this:

You said, "Because they are unrepentant criminals proud of their part in covering up war crimes.

Your words, Dan. You are the one that insists criminals shouldn't be punished and should be given second, third, fourth, ad infinitum chances.

Yet, you are somehow opposed to them getting their second chances in a Republican administration.

I don't recall you ever suggesting that a feeling of remorse is a pre- requisite to your pie-in-the-sky fantasy ideals.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark, you are making presumptions about what I think that aren't borne out by reality. In short, you're mistaken about what my position is.

My position regarding those convicted of crimes is that
1. most of them WILL be getting out of jail one day.
2. That being the case, I'd rather they be rehabilitated and have a chance of going straight once they're out.
3. I want that not only for reasons for humanity, but for plain ol' fiscal responsibility. It costs tax payers less to help rehabilitate them than it does to continue to imprison them.

Logical enough, yes?

I want the same for those Iran-Contra felons: They weren't in jail forever and I'd hope that they had a chance to rehabilitate themselves whilst serving their time.

BUT, having said that, this does not mean that I think once an ex-con is out that they're suited for just ANY job nor that there should be no ongoing consequences.
The fella who was convicted of drunk-driving probably ought not work in a bar and probably should live without a driving license for at least a while.

The fella convicted of rape probably ought not have a job working at the women's gym.

And the fellas convicted of LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT WAR CRIMES!! ought not have a job in the US gov't.

They've served their time and we should help continue their rehabilitation. Working to raise money to pay for those injured by war criminals would be a good job for them. Working at McDonald's is fine. BUT, especially considering that they're proud of their crimes they should NOT have been appointed to Cabinet level jobs.

What's difficult about this? You think those who've BEEN CONVICTED of LYING TO CONGRESS have a place in the White House? Really?

Marshall Art said...

Would that be a Democraticly controlled Congress?

Seriously, you throw around the "war crimes" charge a bit to casually for my taste. So if you will, Dan, please refresh my memory and name the war criminals in question and what their lies allegedly were. I'm bettin' that it's that same old story we've gone around about in the past. Dems doing the questioning doesn't bode well for any Republican doing the answering. Thus, as president, I wouldn't put much stock into the results of a Dem-controlled congressional inquiry. Could make the victim a better choice for hiring.

Dan Trabue said...

The US (the Reagan White House) illegally funnelled moneys and support to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua during the 1980s to try to overthrow the Democratically elected Ortega.

The Contras by all accounts raided villages killing and "disappearing" tens of thousands of people. The CIA aided the Contras by mining the harbor at Corinto, actions that led to the US being convicted of war crimes (a conviction which we refused to heed).

There were multiple people in the Reagan administration convicted of conspiracy, lying to congress and a host of other charges. Two of those - Poindexter and Abrams - were later hired in the early days of the Bush II administration.

It is a horribly wrong to hire men who had gladly lied to Congress and conspired to cover up war crimes to cabinet level positions.

I find it ridiculous that I even have to argue this with supposedly reasonable, moral people.

Read all about it:


fas.org
.

Mark said...

Dan, "actions that led to the US being convicted of war crimes (a conviction which we refused to heed)."???

Are you kidding me? When did Americans become responsible for something a Communist government calls war crimes?

Dan Trabue said...

I think blogger just lost my comment.

Briefly:

1. We violated OUR OWN US laws when we supported terrorism in the Nicaraguan Democracy.
2. Because we did not hold our war criminals accountable, the World Court (not the Democratic peoples of Nicaragua) held the trial and convicted us of war crimes for acts that no one disputes were done by the US.
3. We DID mine the harbor at Corinto in Nicaragua - a Democracy that we had not declared war against. We DID support Contras who WERE engaged in terrorism. The facts aren't in dispute.
4. The Reagan administration DID illegally sell weapons secretly to the dictatorship of Iran and take that money - against our laws - and give it to terrorists in Nicaragua who were trying to overthrow their legally elected leadership.

What the hell does it take to raise your sense of righteous indignation over WAR CRIMES and those who engage in such actions?!

Mark said...

America doesn't recognize the authority of the World Court. The only Americans that do are the Americans who hate America.

Dan Trabue said...

Man, talk about "anti-Christ!"

Marshall Art said...

What it takes, Dan, is people who aren't so ready to crap on an administration because it is Republican, such as we constantly see by Dems. I don't believe that the "illegal" aspects came first. I believe we were engaged in helping the Contras and then the Dem controlled congress decided against it because they were in favor of Ortega, which is typical. It is typical that any left-leaning entity will draw support from the left in this country, as we see in the knee-pad wearing attitudes of Dems toward Castro for example. It's just way too hard to respect anything that comes from the left because of their proven inanity. So just a question: what do think was the reason that Reagan supported the contras against the Ortega regime? Keep in mind that there are many supposedly "democratically (small "d") elected" governments that aren't quite as democratic as the left would have us believe. What was the payoff for Reagan in doing what he did? (this oughta be good)