Well, confirmation about one thing at least.

Surprise, surprise, Obama’s relationship with William Ayers really did extend beyond the way Obama characterized it during the debates, as Ayers simply being “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” None other than Ayers himself has come forward and stated that their relationship was in fact much more. In a new afterword to his 2001 book, which he’s currently hawking all over television, Ayers had this to say about Obama:

“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign.”

emphasis added

“Family friends” is really quite a stretch from “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, don’t you think? Let’s add this to the ever growing list of lies from the campaign, shall we? Of course, not like this is a huge surprise to anyone here, but there you go. It’s at least nice to have confirmation, right?

In the same article where I first saw this lovely quote, I also read that Ayers is now claiming that the infamous quote attributed to him – wherein he claims he wished he had done more as part of the Weather Underground – is inaccurate. He claims he never said any such thing… even though he’s said it multiple times. Whoops! Well, I suppose if you clear up one lie, you gotta add another one to the pile, just to make sure your tally stays the same, right?

The bit that bugs me most of all, though, is this statement: “I killed no one, and I harmed no one, and I didn’t regret for a minute resisting the murderous assault on [Vietnam] with every ounce of my being.”
Sorry, Bill, even though you never specifically pulled the trigger yourself, there were still several people who died because of your orders, several people who were seriously injured because of your influence. Just because you order someone else to plant a bomb doesn’t mean you aren’t implicit in it being set off. Just because you incited your cronies into beating up cops doesn’t mean you aren’t just as culpable. The entirety of the Weather Underground and your involvement in it has been very thoroughly documented. No matter how many lies you tell now, no matter how much you try to disfigure history, there are those of us who still know who you are and know exactly what you did. And we sure as hell won’t forget it.

This is wrong on so many levels. Watch it all the way to the end.

I’ve never been a conspiracy theorist. I’ve never worn a tinfoil hat, never had any desire to. But this is scary as hell. You just saw a man assaulted and arrested by the Philadelphia police department for daring to wear a McCain-Palin t-shirt after the election. He did not do anything wrong, did not violate any laws; he was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech. I sure as hell hope this man sues for his rights being trampled on.
Welcome to the age of Obama.

P.s. A friend reminded me, I should probably point out that I do not agree with the anti-Israel, anti-establishment message at the end of the video. It’s just the actual arrest shown in the video that ticks me off.

You absolutely have to see this. It’s a video from a Finnish documentary that shows a teacher completely brow beating one of her students for supporting John McCain, while coddling the students who support Barack Obama. Remember, this is a public school. What she’s doing is illegal, and worst of all, apparently she knows it! Pay attention to her little speech at the end of the video.

I think it’s about time this woman was fired, don’t you? We don’t need our children beaten up for their beliefs, scared by falsehoods about their parents, and outright brainwashed by their teachers. This is pathetic. Yes, lady, opinions are fine, but you’re an authority figure in that classroom. By law you are required to check your political opinions at the door and be completely neutral. Otherwise you’re abusing your authority. Period.
We have a serious problem in this nation, in our schools especially. Apparently the rest of the world can see it, so why can’t we?

Considering everything that was on Obama’s side and everything that was against John McCain, it’s so important that we realize how very close this election was. Consider the following facts:

- Obama had $650 million dollars at his disposal. McCain stuck to public financing, which limited him to $84 million. Obama outspent McCain 5:1.

– The Mainstream Media. On the three network evening newscasts, 65% positive for Obama/Biden while coverage of McCain/Palin was 36%. Between the end of the primaries and the end of October, network news broadcast 84 stories criticizing McCain ads, but only 32% had a negative tone towards Obama. Obama appeared on over 50 magazine covers. As I showed you, he was granted 13 Time Magazine covers, compared to McCain’s 4.

- After the primary, Obama made a mad dash for the center. Once he was the Democratic nominee, he flip-flopped his way to the center. He was a radical leftist in moderate clothing, a la the Emperor and his new clothes.

After all of that, after all the outspending, media hype, and flip-flopping, that only just gave him the victory. Yes, he won by a fair margin with the electoral college, but if you look at the vote-for-vote count, it was very, very close. Obama won by pretty much the exact same margin that Bush won by in 2004. After all of that, it only bought Obama just over 62 million votes. He had to outspend McCain 5:1, he had the media in his back pocket, he flip-flopped his way to the center, and yet even then, he couldn’t win by a landslide. He did not win as the leftist he’s been throughout his career. He did not win as the Senate’s most liberal senator. He had to win by putting on a centrist costume and outspending the Republicans.

The Democrats are calling this a revolution. I hardly think so. We Americans are the center, we are not Nancy Pelosi, we are not Harry Reid. But in the same vein, we are also not Jerry Fallwell. We are not extremists! When considering everything it took to give Obama this victory, this does not change who we are and where the majority of us sit on the political landscape.
Please do not let the Democrats sway you, do not believe them when they try to convince you that moderate and conservative politics are over and done with. We are not dead, we were simply out spent, out maneuvered, and quite frankly, overwhelmed by the sheer size, scope, and wallet of Obama’s campaign.
In short, we can no longer afford to be the silent majority. We must get organized, we must prepare ourselves, we must change the way in which we approach the political landscape. But above all else, we must not be convinced to give up our principles. They may have overwhelmed us financially, but that does not mean we give up what we believe in. That does not mean we throw in the towel and become radical leftist socialists ourselves. It just means we’re going to have to speak up, stand up for what we believe in, and fight tooth and nail for the principles we believe in and the country that we love.

This nation has just elected another Jimmy Carter. But remember, it took Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan.
Hold fast, everybody. It’s going to be a bumpy four years, but we can hold firm, we can stay strong, and we can stand up for what we believe in. It’s time to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and keep on fighting.

It looks like I’ll be around for another four years, or however long it takes for the Berg lawsuit to finally prove Obama’s ineligibility, Obama’s impeached, or he’s run out of town by the Peggys of the country who will be so distraught when they find out Obama can’t wave a magic wand and magically fill up her gas tank and pay her mortgage. Let’s all cross our fingers that it’s the former, rather than the latter.

That said, I’ve been putting off writing this post. My mind has been a jumble of disappointment, heartache, and sheer astonishment. I apologize that this post will probably be disjointed, but I’m just going to let my thoughts spill out as they come to me.

I only caught a little bit of Obama’s victory speech, so I can’t really offer a reaction to the whole thing. But was the segment where he declared “Yes, we can” as the new national statement, with the crowd chanting it back at him, did anybody else think that was kinda creepy?

Unlike what the Democrats were hoping, Obama did not receive a mandate. This was a remarkably close race everywhere, which means he does not enjoy such a vast majority that he’ll be able to get away with radical left-of-the-left policies.

I am so incredibly, incredibly disappointed that the Democrats’ fraudulent primary, unimaginable amounts of money, and complete media manipulation has been vindicated. I believe this has set us so far back with regard to campaign reform that it’s absolutely sickening. I keep thinking about all the good that could have been done in this country with the three quarters of a billion dollars at Obama’s disposal during the campaign, it just makes my heart sink.

I’m just in absolute shock that we have a President Hussein.

Since we’ve just elected another Jimmy Carter, I’m rather interested to see if this will lead to another revolution within the Republican party two to four years from now. I really miss Reagan, so I’d be completely happy with a true Reagan successor bringing true honor, respect, and leadership back to the Republican party. I may not be a Republican, but I do believe they have a positive impact on this country and that their influence is needed to balance out the influence of the Democrats.

I am so, so, so, so relieved that enough Republican senators held on to their seats so that we can avoid a supermajority in the Senate. The House is pretty remarkably uneven, but at least the Senate isn’t beyond filibuster. Checks and balances are absolutely integral to our survival, so I am relieved that we have at least managed to retain a portion of that in our government.

President Hussein. Seriously.

I thought McCain’s concession speech was very respectable, eloquent, civilized, and well delivered. Above all else, no one can possibly claim that McCain ever sacrificed his dignity throughout this election. He has remained dignified, classy, and above all else, he was most certainly post-racial, which I believe is to be commended.

Okay, time for something horribly catty, but I just can’t help myself. What the hell was up with Michelle Obama’s dress!?! That was the most unflattering thing I think I have ever seen. It made her hips and behind look gigantic, the way it split up the color made her appear chopped off in unflattering ways, and that red. Holy crap, that splotch of red. Sorry, but it just looked like a blood splatter. She may be our next first lady, but Jackie Kennedy she most certainly is not. I really hope she can find herself a better stylist.

We better prepare ourselves for four gaffe-tastic years with Joe Biden as the VP, and the inevitable plethora of teleprompter-free moments with Obama. In the gaffe department, the two of them are going to make Dan Quayle look like an intellectual.

I’m still really curious to know how much of an influence ACORN and voter fraud in general had on this election.

Please, PUMA Democrats, do not give up on your fight now! Your party needs reform now more than ever. Please don’t give up, don’t let them to continue to walk all over you now that they have ultimate power, now that their behavior has been vindicated. Don’t give up, don’t give in!

I’m cheering for Philip J. Berg even harder now.

I cannot believe that we have elected a President who flat out would not qualify for an upper level security clearance. That boggles my mind.

Damn, my liberal brother is going to be insufferable during Thanksgiving.

My biggest hope is that we will somehow find a way to prevent the Democrats from instituting socialized medicine. If we cannot avoid this, I honestly have no clue what options I will have left. Where could I go on this Earth to avoid socialized medicine?

In other news, my desktop died today. Man, it was just a bad day all the way around.

Almost more than anything else, I feel so cheated that I cannot be thoroughly thrilled over the fact that we just elected the first African American President of the United States. I am so disappointed that I can’t be happy about this. Ever since I left that segregated first grade classroom all those years ago, I have been looking forward to the day when we could get beyond that bigotry and look up to a black President. But I am literally so disheartened that of all the African American presidents we could have had, we got him. Of all the brilliant, qualified, dignified, exceptional African Americans we could have had, we got Obama. We got a man with no experience, no credentials, no solid record, a plethora of questionable associates, and goodness knows what else.
And worst of all, if he fails spectacularly, if his leadership leaves us more vulnerable, more unstable, and more bitter, he will have made the climb to the Presidency that much harder for an African American leader who is qualified, who is exceptional, who is experienced, who is a good and proven leader. I really wish I could be happy about this historic day, but I can’t, because of who this leader is.

Lastly, President Obama is not my President. He will not be, unless by some miracle, he really can turn this country around without digging us deeper into the hell hole of socialism. Barring that, Barack Hussein Obama will never be my president. And that makes me so very sad indeed.

Please feel free to share your thoughts. I’ll probably add more as I continue to make sense of the thoughts whirling through my mind.

I came across a brilliant essay online a couple days ago that has successfully compiled some of the most important and often discussed arguments against Barack Obama. I’ve thought a couple times about compiling an essay of my own, but thanks to a bad case of the flu that just wouldn’t go away, I was never able to write one myself. Although this essay does leave out a few of my favorites, it does cover many, many important and essential elements that – in my opinion – every voter should know about. So for that reason, I would urge all of you to check out:

CLOSING THE DEAL

I’ve read absolutely everything on that page, watched all the videos, and absolutely everything on that website corresponds with my own personal research. They’ve done a brilliant job of linking to all their references, providing absolute evidence, and backing up each of their claims. Please, take the time to read and consider what they have to say. Trust me, it’s worth it.
If you would like to see my own “Must See” posts and issues, I’ve added a Must See category to this blog and sorted various entries accordingly. Click here to check it out.

I honestly have no clue if this is authentic or not, but I received this from a friend of mine it was just too compelling not to post. It’s an essay about the state of affairs amongst Obama’s campaign, allegedly written by a former Hillary Clinton staffer who had been adopted into Obama’s fold as an attempt at repairing the bridge burned between their two campaigns during the primaries. (That adoption process does at least check out, considering other things I’ve heard from various PUMA Democrats.) The essay details the four biggest hurdles for the Obama campaign, as seen from the inside. Even if this isn’t authentic and it wasn’t written by an Obama staffer, it’s still a brilliant and remarkable evaluation of the current state of Obama’s campaign. For that reason, I’m posting it here, along with a full disclaimer that I honestly have no clue if it’s authentic, but it’s at least still a darn good read. Click “more” to check it out.

It seems that if the editorial department of your newspaper decides to endorse McCain, Obama wants to pack up his toys and go home. Shortly after the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and New York Post each endorsed John McCain, they were kicked off of Obama’s campaign plane.
Does that seem fair to you? What do you think the reaction would be if John McCain had kicked the New York Times & Washington Post off his plane? Don’t you think the MSM would be all over that, decrying John McCain for being intolerant? That’s precisely what they were doing when Sarah Palin decided to give her first interview to ABC over the other networks, that in so doing she was being intolerant and unprofessional. Did anyone else say the same thing about Joe Biden refusing to speak to the local networks who had asked him tough questions, and then tried to have their ad revenue depleted? Of course not! Cause fair is fair, so long as you’re playing by Obama’s rules.

This is what the Washington Times had to say about it:

The Obama campaign informed the newspaper Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs completely independent of the news department.

“This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama’s campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporter’s pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign,” said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon.

“I hope the candidate that promises to unite America isn’t using a litmus test to determine who gets to cover his campaign.”

This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. It seriously disturbs me that the Obama campaign is attempting to punish entire newspapers for their editorial department’s dissenting opinions. It’s a very dangerous precedent, as this will only lead to further yellow journalism. These papers have been completely denied access, which is astounding to me. This leaves them with two options – report some of the facts in a favorable light or completely lose their ability to report any news whatsoever. Again, is this fair? Is this the kind of “change” we need in our nation’s media? I hardly think so. We need less yellow journalism for goodness sake!
But, of course, this sort of behavior always ticks me off. Throughout this entire election process, all four freaking years of it since our last election ended, I’ve been thinking to myself, What the hell happened to our ability to maturely agree to disagree like adults?! If we can’t do that, if we can’t agree to disagree, we’re completely doomed. All discussion will end, the constructive exchange of ideas will cease, and we’ll be stuck in stagnant pools of thought, unable to move forward in any positive manner. I can’t tell you how truly frustrated I am with attitudes like these. Our own fear of being offended has trumped our desire to learn! If we don’t grow up and realize that in any exchange of ideas there will inevitably be disagreement and offense, we will never learn anything new, we will never be exposed to points of view previously unimagined, we will never grow as a society! Suck it up, people, and realize that we’re never all going to be able to agree about everything! Until we can grasp that concept like mature adults, truly meaningful change will be impossible in this country.

For the past several weeks, I have been delving through the archives of Time Magazine to create a gallery where we will examine, contrast, and compare the appearances of the presidential candidates on the cover of Time Magazine. In it, I will focus on Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to illustrate the extreme bias that has permeated our nation’s media. After weeks – months – of hard work, I am so proud to present:

I hope you will examine the evidence with an open mind and an honest subjectivity. Yellow journalism has never before been tolerated in this nation, yet we are imersed in the most extensive media bias I believe our country has ever seen. The first step to solving this massive problem is to acknowledge the extent of its influence. We can only do that if we work together regardless of party affiliation to ensure that our news is no longer filtered through any party’s agenda. Bias in any and all directions is contrary to the journalistic integrity that has guided the news industry for so many generations. It must not be tolerated any longer.
We, the people of this great nation, have the power to correct this great wrong. We can force the news industry to change its bad behavior, if only we will stand up as one and no longer accept the news industry’s attempts to manipulate our opinions, our minds, our decisions, and our votes. We have the right to make up our own minds! Whenever anyone tries to rob you of that right, whenever a massive organization attempts to manipulate you, they are addressing you as if you were an imbecile who cannot be trusted to make sound decisions. Stand up to their condescension, stand up to their manipulation! Tell them you will no longer tolerate being treated like cattle to be herded! Say no to media bias, because we simply have no time for it.

Every cover I have presented here is readily available through Time’s online archive. I have gone through the past fifteen years of Time covers, and I can tell you that they have never before shown such incredible over the top bias on the cover of their magazine, as they have over the past three years with Senator Barack Obama. They have never been so in the bag for one candidate that they tossed aside the entirety of their journalistic integrity. They are showing their true colors, I only hope this gallery will hope to make it all the more apparent to everyone they intend to manipulate.

The gallery will begin with examples of the covers dedicated to Barack Obama, followed by Hillary Clinton and John McCain. After an analysis of these covers, we will then examine the more subtle aspects of Time’s covers: the top of each cover, where smaller headlines continue to display the immense bias benefitting Barack Obama. These “mini-mentions” – as I have dubbed them – give an even deeper glimpse into the lengths Time Magazine has gone to sway your opinion and relentlessly shill for Obama’s campaign.
As I have gone through the archives and prepared this gallery, one thought has run continuously through my mind; in the beginning, on his very first Time Magazine cover, Barack Obama appeared prominently on the cover of 2005’s 100 Most Influential People issue. I can’t help but wonder, that as I think about what little Obama had accomplished as of 2005, was he then – or is he now – really qualified to be on such an elite list? Was he – is he – really that influential, that powerful, that important?
Or are we just being told that he is?
Is he really all that powerful, all that qualified, or are we being sold a product via an immense multi-year advertising campaign?

Thank you very much for taking the time to look. If you have any questions about this gallery or my research, please feel free to contact me at NoWayNObama@gmail.com.
Enjoy, and please remember, it is your duty, your responsibility, and your privilege to cast an educated vote on November 4th.

Sincerely,
Meg

Click Here to Visit The Gallery

P.s. Please, I would love to hear your comments on the gallery! I’ve worked hard on this and I would really appreciate some feedback. So please, click here, scroll down, and comment away! Thanks very much!

A lot of people have been buzzing lately about Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama. I know I’m a couple days late on commenting on this, but I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. I mean, it just didn’t make any sense. Have you seen the video where he explains why he chose to endorse Obama? Watch it, you have to see it:

Did you notice how most of his reasons for choosing Obama over McCain are based on misunderstandings? For instance, since when did McCain ever suggest that Obama was a Muslim? Or that Obama isn’t an American, or somehow linking McCain to that Congressman from Wisconsin, it’s ridiculous. In fact, McCain has gone out of his way every single time these issues came up to refute such statements! Eesh, Colin, at least get your facts straight.
Mr. Ayers, yes, McCain did bring that up, and in my opinion, it’s not “negative” to bring up the truth. It’s negative when you bring up personal speculative attacks. The truth shouldn’t ever be considered a “negative attack”, that’s just ludicrous.

Oh, General Powell also doesn’t seem to be aware of the specific points of Obama’s tax plan that McCain and Palin are attacking as being socialist in nature. Either that, or he doesn’t know what socialism means. The part of the tax plan being attacked has nothing to do with taxes for infrastructure, but has everything to do with sending a tax credit to Americans who don’t pay taxes at all, funded entirely by those who do pay taxes. That’s what Obama means by his 95% of Americans will receive an “income tax cut”. The problem is, 40% of Americans don’t pay income taxes at all. That 40% is still included in the 95% that Obama mentions, because the “tax cut” is really a “tax credit” – a check from the federal government, paid for by those who do pay taxes. Obama himself has said this is a “redistribution of wealth”, and General Powell, that has nothing to do with infrastructure and everything to do with a socialist notion.

The most important issue, however, is his discussion about the Iraq war. He states clearly and unequivocally that he has no regrets about his involvement in making the case for war. Because of that, I do not understand why Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and his supporters, would even dare to accept Powell’s endorsement. Why? Because it’s contrary to the far left’s belief that the Iraq war is an “illegal war” based on “lies” about WMDs.

Before we continue, it’s important that you set aside the fact for a minute that this war was never, ever about established WMDs. Set aside the fact that in making the case for war, the WMD issue was explicitly described as Saddam’s programs to develop WMDs, not WMDs already made and ready to launch. Set aside the fact that those programs were found in Iraq, along with essential tools and components to develop weapons of mass destruction. Set aside the fact that we now know that the major “lie” the Democrats complain about – Bush mentioning Hussein attempting to obtain uranium from Nigeria – wasn’t actually a lie, but we were told it was by a Democrat who was in charge of an investigation to determine the truth about the uranium issue. Never mind that he proclaimed Bush lied about the uranium, even though he wasn’t finished with that investigation, and a year later admitted that he knowingly misled Americans with his statement just to make Bush look bad and undermine the war. That indeed, his investigation determined that Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium, but that he wasn’t as far along in that process as Hussein himself thought he was, because his underlings were lying to him to save their own necks. On this issue, our intelligence only failed as much as Hussein’s own trust in his underlings failed him.
So set all of that aside, set the facts aside, and think for a moment like a hard-core liberal. Think that the whole case for war was nothing but a big fat lie, that we were going to Iraq for oil, that there were no WMDs, and that Bush knowingly and maliciously lied about it to the American people and to Congress.

If you believe that, why would you want the man who was responsible for distributing those lies to back up your chosen candidate? Colin Powell was the one who made the case for war to the United Nations, he was the one who advised Bush throughout the whole process that led us to war; he was the one who helped make the case not only to the American people, but to Congress as well. He was part and parcel of the whole big lie that Democrats are so angry about. Why should they accept his endorsement?

It just doesn’t make any sense. The Democrats claim that they were “duped” into supporting the war, but you can’t say that about Colin Powell. Not only was he the one who made the case for war, but he was the one directly responsible for duping those Democrats! By accepting his endorsement, how does that not undermine the Democrats’ claims that the whole war was nothing but a lie? How is Powell not just as guilty as Bush? I just honestly don’t get it. How can Democrats have, at the same time, their “they lied, soldiers died” claim, yet accept the Powell endorsement saying, “the Colin Powell endorsement proves Obama has the experience and judgment to lead”? It seems like the two are mutually exclusive. How can they possibly make for pleasant bedfellows if they believe that Colin Powell was the one who duped them into an illegal war?

Or is this yet another case of politically convenient doublethink?

As for me, I’m not surprised by Colin Powell’s endorsement, although I am a bit disappointed in him. He could have at least had the common courtesy to notify John McCain of his endorsement, and I would have hoped that he could have at least gotten his facts straight in explaining why he chose to endorse Barack Obama. It leads one to wonder, was he just uninformed or is he playing a political game? Personally, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Colin Powell is ignorant and uninformed about either of the candidates’ campaigns. That only leaves one very disappointing option; a genuine American hero is participating in a political game to further mischaracterize not only John McCain and his campaign, but the entire race for the White House. It saddens me that a man I once had immense respect for is sinking to the level of attempting to confuse voters by jumbling the facts. I know Colin Powell is smart enough and aware enough to solidly explain his true intentions for supporting Barack Obama. Therefore it’s very disappointing that he’s chosen to instead rely on misleading statements and outright falsehoods.
As always, I’m fine with whoever anyone wants to support, so long as that support is based on research and solid fact. When that support is instead based on mendacious ephemera, I have a hard time understanding or respecting it.