Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary

As disgust with the grossly unqualified, incompetent Obama continues to grow, we're getting more and more hits from people looking for "Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary" merchandise. Although it sucks that we're stuck with Obama--for now--my conscience is clear knowing that I did not support him and that I KNEW Hillary Clinton was the better choice. It's still surprising to me, a lifelong Democrat, that I ended up voting Republican in the Presidential election, but I simply could not, with a clear conscience, vote for Barack Hussein Obama, so my vote went to McCain. Hopefully, the 2012 elections will see a QUALIFIED Democrat on the ticket that I'll feel good voting for. Stay tuned...

Meanwhile, if you're looking for "Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary" merchandise, please stop by our CafePress shop. Here are a few samples; select any image to see all products with this design on them:





.

Yet another reason Clinton is better than Obama: Humane Society ratings

As if all the good things Hillary Clinton has done--and all the really bad things/people/places/associations Obama has--weren't enough, here's yet another reason Clinton is so vastly superior to that smug idiot. According to the Humane Society's scorecard on animal protection, Clinton scores a perfect 100%, while Obama rates a paltry 60%. Am *I* surprised? No.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
Anyone who supports the fur industry with its appalling treatment of animals, as the Obamas do, must be scumbags anyway, so I really wouldn't expect much from him/them when it comes to animal-related concerns.

Here are the Humane Society's explanations for their ratings:

Hillary Clinton Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection

The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection scored Clinton 100+ out of 100, based on:

• Clinton co-sponsored the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 34 co-sponsors.
  
  
• Clinton voted for the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
  
  
• Clinton co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
  
  
• Clinton co-sponsored the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban "downed" (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
  
  
• Clinton signed the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
  
  
• Clinton took leadership on animal protection.
  

Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org Jan 31, 2007


Barack Hussein Obama Scored 60% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection

The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection issues scored Obama 60 out of 100, based on:

• Obama did not co-sponsor the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 34 co-sponsors.
  
  
• Obama voted for the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
  
  
• Obama co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
  
  
• Obama did not co-sponsor the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban "downed" (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
  
  
• Obama signed the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
  

Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org Jan 31, 2007

In addition to the above, Senator Clinton has also supported many other animal-oriented issues, including:

• Sponsoring legislation to crack down on puppy mills.
  
  
• Requesting more funds for the USDA to step up enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal animal fighting law.
  
  
• Taking a leadership role in efforts to stop the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals.
  
  
• Supporting the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act.
  

and much more.

So if you're concerned about animals, know your candidates! You can give your vote to the heartless scumbag fur-supporting Obama who rates a miserable 60% or to the animal-friendly Clinton who rates 100%. Easy choice, in my opinion.

McGovern. Dukakis. Kerry. Obama...

It's looking more and more inevitable that the Democratic National Committee--who has been SHOVING Obama down our throats for months now--will get its way and have [the grossly unqualified] Barack Hussein Obama on the ticket against John McCain in November. And, if it does work out that way, you know what we can expect? Another in a long line of Democratic candidates who FAILED to get elected, and we'll have the DNC (and the ultra-biased [in Obama's favor] media) to blame.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
If you're too young to remember, or just need/want to be reminded, let's review a little recent Democratic party history.

In 1972, our nominee was George McGovern (a man I admittedly volunteered for, although I was too young to vote)...and he lost to Richard Nixon in an OVERWHELMING landslide. (49 states went to Nixon, 1 to McGovern.) So McGovern = LOSER.

In 1988, our nominee was Michael Dukakis, who will forever be remembered for a couple of embarrassing issues, one his doing and the other at the hands of the Republicans. His own faux pas occurred when he (or someone in his camp) had the brilliant idea of putting him in a Challenger tank for a photo op. Unfortunately, this plan backfired, as he came out looking foolish instead of "commander-in-chief"-ish. That would've been bad enough, but once the Republicans took Dukakis to task in the "Willie Horton" issue, it was a lost cause. William Horton was a convicted murderer who was released from prison as a result of a prison furlough program Dukakis supported. Once out of prison, Horton committed a rape and assault, and after this came to light the Republicans grabbed it and wouldn't let go. Dukakis lost to George HW Bush. Dukakis = LOSER.

Last time around, in 2000, our nominee was John Kerry. Although I wasn't crazy about him, I dutifully supported him since ANYONE would be better than George W Bush! Well, the Republicans "swift boated" Kerry and his presidential aspirations ended, too. Kerry = LOSER.

Now what do all of these losers have in common with Obama? They've all endorsed him. Enough said!

Who's buying this shit?! Obama vs. Wright...nothing but an act

Here's a rhetorical question: Is anyone actually naive (stupid?) enough to believe that the supposed war of words between Barack Hussein Obama and his LONGTIME friend/pastor/spiritual advisor/mentor, Jeremiah Wright, is legitimate? As much as I'd like to give the masses more credit than that, when it comes to Obamabots...well, let's just say they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer. So, for their benefit, let me explain what's really happening here.


After the truth about Obama's longtime pastor/friend/spiritual advisor/"uncle"/mentor, Jeremiah Wright, came to the attention of the general public, Obama made one of his [TelePrompTer-aided] "eloquent" speeches, this time about race. His cult members, er, followers, er, supporters, lapped it up! His "articulate" explanation [full of lies, to anyone with a working brain capable of processing what they're hearing] was all they needed to gloss over Obama's TWENTY YEAR association with the despicable Wright. But wait! It turns out they're not all that stupid/blind/naive!

No indeed. A lot of people, even die-hard Obamabots, actually started asking themselves some tough questions, such as "how does a man have such a close relationship with a pastor (including having him perform their wedding ceremony and baptize their children) for such a long time, and be so close to him that they call him their uncle, yet have no clue about his seething anti-white racism, his anti-America stance, his anti-Semitic beliefs, and so on?" Once the effects of the Kool-Aid started to wear off and they really started asking themselves questions like this, thank goodness a lot of them came to their senses.

So now you have Obama getting blasted for not having left the church at any point during those two decades, for not having severed his ties with Wright after learning of his extreme racism and hatred, and for failing to admit that he was present (even though words in his own book indicate otherwise) during ANY of the plethora of venomous "sermons" given by Wright over the years. Next thing you know, people are starting to bail from the Obama bandwagon! FINALLY, it seems, they're seeing the truth about him, about his character, and--most importantly of all--some of them are actually learning that he has no qualifications to be president. Hillary Clinton starts winning primary after primary, as more and more people see the light. What to do...what to do...

Then, LIKE A MIRACLE!, Obama and Wright have a very public falling out. Obama disowns Wright, Wright insults Obama, Obama denounces Wright, Wright says Obama is just another politician...etc. Then Obama gets to give yet another [TelePrompTer-aided] "eloquent" speech, this time making it very clear that he has severed ties with Wright and that he denounces Wright's teachings/preachings/beliefs. Oh, okay, I get it! Now we can ALL believe that Obama has been exonerated! Poor little Barack...so misunderstood. It wasn't HIM who spewed those venomous anti-American and anti-white sermons, after all, it was his now-disowned former uncle! And see how NASTY that former uncle is? Just imagine, saying such wicked, horrid things about Barack! Of course Obama doesn't want anything to do with him ever again...and it's obviously terrible that he was so fooled, so...bamboozled by Wright for all those years. That's right, Obama is not the one at fault!

BULLSHIT. It's all an act, folks. It's a smokescreen devised by Obama and Wright to make Obama LOOK like the victim here instead of what he truly is, a grown man fully responsible for his own actions. And his actions speak volumes about his character...or, in his case, the lack thereof.

There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women

After Obama's long string of blunder...after blunder...after blunder, we're happy to say that many women who had thrown Hillary under the bus in favor of the Kool-Aid king are now coming to their senses. Good thing, too, as it's SHAMEFUL for any woman--black, white, young, old--to shun Clinton in favor of the UNQUALIFIED Obama.Of course it's also shameful for any MAN to support the unqualified, unethical, anti-white, money-laundering, anti-Semitic, homophobic Obama, but it's inexcusable for women. Hillary Clinton has a long track record of not only working for the good of the people in general, but she has ALWAYS been committed to working for women's (and children's) issues--and the same simply CANNOT be said about Obama.

On a slightly different note, we've come across an incredibly informative video about Obama that anyone [especially those still crazy enough to be supporting him] can learn a lot from. Please take the time (about 13 minutes) to watch it in its entirety; I promise, you won't be sorry you did. It's currently on the front page of this web site. UPDATE: The video has moved from its original location on that site; you can see it directly on YouTube. Its title is "I Invented The Internet, Episode 1: The Audacity" (in case you ever need to search for it!).


.

Obama: Running scared! (And rightly so)

I suppose this shouldn't be surprising--after all, he's completely lost without his beloved TelePrompTer--but Obama has made clear that he will not debate Clinton prior to the next round of primaries: "I'm not ducking. We've had 21 [debates]" Obama said on Fox News Sunday. Um, yes, oBLAHma, you're ducking.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
See, Obama, the TRUTH (something else--along with original thought--you wouldn't recognize even if it jumped up and bit you) is that although there have been 21 debates, the first 20 gave you a free ride! It was only the 21st debate that even BEGAN to broach the subjects you've worked so hard to steer clear of. That's the one where you whined and cried like a baby afterwards because you didn't like the "tough" treatment the moderators gave you--although I have yet to hear you complain about the MUCH TOUGHER treatment the moderators of the prior 20 debates gave your opponent. What's up with that? Poor wittle baby...waaaaah!

Here's something else for [anyone who's stupid enough to be] Obama supporters: Read this article about Obama's money laundering. Gee, he's SUCH an upstanding guy!!

Still supporting Obama?

The attached image represents the feelings of a growing number of Americans who made the mistake--and it definitely was a mistake--of voting for Barack Hussein Obama in their states' primaries, and now wish they could take their votes back. Unfortunately, that's not possible. However, it is still possible for those who haven't voted to come to their senses.
If you're still supporting Obama, please consider the following.

Are you white? If so, are you aware of the radical, anti-white agenda Obama and his church promote? It's called Black Liberation Theology; you can get details on this site or, if you're truly interested in understanding Obama's ideology, you can buy or read the book by James H Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation. For now, just consider this quote from that book: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal." Is THAT what you want in a president? Is it okay with you that you're supporting a person who considers you an enemy and oppressor, and who wants you dead?!

Do you also know that The New Black Panther Party supports Obama? Are you aware of their 10 Point Platform? No? Well, here are a few excerpts:

"3. We want tax exemption and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST...We believe our people should be exempt from ALL TAXATION as long as we are deprived of equal justice under the laws of the land and the overdue reparations debt remains unpaid. We will accept payment in fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency...The American white man owes us reparations."

"4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance)...We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA “New African Communal/Cooperatives” so that our community, with government reparations and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people."

"6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be exempt from military service. We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us...We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, 'by any means necessary.'"

"8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial. 'Released' means 'released' to the lawful authorities of the Black Nation." [EDITOR'S NOTE: Right...never mind the CRIMES committed by black people who are in prison, crimes like, oh, MURDER, RAPE, ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING...let's just let them out because not a SINGLE ONE of them received a fair and impartial trial. But, wait! What about all the WHITES in prison? Did THEY get fair, impartial trials?]

"10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa)...History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace..."

Have you seen enough? If not, please go read their entire plan for yourself. How does that make you feel as a white person? THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING if you support Obama! Please, wake up before it's too late.


.

Time for Howard Dean to see the light

The shameful, disgraceful behavior of Howard Dean and the DNC has reached yet another new low: They were apparently behind the cancellation of the debate that was to have taken place on April 27 between, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. It looks like Dean/DNC didn't want to take a chance on a repeat of the last debate--the one where Obama made a complete, utter ass out of himself, stumbling and stuttering over "tough" questions (NOT nearly as tough as the ones Clinton gets asked EVERY day) and looking every bit the shallow, hollow, unqualified person that he is.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise

Well, in the past few days I've called the DNC--and made sure that my comments would get passed along to Howard Dean--and written directly to Dean. I want to make sure they're aware of what they're doing to the Democratic Party's core supporters--those of us who have been Democrats for many years or decades, and who are so disgusted with the way the DNC has tried to push oBLAHma on us that we're planning on leaving the party. This is what I wrote to Howard Dean yesterday:

I am APPALLED at your, and the DNC's, treatment of Hillary Clinton during this campaign. I am a LIFELONG Democrat who will LEAVE the party if Obama is our nominee.

I do not want a person with friends like these: http://www.jeffhead.com/obamacircle.htm as the Democratic nominee.

I do not want a person who--for TWENTY YEARS--sat in a church and listened to the hatred spewed by Jeremiah Wright [even though he claims he was miraculously absent every single time Wright spewed said hatred], and who had a close personal relationship with the hate-spewing Wright.

I do not want a nominee who has shown NOTHING of substance, and reacted by whining when ONE out of 20+ debates actually asked him a few "tough" questions.

I want a nominee with experience, integrity, and a PROVEN track record of working for the good of the general public. That person, Dr Dean, is Hillary Clinton.

If her recent primary wins--to say nothing of having captured EVERY SINGLE BIG STATE--aren't enough to convince you that she is the person the DNC should be supporting, you're going to lose me and MANY OTHER lifelong Democrats. I am prepared to shift my support from Clinton to McCain in the event that Obama is our party's nominee.

I am also prepared to--and WILL--leave the Democratic party and register as an Independent or, gasp, as a Republican.

You're ALIENATING the core members of this party and I find that disgraceful and inexcusable. Why are you shoving down our throats a candidate with such questionable friends, business dealings, and lack of experience?

Please come to your senses before it's too late!

While you're at it, kindly reschedule the debate that was supposed to happen next...I guess you and other Obama supporters were afraid that he'd make yet another embarrassing appearance, stumbling over himself to answer non-fluff questions. Guess what? The voters WANT to see what the two candidates are really all about!

Finally, unless you seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, you're alienating and disenfranchising 2.3 million people who went out and voted and who, through no fault of their own, now face having their votes go uncounted. Guess what? Many of them are prepared to leave the party, too.

If you haven't already, please contact Howard Dean and ask him to reschedule the debate--tell him you want to hear what Obama has to say when asked non-fluff questions. And, assuming that you're not under the influence of the Obama Kool-Aid, tell him you're disgusted with the DNC's support of the racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-American Obama and that you don't appreciate having such a despicable character shoved down your throat by the DNC.

The audacity of truth, or, Obama's circle of friends

It's certainly no secret that we cannot stand Barack Obama, so this should come as no surprise! We came across an interesting web site yesterday--a web site from a very unlikely source (as in, not exactly a liberal Democrat!--that does a good job of quantifying Obama's circle of friends in words and pictures.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
For example, this page, THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - OBAMA'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND SUPPORT, outlines some of Obama's closest friends and mentors--people like William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist), Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, pastor, friend, mentor/spiritual adviser to Obama for 20 years), etc.

Then there's this page, THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND OBAMA'S CHURCH, which explains a bit about Obama's church and its belief in Black Liberation Theology. What does that mean, you're asking? Here's a quote from the page:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

Sounds lovely...doesn't it? Especially for those of us who are white.

Finally, there's this page, THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, which includes pictures of Obama's campaign headquarters proudly displaying pictures of Che Guevara, and asks this rhetorical question: "What change does Obama intend. What is his hope?"

So we're left wondering, are Obama's cult members aware of the company he keeps? Do they understand the ideology he subscribes to? If the answer is yes...how on earth can they support him? And if the answer is no...why are they supporting someone they know so little about?

Uh...um...aaaannnnddd... (or how Obama performed in last night's debate)

It was ABOUT TIME that a debate actually contained a few non-fluff questions for Obama. Goodness, did he ever look shocked! I guess his campaign was unable to pay off ABC. It was great seeing him stumble with his typical "uh...um...aaaaaaand....uh...." responses when he doesn't have a TelePrompTer handy to feed him one of his "eloquent, articulate" speeches. What a laugh that guy is...

My only confusion is this: Since Obama is unequivocally unqualified to be president--AND has a looooong record of associating with horrible people--is HE the stupid one, or does that title go to his cult members...er, followers...er, supporters?

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
As usual, Clinton was poised, articulate, gave intelligent answers, and was unruffled by touchy questions, such as her brain fart on the Bosnia issue (which has been documented elsewhere, correctly, for all to see, so it's not like she was trying to pull a fast one).

Clinton is so VASTLY SUPERIOR to Obama in every possible way, it's shocking to think of how many people have fallen for his empty rhetoric. One thing I was glad to see last night? I can't recall a single instance of Obama saying his usual line when asked a "hard" question: "I agree with Senator Clinton!" I suppose that's because Clinton's not the one who had a 20-year CLOSE (as in mentor, adviser, pastor, friend) relationship with a bigoted, hate-filled, anti-American, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, misogynist, so she wasn't asked about stuff like that. Unfortunately for Obama, that left him unable to spew his usual response! Normally, Clinton gets asked the tough questions first, answers them intelligently and thoughtfully, and then it's Obama's turn, at which point he says, "uh...um...I...uh...I AGREE WITH SENATOR CLINTON!" What a farce.

And just how ironic/funny is it that Obama's cult members are whining and moaning about how "unfair" the debate was last night, when Clinton has been CRUCIFIED for the past year-plus while oBLAHma has (had?) been given a free ride in the media. So what happens when two debate moderators FINALLY have the balls to ask Obama a few tough questions? His followers cry and whine like the ignorant, uninformed, Kool-Aid drinking cult members they are. It's fine with them when Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized for every imaginable thing, and is constantly, consistently asked HARD questions, but when the tables are turned...oh, they're not the least bit happy. What a sorry bunch of losers.

Instead of whining about their cult leader's imaginary unfair treatment in the debate, why aren't they asking themselves WHY they're supporting this idiot? Let's see:

. if you're white, you should be APPALLED at his tacit approval of Jeremiah Wright's anti-white racism
. if you're Jewish, you should be APPALLED at his association with anti-Semites such as Farrakhan and, therefore, his tacit approval of/agreement with those anti-Semitic beliefs
. if you're gay, you should be APPALLED at his anti-gay beliefs
. if you're working-class, you should be INSULTED by his elitist disregard for your financial well being
. if you're female, you should be INSULTED and APPALLED by his misogynistic attitude
. if you're male, you should be EMBARRASSED by the way he represents your gender
. if you're concerned for animals, you should be APPALLED at his and his wife's disregard for the torture fur animals are subjected to
. if you're an American, you should be suspect of someone whose 20-year-long relationship with the anti-America Jeremiah Wright makes quite clear that he, too, is anti-American

and so on.

In other, words, if you're HUMAN--and not anti-America, anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-female, pro-animal cruelty, and/or an elitist snob--you should not be supporting this poseur. And shame on those who do...

By the way, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. DOUBLE SHAME to any woman supporting this piece of...well, let's just say this very inexperienced, very hate-filled, very elitist (and, of course, a plagiarist) hollow man. Too bad you're too blinded by all the [unwarranted, undeserved] hype to see the truth, even though it's staring you right in the face. Too bad you won't see the light until, perhaps, it's too late (if oBLAHma wins the general election). And it's especially too bad--and really painful to watch--that you're throwing the FAR MORE QUALIFIED candidate, who happens to be a woman, under the bus in order to support...WHAT? Empty promises of "change" and "hope"?

Obama's true colors are shining through!

With all the recent revelations about Obama's true character being made public, it's hard to know where to start!

For one thing, it may be okay with Obama that his mentor/friend/preacher/adviser Jeremiah Wright wishes to "damn America!", but it's not okay with me. Luckily, a LOT of other Americans feel the same way, and it's showing in the hits our main site is getting and in the merchandise we're selling. It seems like the public now can't get enough of anti-Obama merchandise and pro-Hillary Clinton merchandise.

It's particularly gratifying to see REFORMED Obama-ites realizing the error of their ways and joining forces with the rest of us Hillary Clinton supporters. Although they appeared to be brain-dead and/or brainwashed when they were under the cult leader's spell, we're now finding that they do in fact have the ability to think for themselves. I guess it just takes breaking away from the cult for them to regain their sensibilities.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
Of course, there are still a lot of Obamabots who haven't seen the light...and that's definitely a mystery. What does it take to get these folks to see that Obama is a racist AND anti-American? You can try to justify his remaining a member of Wright's church--and a close friend of Wright--for twenty years, but what reasonable person can actually swallow any of those rationalizations? I mean, how do you explain away TWO DECADES attending a church where hatred and intolerance spew from its preacher's mouth?! No one in their right mind can truly believe that Obama was--miraculously!--absent EACH and EVERY time Wright spewed his hatred...can they?

For those who insist that it doesn't matter if Wright is anti-America and racist, because that doesn't mean Obama is, sorry, but you're wrong. When a person CHOOSES to continue associating with an angry, hate-filled man like Jeremiah Wright, AND selects this man to baptize his children, act as his personal spiritual adviser, etc., it DOES matter. It matters because there is no way that Obama could have been in the dark about Wright's beliefs. It matters because--at ANY TIME during those 20 years--Obama could have stood up for his beliefs [if they were different from Wright's!], decried the hatred and intolerance Wright espoused, and quit attending that church. But he didn't. And that speaks volumes about his character--and his beliefs.

We find it laughable that even now, die-hard Obama-ites, such as Bill Richardson, are using the line they've been programmed to recite: Obama is "a once-in-a-lifetime leader...Above all, you will be a president who brings this nation together." (Excuse me while I gag.) Is he fucking serious?! Yeah, right, this man who has spent twenty YEARS agreeing with anti-white and anti-American sentiments is going to unite us. Oh...my...goodness. Is anyone REALLY that stupid?!

O-blah-blah-blah-ma, or how Obama speaks a lot...but doesn't really SAY anything

Sure, we've ALL heard about how articulate Obama is and what an eloquent speaker he is, and how his speeches are so inspiring...blah blah blah. But what is it exactly that he's saying? Beats me!


Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
For example, he and his campaign are attempting to use Hillary Clinton's supposed vote "for the Iraq war" as something against her...blah blah blah. But what did Clinton actually say when she cast that vote? Here you go; these are snippets of her speech on the Senate floor October 10, 2002; bolding is my doing for emphasis; to read the entire speech, please visit the official copy:

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

"So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?"

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq."

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

"War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Looking for anti-Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise?
Well, there you have it. The ACTUAL words spoken by Hillary Clinton when she cast her vote to support the use of US Armed Forces in Iraq. The next time a Kool-Aid swigging Obama-ite tries to brainwash you into believing that Clinton blindly jumped into voting for this resolution, do THEM a favor and send them here to read the above snippets or, better still, to the full copy. Assuming they're still capable of free thought (and when you realize just how programmed and brainwashed the Obama-ites have become...they may not be) and have any living brain cells, they SHOULD be able to grasp that Clinton's decision was one fraught with concerns on her part, and made only after stressing that she wanted war to be the LAST possible resort.

Howard Dean and the DNC, I hope you're listening

As should be pretty clear by now, I cannot stand Oblahma and cannot fathom how so many [clueless] people could have fallen for his hype. Sooooo...instead of repeating myself [like Obama does endlessly] I'll make this brief!

Looking for anti-Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise?
There is NO WAY that I will vote for this unqualified, media-hyped phony baloney. And you know what? There are LOTS of other Democrats who feel the same way. Some of them are planning on casting "protest votes" (i.e., voting for someone, such as Ralph Nader, or writing in Hillary Clinton, knowing full well that their vote is basically a throw-away), others are planning not to vote at all, and still others--like myself--are planning on voting for McCain. What we all have in common is an absolute refusal to vote for Obama.

Howard Dean and the DNC (Democrat National Committee) need to realize that we're serious about this, and if it costs us [Democrats] the election in November, so be it. ANYTHING would be a better outcome than having Obaminable in the White House. My suggestion to the DNC is that they figure out some way--soon--to make the votes from the Florida and Michigan primaries count, so as not to disenfranchise those states' voters, and that they give due weight to the fact that ALL of the major states (California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, etc.) have voted for Clinton in their primaries.

If you'd like to add your voice to those of us who will not, under any circumstances, vote for Obama should he become the Democratic nominee, please head on over to this petition and sign it today. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. Perhaps, with enough input from the public, Dean and the DNC will wake up...before it's too late.

It's like being in school again

After several of the Democratic debates, I was left with a familiar, yet hard to finger, feeling--but today it hit me! Have you noticed how the moderators (and I use the term loosely, since they're all VERY obviously using different standards for Clinton and Obama) are asking Clinton the tough questions FIRST, and then letting Mr "All Hype, No Substance" Obama answer LAST? Why are they doing that? Well, that's what hit me today. By choosing Clinton to respond first, they're letting her do all the hard work--like the smarter girl in class--and then letting Obama basically echo whatever she said--like the not-as-smart boy in class. This is like being back in school...elementary school.

Looking for anti-Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise?
It's remarkable that such blatant sexism can rear its ugly little head in such an important arena as a presidential debate, but it's definitely there. Over and over again. (As I was typing this, Saturday Night Live came on and the opening skit was a parody of the most recent debate--and they nailed it! They nailed exactly what I was thinking, i.e., that Clinton gets the tough questions while Obama gets praised as if he's God for saying the most basic things. Unbelievable.)

At some point before this presidential contest ends, I'd REALLY like to see some equity in the treatment of the candidates by the media. I've never seen anything as outrageous as the disparity in treatment that Clinton and Obama are receiving--and if Clinton even dares point anything out, no matter how accurate her observations may be, she gets blasted for whining. If the shoe was on the other foot, and Obama was being treated EXTREMELY unfairly in the press and had the balls to point it out, he'd probably be praised for standing up for himself. There it is again, the sexist double standard. When a woman stands up for herself she's whining and/or she's a bitch, but when a man does it, he's just doing what he needs to do. This really sucks...

UT Austin paper endorses Clinton--good news for me personally!

My daughter and I have always been on the same page politically, so imagine my shock and horror at finding out that she and her husband have fallen for Mr Barack "All hype, no substance" Obama and his empty rhetoric (that's been copied nearly verbatim from Hillary Clinton).

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
I'm not sure if I was more hurt or disappointed at her decision. Hurt, yes, because--although she was brought up with a clear sense of the importance of the feminist movement--she seems to have forgotten, or else she doesn't care, how hard women had to work to get to the point we are today, and supporting a female who is FAR MORE QUALIFIED than her male opponent seems like a natural for someone brought up in a non-sexist household. Disappointed, yes, that too, because Obama is all hype and no substance, and I would expect her to want more from a candidate. But she's made up her mind so we have to agree to disagree politically for the first time in her life.

Well, imagine my delight when I read on HillaryClinton.com last night that the University of Texas at Austin's paper, The Daily Texan, has endorsed Clinton. Why am I so happy? Because this is not just the paper of my daughter and son-in-law's alma mater, but it's the very paper they WORKED ON while students there. :D I hope that doesn't make me a bad mother...

Barack Obama's spokesperson speechless...priceless!

Did you catch Hardball with Chris Matthews the other day? Specifically, the day when Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio (a Clinton supporter) and Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson (an Obama supporter) were both on live? It was BRILLIANT! Matthews asked Watson a very simple question: List some of Obama's legislative accomplishments. Now, you'd think that a person enthusiastically supporting Obama not only personally, but as his spokesperson on national TV, would be able to come up with SOMETHING...right? (Assuming, of course, that there's anything to come up with!) So what did Watson do? He tried to change the subject. But Matthews wouldn't let him! Matthews kept after him, asking again and again if he could list some of Obama's legislative accomplishments. Dead fucking silence...

Looking for anti-Barack Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise?
It was beautiful. Absolutely priceless. It showed--better than any anti-Obama blogger could possibly hope to--just how underqualified the man really is for the office of president. If you didn't watch the show, don't despair! Here's a link to a video of the interview. (WARNING: If you're an Obama-ite and, therefore, under the influence of all that hype, you may find yourself squirming before the video is over. And rightly so! You're supporting someone based on...what?)

Let's add plagiarism to Obama's [long?] list of accomplishments

Today's charges of plagiarism against Obama didn't come as any surprise to most Hillary Clinton followers, as we've recognized for a long time OUR candidate's words and plans slightly changed around and claimed as Obama's own. So when the Clinton camp accused Obama of plagiarizing lines from a speech given last year by Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick--and posting videos to prove it--we weren't surprised at all. Of course, the Obama-ites (otherwise known as Obama cult members) who are blindly following this unqualified man because...because...well, we don't know why they're following him, but at any rate they're trying to deny the charges, even though there's ample proof and Obama himself can't deny them.
Looking for anti-Obama merchandise or pro-Hillary Clinton merchandise?
While the poor Obama-ites--who are unable to see through their rose-colored glasses--may not see plagiarism as a problem, we do! People who are blindly supporting this unqualified man because of his "mesmerizing" speeches need to realize that his ideas are not his own...and neither are his words.

Would you vote for a woman as unqualified as Barack Obama?

Here's the question we're asking on our latest anti-Obama merchandise line: "Would you vote for a woman as unqualified as Barack Obama?" Stop and think about that for a moment, okay?

It's clear that Obama has no qualifications [to speak of] that should convince people to support him for the presidency. Yet--as I've written about numerous times!--the Obama cult mentality that has swept the nation doesn't seem to care that he has no qualifications they can point to. So, as I've said before, if a woman dared have the audacity to run with the same [lack of] qualifications Obama has, she'd be laughed out of the race. No one would be jumping on her bandwagon, no one would be talking about the abstract 'change' she would supposedly bring about, the media would not be having an endless love affair with all things related to her...none of that would be happening. People would criticize and chastise her for having such an overblown opinion of herself that she actually thought she could run for president.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise?

So what's wrong with this picture? Obama, being male, is getting away with one of the most insane things I've ever seen, running on Hillary Clinton's platform, with just the slightest change of wording here and there to make it "his" platform...and people are buying it! If they like what they're hearing from Obama, they ought to be supporting Clinton, since she's the one who thought of all that stuff. Instead, they're deluding themselves into believing that this one term senator will somehow magically bring about 'change' that'll make everything all better...

Media bias, sexism, racism...

Apparently, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania made the following comment last week while meeting with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to talk about his latest budget: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." So, what happens as a result? Well, because Rendell is a Clinton supporter, one thing that happened is the media reported it as coming from a "Clinton ally"--which practically implies that Clinton herself said it or that she shares Rendell's feelings. And thanks to the blatant, ridiculous media bias in Obama's favor, naturally this is getting a lot of attention.

But you know what else it did? It made clear to people like myself--who grew up in the heyday of the feminist movement--that sexism is alive and well in the USA. You may not immediately see where I'm going with this, but--trust me!--it makes sense.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise?

By raising the racism issue in regards to Obama--or, as I prefer to call him, ODrama--his bandwagoneers will undoubtedly get riled up and come out in droves in Pennsylvania to support him, and there will equally undoubtedly be an uproar among black leaders, in black churches, black communities, etc. But what if Rendell, or some other public figure, changed the wording just slightly? What if someone said this: "You've got conservative males here, and I think there are some males--and females--who are probably not ready to vote for a female candidate."? Would there be an equal uproar? I doubt it.

As someone on a pro-Hillary site I frequent said, "Sexism is the last acceptable prejudice..." If a woman ran for president with the identical record [and I'm using that term loosely!] Obama has, and ran against a man with Clinton's qualifications, said woman wouldn't stand a CHANCE of being nominated. There would be no unwarranted mania surrounding her--as there is with Obama. In fact, she would most likely be laughed out of the race! Can you imagine a FEMALE one-term senator, wholly lacking any other experience that made her qualified to be president, having the audacity to run? I can only imagine the hysterical laughter that would ensue from bigots and conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, at the very idea.

Why, then, is Obama being treated like God's gift to humanity? The man has done NOTHING to warrant the cult-like devotion we're now seeing across the country, and if a woman with his same record dared to run for president, it'd be all over but the laughing long before the election.

If, heaven forbid, ODrama actually wins the general election, be prepared for 4 more years of mayhem and economic woes. Once he's confronted with the realities of trying to clean up after 8 Bush years, and he finds out that merely saying "present"--or, better yet!, pressing the WRONG BUTTON, just won't cut it, what are we supposed to do?

MSNBC: Sinking to new lows

I was pleased to see an article this morning describing how Hillary Clinton is fighting back against MSNBC for their despicable remarks and unprofessional treatment of her, her family, and her campaign. For full details you can read the article in its entirety here or scroll down past my comments to where I've pasted it in.

In a nutshell, the latest incident involved an on-air personality saying that Chelsea Clinton has "been pimped out" [referring to her campaigning for her mother]. The double standard that's been in force on MSNBC for months now has hit a new low--if the same remark had been made about Barack Obama's family, punishment would have been swift and severe. But, due to their anti-Clinton, pro-Obama bias, the best they can manage is a few on-air apologies. Well, that's not good enough for me! So I used their letters@msnbc.com address to send the following:

"Just wanted to say that you've reached a new low with your on-air staff making derogatory remark, after derogatory remark, about the Clintons. The latest incident, David Shuster saying that Chelsea Clinton is "being pimped out" would have resulted in OUTRAGE, IMMEDIATE TERMINATION, and PROFUSE on-air apologies if his remark had been directed at Michelle Obama, a black woman. But it's okay to call Hillary Clinton a pimp? I'm appalled.

It's been clear for several months that MSNBC has a very big, very obvious bias in Obama's favor, but I kept hoping professionalism--and unbiased reporting--would prevail. I see I was wrong. As a result I am boycotting MSNBC and GE, and I'm passing the word along to all I know. I'm also spreading the word via my web site and my blog.

Shame..."

If you're as disgusted as I am with the relentless pro-Obama hype and anti-Clinton crap perpetuated by MSNBC, please take a minute to write and let them know.

Here's the article I referred to above:

---------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-chelsea9feb09,0,7254155.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

From the Los Angeles Times
Clinton may spurn debate over remark
An MSNBC reporter apologizes and is suspended after saying Chelsea was being 'pimped out.'
By Peter Nicholas and Matea Gold
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

February 9, 2008

WASHINGTON — Angered by an MSNBC correspondent's demeaning comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's daughter, aides to her presidential campaign said Friday that she might pull out of a debate planned by the cable network this month in Cleveland.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, cast as "beneath contempt" an on-air comment Thursday by MSNBC's David Shuster, who said Chelsea Clinton is "sort of being pimped out" as she intensifies her campaigning for her mother.

NBC News announced Friday afternoon that Shuster had been suspended indefinitely over the remark, which a release called "irresponsible and inappropriate."

Shuster apologized Friday morning on MSNBC for the term he applied to Chelsea. He issued a second apology on the MSNBC show "Tucker," where he had uttered his comment while acting as guest host.

Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has been critical of what it considers a hostile attitude toward her in MSNBC's coverage, and the Shuster incident brought matters to a head.

Clinton is seeking more debates with Sen. Barack Obama as their race for the Democratic nomination has tightened, and as part of that strategy she agreed to take part in an MSNBC forum Feb. 26.

"We've done a number of debates on that network," Wolfson said. "And at this point I can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network, given the comments that were made and have been made."

NBC News, in its statement, said it was working to keep the debate alive.

"Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned," the statement said.

Last month, another MSNBC talk show host, Chris Matthews, apologized after suggesting Clinton owed her political success to her husband's philandering. "The reason she may be a front-runner [in the presidential race] is her husband messed around," Matthews said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Wolfson on Friday referenced that controversy, saying, "At some point you really have to question whether or not there's a pattern here at this particular network, where you have comments being made and apologies given," he said. "Is this something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don't know, but the [Shuster] comment was beneath contempt, and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way."

On the "Tucker" show, Shuster said: "I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton. And I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her."

NBC News, in its statement, said it "takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks."

Turning down a debate with the nomination in doubt would be a big step for Clinton, who feels such forums work in her favor, providing a chance to demonstrate her grasp of policy and to spotlight her experience. She has accepted offers to take part in four debates over the next month; Obama has agreed to take part in two, including the one in Cleveland.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

matea.gold@latimes.com

Nicholas reported from Washington and Gold from New York.