Thread: Obama - Breakdown of the dream machine

Breakdown of the dream machine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

I don't know what kind of shoes Sen. Barack Obama fancies, but without a doubt, the feet he puts in them are made of clay.

Hallelujah, baby!

After being smothered with weeks and weeks of puffery, praise and pabulum about the righteous, messianic perfection of the male finalist for the Democrat nomination for president, we're finally shaking loose of the strategic nonsense fed to the media and getting at the truth.

The guy is not perfect. He has a temper; he's petty; he doesn't like contradiction; he doesn't like being questioned about anything he's said or done. He bristled at the questioning during the ABC debate.

Tough questions hurt, especially when you think they should be off limits.

He's not the most magnificent speaker ever heard. In fact, when he speaks without a script or prompter, the silky delivery reduces to hesitation, ums and uhs and mistakes that need correction but only get cover-up excuses, because, of course, he doesn't make mistakes – only poor word choices.

Obama's vague, empty rhetoric about his plans for the future of this country have been revealed to be just that – vague and empty.

When the specifics are discussed, they're scarcely different from any extremely left-leaning Democrat – like, for instance, his competition in the nomination race, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The key difference is we know what Clinton would do. She's been around long enough. You might not like her politics, but you know where she stands.

With Obama, the picture was deliberately vague in his attempt to appeal to everyone as the candidate above dirty politics as usual.

Well, that utopian bubble burst with the meltdown over his racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic, raving pastor and the cover-up lies Obama tried to foist on us. Even the media didn't buy it.

Then came his dissing of his own grandmother as a racist; his elitist, insulting speech about middle class voters during a San Francisco speech to wealthy, potential donors; his friendship and financial connection with indicted Chicago developer and political fundraiser Tony Rezko and his denial of friendship and political association with Bill Ayers, the admitted and proud terrorist/bomber member of the communist-influenced Weather Underground.

Every incident was followed by cover-ups, rationalizations and admissions of misstatements or misunderstandings because of bad "word choices."

When it all fell apart, Obama became fair game for the media just as Clinton and John McCain have been.

And, should be.

How else can Americans know the person they'll vote for in November? Reliance on campaign rhetoric and staged media appearances for voting decisions is playing a fool's game.

So, too, is falling for the candidate's "image," which is all show biz and pandering.

We've fallen victim to that often enough. At this stage in history, doing it again would be the most expensive and dangerous mistake we could ever make.

So, where are they?

Avoid any mention of 9/11, terrorism, jihad, militant Islamists, Muhammad, Muslims or threats to our survival? Yes.

Get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences to this country, Iraq, the Middle East or the world? Yes. Reduce emphasis on the military, cut new weapon development, stop research, improvement or testing of nuclear arms? Yes, yes and yes.

Raise taxes? Yes. Raise capital gains taxes? Yes. Continue the death tax/the federal estate tax? Yes. Clamp down on businesses that make "too much" profit, Yes. Heavily tax the rich, those people making above $50,000 per year? Yes. Buy into environmental hoaxes? Yes.

Socialized medicine? Yes. Bigger government? Yes. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to rein in talk radio. Yes. Increase governments' role in education? Yes. Stack the Supreme Court? Yes. Maintain unlimited abortion? Yes. More unproven embryonic stem cell research to the detriment of proven adult stem cell research? Yes. Increase welfare and other social programs to help the poor and minorities – however defined? Yes.


Keep the welcome mat out for illegals and make their "transition" into our country even easier? Yes. Retain their perks and provide more because we're a multicultural society of "immigrants?" Yes.

They never:

use the words "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants."'
refer to the real dollar costs illegals place on taxpaying American citizens because of overloading medical facilities, increasing crime rates, log-jammed judicial systems, filled jails and prisons, burdening all schools with increased enrollment and educational assistance for illegals, expanding social service/welfare programs, environmental damage, infrastructure burdens and increased housing and utility demands.
refer to the changes that rampant, uncontrolled immigration have foisted on the country, changing the character of towns and cities, housing patterns, business operations and, indeed, the culture and social experiences of Americans, which includes the deterioration of language, our system of laws and the unity of the American experiment.
Yes, all that and more.

A big part of that "more" is that Obama was dragged head first into the campaign becoming a race race, because of his 20-year association with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Wright's incendiary words and delivery at the pulpit were recorded on tapes and videos sold by the church. Despite protestations by the two men about media looping "snippets" of those rantings, it was clear what Wright thought and preached and what Obama knew of it more than 20 years.

No squirming out of that one.

Wright, relished his 15 minutes of fame, then poured gas on the campaign fire he started with speeches to the National Press Club and the NAACP plus a sympathetic PBS interview by Bill Moyers. Wright rubbed it in, scarcely changing a thought.

Poor Obama. He thought he'd campaign as a white/black-man, gathering votes from both sides and guilty whites in the middle. It almost worked, but the truth is out.

He's not magical perfection, the utopian blend of races and differences, the new millennium candidate, the man to lead us to Shangri La.

He is what he is, with his background of liberal cant, elitist pretensions and street connections. He's a petty political opportunist like any politician. No more. No less.

You get what you pay for and if this man wins the nomination and the presidency because of those buying a dream, the price paid by this country will be much too high.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=P ... geId=63378

Obamo = vague and empty
= CFR at work
= NAU' implementation
= you and I are economic slaves without freedom

A daily visit to the website Rezko Watch which everyone should take.

These people are intent on exposing the corruption of all Obama's associates and who pays taxes on his other property.

MY LIST OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO OBAMA REALLY IS JUST KEEPS GETTING LONGER AND LONGER.

The difference between Clinton and Obama, IMO, is that Clinton would be more susceptible to pressure, being a female and having some maternal instinct. If she can be made to see that liberal policies would actually hurt working class Americans, the main component of the Democrat powerbase, there might be some hope in a Clinton presidency. Obama, OTOH, would be too proud to back down once he has asserted a position.