“Obama In A Nutshell”

Obama = inexperienced

Losing Side

By the Editors, NRO

Sen. John McCain is getting upbraided by the great and good for supposedly impugning Barack Obama’s patriotism and all but accusing him of betraying his country.

McCain has said of Obama’s opposition to the surge that “Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign.” Joe Klein deemed it “as intemperate a personal attack as I’ve ever heard a major-party candidate make in a presidential campaign.” “Out of bounds,” ruled Jonathan Alter. Sen. Chuck Hagel pronounced on Face the Nation that McCain “is treading on some very thin ground,” and warned against a campaign based on “‘You’re less patriotic than me.’” The Washington Post voiced its disapproval and left-wing blogger Josh Marshall called it “close to an accusation of treason.”

McCain’s charge is undeniably a tough one; the question is whether it’s true.

There’s no way to see into Obama’s heart, but the evidence suggests McCain is correct. As has been ably documented by Peter Wehner, Obama’s position on the war dramatically hardened with the onset of his presidential campaign. Once, he had opposed deadlines for withdrawal and cutting off funding for the troops. No more. He insisted on a plan for pulling out combat troops by March 2008 that would have lost the war, and as the primary campaign dragged on, even talked of a more rapid withdrawal. That Obama was to Hillary Clinton’s left on the war was a crucial ingredient in his primary victory.
Continue reading

VOIGHT: My concerns for America: Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people

by Jon Voight, Washington Times

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

Continue reading

obama’s ideas are no laughin matter. . .but this is





It’s America, Obama – A modest dissent to the citizen of the world.

By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO

What disturbed me about Barack Obama’s Berlin speech were some reoccurring utopian assumptions about cause and effect – namely, that bad things happen almost as if by accident, and are to be addressed by faceless, universal forces of good will.

Unlike Obama, I would not speak to anyone as “a fellow citizen of the world,” but only as an ordinary American who wishes to do his best for the world, but with a much-appreciated American identity, and rather less with a commonality indistinguishable from those poor souls trapped in the Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, or Iran. Take away all particular national identity and we are empty shells mouthing mere platitudes, who believe in little and commit to even less. In this regard, postmodern, post-national Europe is not quite the ideal, but a warning of how good intentions can run amuck. Ask the dead of Srebrenica, or the ostracized Danish cartoonists, or the archbishop of Canterbury with his supposed concern for transcendent universal human rights.

With all due respect, I also don’t believe the world did anything to save Berlin, just as it did nothing to save the Rwandans or the Iraqis under Saddam – or will do anything for those of Darfur; it was only the U.S. Air Force that risked war to feed the helpless of Berlin as it saved the Muslims of the Balkans. And I don’t think we have much to do in America with creating a world in which “famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Bad, often evil, autocratic governments abroad cause hunger, often despite rich natural landscapes; and nature, in tragic fashion, not “the carbon we send into atmosphere,” causes “terrible storms,” just as it has and will for millennia.

Continue reading

President of the World – Feeling the love for Obama in Paris.

By Byron York, NRO

Editor’s note – Barack Obama is in Paris today, one day after his huge rally in Berlin. NRO‘s Byron York was in Paris last month and saw firsthand a bit of the French love affair with Obama. This column originally appeared last month in The Hill.

Paris – “But why wouldn’t you vote for Obama?”

I’m having lunch with an Obama supporter at La Coupole, the venerable brasserie in Paris’s Montparnasse neighborhood. The woman who asked me that question, along with her fiance, has come to discuss something else, but the talk inevitably comes round to the U.S. presidential race. And the question here, as all across Europe, is:

What reason could there possibly be for Barack Obama not to be the next president of the United States?

Put another way, why would anyone vote for John McCain?

There are any number of reasons I could mention, but since we had just gotten word in the last few hours of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Boumediene case, in which the narrowest possible majority, 5-4, voted that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can go to federal court to challenge the U.S. government’s right to detain them, I bring up the issue of judges.

A decision like Boumediene is bad enough from the current Court, I say. If Obama were elected, it would certainly get worse.

My lunch companion doesn’t agree. In the European mind, Guantanamo is one of the centers of evil in the world, a dungeon where George W. Bush commits unspeakable acts on innocent Muslims who just happened to be on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Pakistan when U.S. troops captured them.

She says the prisoners in Gitmo have been denied their constitutional rights.

I say they are enemy combatants; they have rights under international treaties, but not American constitutional rights.

But they have “global rights,” she insists.

What are “global rights”? I ask.

There’s no precise definition, but as far as I could tell, “global rights” appear to be American constitutional rights applied to the entire planet. It’s an astounding notion, given that American constitutional rights definitely do not apply across the entire planet – not even in places like, well, France.

Continue reading