Knowing The TRUTH Will Keep US Free

On this Veteran's Day, the TRUTH is accurately recounted and portrayed in thsi article out of the American Spectator. The title is "The Man Who Despises America". Did our veterans fight and die for this?!

The following is an excerpt from the full article that can be found at:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

M.C.

_______________________________

By Mark Hyman on 11.11.09 @ 6:09AM

"The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.
Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.
Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join.

Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?"

See the rest at:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

Mark is right on---unfortunately.

M.C.

_____________________________________________

Nothing Noble about this Nobel- Another "Prize" Obama (Non)Performance

Many pundits have made the point that President Obama had only been in office for 12 days when the February 1 deadline for nominations to be submitted for this year's Nobel prize occurred. The common theme, among liberals as much as among conservatives, is that there is no way the President should have received the Nobel for that period, or ever for the months since, all the moreso as he had accomplished nothing of any real substance. Agreed!

However, some have missed two (possibly) salient points. The first is that the committee may have considered Obama the man (as opposed to, the President) in awarding him the Prize. However, the fact is that he didn't accomplish anything of Nobel stature as 'the man', either! And he had a whole lot longer to work on it.

The other point is that the committee may have bent the rules an accepted the nomination after the deadline. There is circumstantial evidence this may have been the case. The nomination may have come MUCH later than the deadline. Or Obama is just pretending he didn't know about it. Either case is bad, but the latter is worse as evidence of Obama's guile and deceitfulness. I leave it to the readers to decide what they believe is the case, and how bad it is.

An interesting side note is that the Constitution prohibits a sitting president from accepting gifts from foreign sources. One way Obama could avoid this issue ( the Prize comes with a $1MM award), is to donate it. Perhaps---just a thought here---to his relatives who are living in poverty in Kenya.?Those same relatives who have received no help from the President.

What a a character ( or lack thereof)!

It's clear that Obama is being anointed with this award---which ironically now because of it's award to him is severely diminished in it's moral value (just read the Newsweek article!)---because he exists, nothing more! It's interesting to ponder the opposite of Bush Derangement Syndrome---Obamaphilia! A different kind of derangement syndrome.

And a more dangerous and sinister one at that.

Mark Steyn said it best (Richard Cohen did a dead on sarcastic tourdeforce in the WaPo, too), so we close with his words.

Who can imagine what is next in Dr. Obama's White House of Horrors?

Here's Steyn, in top form, as always!:

Mark Steyn: Nobel tops 'SNL' for Obama joke

Gosh, it's been so long ago ... what "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" did Obama make in the first 12 days?

Mark Steyn
Syndicated columnist

The most popular headline at the Real Clear Politics Web site the other day was: "Is Obama Becoming A Joke?" With brilliant comedic timing, the very next morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Up next: His stunning victory in this year's Miss World contest. Dec. 12, Johannesburg. You read it here first.

For what, exactly, did he win the Nobel? As the president himself put it:
"When you look at my record, it's very clear what I have done so far. And that is nothing. Almost one year and nothing to show for it. You don't believe me? You think I'm making it up? Take a look at this checklist."
And up popped his record of accomplishment, reassuringly blank.

Oh, no, wait. That wasn't the real President Barack Obama. That was a comedian playing President Obama on "Saturday Night Live." And, for impressionable types who find it hard to tell the difference, CNN – in a broadcast first that should surely have its own category at the Emmys – performed an in-depth "reality check" of the SNL sketch. That's right: They fact-checked the jokes. Seriously. "How much truth is behind all the laughs? Stand by for our reality check," promised Wolf Blitzer, introducing his in-depth report with all the plonking earnestness so cherished by those hapless Americans stuck at Gate 73 for four hours with nothing to watch but the CNN airport channel. Given the network's ever more exhaustive absence of viewers among the non-flight-delayed demographic, perhaps Wolf could make it a regular series:

Who was that lady I saw you with last night?
That was no lady, that was my wife.

"In fact, our sources confirm, his wife is, biologically speaking, a lady. Joining us now is our Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, we all like a joke, but how much truth is behind the laughs?"

Fortunately, the Nobel Committee understands that President Obama's accomplishments are no laughing matter. So they gave him the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I assumed this was a reference to his rip-roaring success in winning the Olympic Games for Rio, but as it turns out the deadline for Nobel nominations was way back on Feb. 1.

Obama took office on Jan. 20. Gosh, it's so long ago now. What "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" did he make in those first 12 days? Bowing to the Saudi king? Giving the British prime minister the Walmart discount box of "Twenty Classic Movies You've Seen A Thousand Times"? "Er, Barack, I've already seen these." "That's OK. They won't work in your DVD player anyway."

For these and other "extraordinary efforts" in "cooperation between peoples", President Obama is now the fastest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in history. Alas, the extraordinary efforts of those first 12 days are already ancient history. Reflecting the new harmony of U.S.-world relations since the administration hit the "reset" button, The Times of London declared the award "preposterous," and Svenska Freds (the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) called it "shameful." There's something almost quaintly vieux chapeau about the Nobel decision, as if the hopeychangey bumper stickers were shipped surface mail to Oslo and only arrived last week. Everywhere else, they're peeling off: The venerable lefties at Britain's New Statesman currently have a cover story on "Barack W. Bush".

Happily, there are still a few Americans willing to stand by Mister Saturday Night. "I am shocked at the mean-spirited comments," wrote Judi Romaine to The Times in protest at all the naysaying. "I'm afraid I've registered into a very conversative [sic], fear-based world here but I'd like to suggest the incredible notion we all create our worlds in our conversations. What are you building by maligning rather than creating discourses for workability? Bravo to Obama and others working for people, however it appears to cynics."

If that's the language you have to speak when you're "working for people," I'd rather work for a cranky mongoose. Yet to persons who can use phrases like "creating discourses for workability" with a straight face, Obama remains an heroic figure. Like Judi Romaine, he works hard to "create our worlds in our conversations." Why, only the other day, very conversationally, the administration floated the trial balloon that it could live with the Taliban returning to government in Afghanistan. A lot of Afghans won't be living with it, but that's their lookout.

This is – how to put this delicately? – something of a recalibration of Obama's previous position. From about a year after the fall of Baghdad, Democrats adopted the line that Bush's war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from the real war, the good war, the one in Afghanistan that everyone – Dems, Europeans, all the nice people – were right behind, 100 percent. No one butched up for the Khyber Pass more enthusiastically than Barack Obama: "As President, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority." (July 15, 2008)

But that was then, and this is now. As the historian Robert Dallek told Obama recently, "War kills off great reform movements." As the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne reminded the president, his supporters voted for him not to win a war but to win a victory on health care and other domestic issues. Obama's priorities lie not in the Hindu Kush but in America: Why squander your presidency on trying to turn an economically moribund feudal backwater into a functioning nation state when you can turn a functioning nation state into an economically moribund feudal backwater?

Gosh, given their many assertions that Afghanistan is "a war we have to win" (Obama to the VFW, August 2008), you might almost think, pace Judi Romaine, that it's the president and water-bearers like Gunga Dionne who are the "cynics." In a recent speech to the Manhattan Institute, Charles Krauthammer pointed out that, in diminishing American power abroad to advance statism at home, Obama and the American people will be choosing decline. There are legitimate questions about our war aims in Afghanistan, and about the strategy necessary to achieve them. But, eight years after being toppled, the Taliban will see their return to power as a great victory over the Great Satan, and so will the angry young men from Toronto to Yorkshire to Chechnya to Indonesia who graduated from Afghanistan's Camp Jihad during the 1990s.

And so will the rest of the world: They will understand that the modern era's ordnungsmacht (the "order maker") has chosen decline.

Barack Obama will have history's most crowded trophy room, but his presidency is shaping up as a tragedy – for America and the world.
©MARK STEYN

YOU LIE!

Representative Joe Wilson, in uttering those words, entered them into the political lexicon of our Republic. And for once, after saying them, unlike so many other politicians, he didn't retract them.

Then comes the storm!

Maureen Dowd is a mind reader. She knows that what Joe really said was "You lie, boy!". I mean, he is from the South, so he must be a bigot, yes? And Jimmy Carter is from the South, too!


But- he says that it was racist of Joe to say "You lie!"- that he never would have said that if the President was white! Wow, what powers of deduction are at work.

So---not everyone from the South is a bigot- right Jimmy? How to tell the difference, one wonders? Oh- I get it---if you SUPPORT the President, you can't be a bigot. And if you don't, you are de facto, a bigot. That clears things up, doesn't it?

Of course, recent polls show that 92% of respondents say they would vote for a qualified candidate for President regardless of race. (Do 92% of the respondents live outside the South?).

Then comes...Bill Cosby!

Who says...yeah, the poll result was 92%, but , come on, that leaves almost 10% of people who DO consider race...and who knows how many people didn't answer the poll truthfully?! So, there must be a whole lot more closet bigots out there, right?

Like...Jimmy Carter? He is truly an anti-semite, but, somehow that isn't racist or bigoted in the stranger and stranger liberal culture, these days.

Methinks, most of those liberal pundits and their fellow travellers hurling invective at Joe and by association, anyone who doesn't support (no, worship) the President, 'because he is black'---are projecting their own inner racism.

As the Bard once said: "Methinks thou doth protest too much"!

Something going on with that 'Joe Wilson' name and the truth, hmm?! The first one (Yellow Cake Joe) on one side of that equation- and this one on the other- the side of Truth.


M.C.

The New Fascism- Part II

This blog started with a description of the coming fascist rule. Only the blind, or intentionally self deceived, can not see what is happening. The latest development is flag@whitehouse.gov- the first time I can remember where, right out in the open, the Administration (as radicals used to like to say in the Nixon years) is openly calling for Americans to 'rat' on one another.

This is just another step down the road to tyranny and despotism in our nation's government. We are moving away from a being a nation of laws to a nation being ruled. That is exactly what the American Revolution was all about. The "world turned upside down" indeed!

Democratic 'lawmakers' are decrying being 'assaulted' at town hall meetings. However, they are behind the real assaulting that is going on. They say (falsely) that angry constituents are carrying 'swastikas' (seen any pictures or first hand witnesses to that?) and intimidating speakers and meeting organizers. Yet, the only true violence identified so far was against a conservative (black) man by union thugs, working at the behest of the White House ("Hit back twice as hard"- White House advice to Democrats, quoted in numerous media outlets). Hit back twice as hard indeed---the man had to go to the ER with multiple injuries.

Meanwhile, Democrats are cancelling their meetings (pretty neat trick---they then can claim later they did not receive negative feedback on the health care plan, natch---and they don't have to put up with unhappy constituents! A two-fer) They believe all sorts of odd things (for example, that the people showing up at their town hall meetings are not actually their constituents, a claim routinely proved false). A few Lapdog Republicans are also feeling the heat---we haven't heard any of them are cancelling their town halls, though.

The Dems just aren't feeling the love and that is something they think they are entitled to, because...because, uh, why? Must have something to do with welfare, bailouts and clunkers, eh?

Fortunately, the American people can't be bought so cheaply, and the Dems are beginning to see that. One can only hope and pray that this is the fascist's high tide and NOW "We the People" will begin to take back that which is OURS.

One prays this is so.

M.C.

(Thanks to Lucianne.com for the poster art)

"The Only Ones Crazier Than The Birthers Are The Anti-Birthers"

Yes, the truth is beginning to peek out from the debris of the anti-birther self-righteousness. Amazingly, the quote in the title of this post is from a liberal writer on the Huffington Post (a notorious liberal site). Yes, some liberals DO care about he truth and the Constitution, and COMMON SENSE. Really!


As was also pointed out in the article, when John McCain's citizenship (natural born) was questioned, he immediately produced his birth certificate, no questions asked.










And, none further needed to be asked.











Therein lies the nub of the thing. Forget all the diatribe against the birthers. Forget ideology (as the liberal on the Huffington Post was able to do). Forget 'stare decisis' as James Lewis wrote in the American Thinker the other day -did he drink the kool-aid, one wonders?- as have some other conservatives who seem to care if the liberals like them or not! Very disappointing, Mr. Lewis.

Here are the salient facts- stay focused on these like a laser beam and you can't go wrong in knowing what is right, wrong, or irrelevant in this controversy.

• Presidents are required by law to disclose many personal details of their lives (for example, tax returns)


• Presidents are required to obey the law, just like the rest of us.


• The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, as per the Constitution


• When candidate McCain was questioned on this, he produced is ORIGINAL birth certificate


• The House passed a resolution declaring that McCain was (and is) in fact qualified (natural born citizen) to run, having been born on a US Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone


• The House has not even hinted at passing a similar resolution in regard to Obama


• There IS a controversy over this


• The President COULD release his original birth certificate if he chose to- this would quell most of the questions, if not all


• It's alleged that Obama is also not authorizing release of his (higher)education records because he received financial aid as a foreign student


• He could authorize release of those records to squelch this allegation


• Average citizens have to produce original birth and education documents for a variety of reasons in the normal course of their lives


• National Security background checks for Top Secret and higher classifications routinely seek and receive these documents or the classification is denied


• The President and his legal team are spending millions to PREVENT the release of the documents in question


• People with nothing to hide do not fight court battles, using personal money and taxpayer dollars, to fight release of their birth and educational records, when they have nothing to hide!

The best case that could be made for Obama for this obstructive behavior is hubris (overweening pride). The rest of the cases are worst, leading to outright deception and fraud.


Lewis was concerned that if the USSC tried to remove the President, were it to be found he had in fact attempted to conceal that he is not qualified to serve by birth as the President, there would be 'riots'. I have news for him---if the USSC were to fail to act in removing an unqualified President Obama in such a case, there would be riots!


In fact, there would be (civil) war and Revolution- based on the truth, not lies, fraud and coverup.


The President can BE the President---by releasing the records NOW. He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.


Prove it, Mr. President. We've got some serious business to do in this country---you say so every day. And this is a distraction, it's undermining your Presidency. I know, I know, you think you have 3 more years to make your mark, you can wait them out. But, what man knows what tomorrow will bring?

Be the Leader you say you are and many expect you to be. Do the right thing.

NOW.

M.C.

Bike Lane Logic

As Monty Python says...and now for something completely different!

As I was driving back from The City tonight, I noticed the sidewalks along the main drag...that are never used. And the bike path that is hardly ever used...and thought of all the wasted money, just because some DOT engineers came up with a concept called 'urban profiles'. The way this works is that if a road is of a certain size, in a certain place, it must have a median, curb and gutter, bikepath and sidewalks on each side.

Think about the crisis we have in infrastructure and you begin to appreciate what a crime it is, really, that scarce public funds get spent on an 'ideal' road profile that, apart from the road surface itself, doesn't get used! Not only is the money spent wastefully installing these unused/little used appurtenances, but then they have to be maintained...in perpetuity. If we could just curb wasteful actions like these, and tailor and right-size the infrastructure, then we could address REAL needs...not wants, or desires, that drain the public treasury.

Another way to highlight how unquestioned assumptions like this drive and drain our resources is to think of it this way:

We mandate that bicycles, which, when I was a kid, drove on sidewalks, must drive on the road (with or without bikelanes, in this case, we will assume, with), with the flow of traffic. Meanwhile, there is a perfectly good (and much safer) underused sidewalk a few feet away. Think about this! Would any of you agree that we should, to save money, eliminate sidewalks as an improvement and mandate that the pedestrians walk in the BIKE LANE, along with the bikes?! I doubt it! Madness, you say! But...

All a bike rider is...is a pedestrian on a bike! Sharing the roadway with up to 10 ton trucks, travelling up to 45 mph in most urban sections. The bike rider even must go with the flow, so he can't see what is going on behind him.

Wouldn't it make more sense (silly me, as if that would make a difference to an urban transportation planner!) for BIKES and PEOPLE to share the much, much safer sidewalk? After all, they are about the same size, close to the same weight...and the bikes and people can walk in any direction they like, as long as it is safe. Which it would be!

Think of the savings, eliminating all those unnecessary and INTRINSICALLY DANGEROUS bike paths. We are talking major capital improvement bucks... and saving on YEARS of maintenance. Billions, over time. BILLIONS.

And what kind of society says that 1,000 pound motorcycles (and those are BIG ones!) can share the roadway with those 10 ton trucks? Why not stick the bicycles out there too! All a motorcycle is is a BIG moped---a motorized bike. And worse, if the motorcycle owner buys a minimal insurance policy, he doesn't have to wear a helmet!But oftentimes, bicyclists do! CRAZY.

And then there are the laws that allow 6 year old children- FIRST GRADERS, for crying out loud- to operate 500 lb. 4-wheelers, no helmet required, no parental supervision required...off road! Uneven surfaces! Trees! Ditches! If that isn't a form of parental neglect, at the least, I don't know what is.

Why is common sense so...uncommon!

The unquestioned, un-rational assumptions cost lives and money. Blood and treasure. We grow livid at a few thousand combat deaths among our military who are trained for , and expect to be, in hazardous situations, where their lives are at risk.

But, we don't even think about 50,000 traffic deaths a year...most totally avoidable if only a seat belt was worn, or the driver was sober.

Crazy. And we don't even question these assumptions.

CRAZY...just scratches the surface on our institutional lunacy.

M.C.

"Judicial DeMeanor"

Sotomayor Samba II
Judge Sotomayor is widely quoted as having said that the judgement of a "wise Latina woman" is superior to that of (old) white males (and presumably old, white females, too); her judgement in the Connecticut fire department test case was unanimously overturned by the USSC; and a number of Senators have said directly, or directly, that she is lying to the Senate, under oath, about previously statements and actions (and lost is that she was member of an all women's club until AFTER her nomination was made). As one Senator remarked (I couldn't believe he would actually say this, out loud---hooray! It's exactly what I was thinking!)---'What do you think would happen to me, as a white male, if I said and did the things you did?'. Sotomayor's rejoinder was that she could understand how he felt about all that (ah, empathy!), but...you had to consider the context (what does THAT mean?).

However, Senator Arlen Specter clarified all that for us, by telling us what is THE really, really important quality that this nominee brings to the table- she has a 'judicial demeanor'!

So THAT is what it takes to become a Supreme. It's all about 'attitude'!

And the "Lapdog Republicans" are rolling over as fast as they can, announcing they won't hold up the hearings, announcing as early as they can they will vote yes, etc.

Honestly, I am not sure what kind of judge she will make. BUT, she has a history of making the kind of comments and allusions that would sink any white male/female candidate for ANY position at the federal level. The fact that this history of comments, allusions and associations (The Belizean Grove, La Raza, etc) is being given such short shrift means that, ironically, she is being given a pass, most likely BECAUSE she is a 'minority' candidate. Racism and sexism being given a pass for these reasons---isn't that racism in and of itself?

Russians refuse to shake hands with Obama?

No! This is a typical example of Obama being VERY CLEVER. Remember when he kowtowed to the Saudi King---and then denied that we had seen that with our very eyes? (He did kowtow). Then there were the two cases wherein he allegedly is looking at the 'backside' of first one (16 year old) and then another (older) youth delegate and staffer, respectively, at the G8 Summit. In the first case, he actually was looking elsewhere (checking where he was going to step). In the second case, hard to say.

Now this. The right wing blogosphere just ignited upon seeing the MSNBC Andrea Mitchell video that seems to show a line of Russians refusing to shake Obama's hand, but shaking the Russian President's! Just one problem...not so! The edited video skips past Obama shaking hands with Russians to Obama introducing American staffers to President Medvedev.

Here is where he is so clever. If you look at how Obama is holding his hands, you can see that a case can be made (this is what my wife saw) that he is deliberately making it appear that he is being snubbed. You may be skeptical of this, but, I emphasize, there is no overstating the guile and wiliness of this individual. Look how he is 'hiding in plain sight" on the birth certificate issue!

There are two motives here. First, he is looking back over his shoulder to the Saudi incident, where he did exactly what is seen. By discrediting subsequent 'video veritas' moments, he casts doubt on THAT incident---subsequent events provide cover for preceding events.

And, more importantly---the 'right' (and a few on the 'left' and mainstreams media, too---especially in regard to the G8) jumped right on the bandwagon---and look foolish after the fact. Therefore, discrediting their FUTURE credibility. And intimidating them. After all, if what you see turns out to be not what you think it was, and the President is right, after all, every time...

I have said in the past that President Obama is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer". I withdraw that hasty assessment. This is one sharp dude. And the more dangerous for it.

Truth must be served, not just what we 'would like to see'. Every time a 'scandal' like this pops up, we who want to hold the President accountable must give it a second and third look before deciding whether we 'trust our lying eyes'! OUR future credibility depends on it. Putin may be have a black belt in judo; Obama is a master of political ju-jitsu. We must make strenuous efforts to ensure that he cannot gain leverage against the truth.

No, you won't read this or anything like it in the mainstream media and blogs- they have been both co-opted and embarrassed at the same time. Nullified, is more like it. Even Helen Thomas recently said that even Nixon never did 'anything like what Obama is doing'. (Query: Was she criticizing the President- or admiring him? Or both?).

Think about it. Think about why this blog is named SAMIZDAT Republic. Only the underground press can shine the light, even now. It will get worse---hopefully, it will eventually get better.

Let's pray so, and soon.

Veritas.

M.C.














http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/07/russians-refuse-to-shake-hands-with.html