We undoubtedly will learn more of Barack Hussein Obama in the coming months and years. I propose that we spread the truth about any new findings as they surface, but that we do not forget what we already know – i.e., Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Rezko, etc. and continue to pound him with every bit of information that we have. Even to the seemingly innocuous “big ears” and “can’t bowl” attributes. I fully intend to do everything I can (legally) to make Obama’s life more difficult – as has been done to George Bush.

To all of those posting comments to my Pesky Truth blog, I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to respond to your comments recently. A family emergency came up and I’ve been out of town.

Since so much time has elapsed and I didn’t think that folks would still be returning to catch a response to their comment. I thought that’d I just thank each one of you for commenting and assure you that I have read each one.

Thanks to: Patrick, boaz, dawndawn, andrews, Mildred, KevInFl, American Sweetheart, Redhead, jevica, davecatbone, Sue, Bill, Janelle, Buster, bob’s my uncle, Chad, and Ken. I promise that I will respond to any and all comments now that I’m back.

Thanks for visiting Pesky Truth.

I just finished reading an article by Michelle Malkin entitled, “The Obama Witch Project: RAAAAAAAAACISM!” And, frankly, it pushed me over the edge.

I’m not going to play the “racism” game by unequal rules anymore. Most white people have bent over backwards to accommodate black folks. We understand the agony they feel over things that happened decades ago – it was wrong, things have improved – move on, get over it. We have tried to cut blacks slack because of past injustices and all we get is more charges of “racism.” Black folks have a choice, cut out the automatic cry of racism at the drop of a hat (a white hat would be racist) and try to get along, or forever be at odds with whites – which is it? Eventually, it will come to that choice.

Are there white racists today – without a doubt. Are there still some racist conditions around the country – without a doubt. Treating black folks differently because of the color of their skin is wrong - period. But to ignore the advances made in racial equality is to be dishonest to extreme.

Today, some blacks have found that using the “race card” can gain them an advantage, and so when Sarah Palin wears a white dress – that is racism. White stockings, a vanilla milkshake, Joe Six Pack and hockey moms are all code words indicating racism. That is so much BS. We must stop accepting that kind of unwarranted accusation as having come from the mouth of a responsible person.

There is a parallel between extreme Islamic terrorists and the silence from responsible, good followers of Islam who refrain from speaking out against the terrorist’s actions, and responsible, good black folks not speaking out against the racist among them – listen – (quiet … a cricket chirps … more quiet) – yeah, I didn’t think so.

Obama supporters (at least some of them) have undertaken to flag as “racist,” anything that is negative to Obama regardless of whether there was any real racist component or not. The object being to negate (whoa, is that word now racist?) the statement and intimidate others from uttering anything similar in the future.

It has become a “boy cries wolf” situation. If they call everything racist, how does one identify something that is really racist among the fog of accusations? If it can’t be identified, it can’t be fixed and if it can’t be fixed, we’re doomed more and more real racism.

I have no doubt that by writing this, I will be labeled as a racist. So be it. I am not, but those who label me racist have already made up their mind and nothing I say will change that.

You see, you can’t write of these things – you can’t speak of these things without the specter of “racism” hanging over you. That is just plain wrong and I’m not going to stay silent any longer on the subject.

I am not indicting all black people, I’d like to think that the vast majority disagree with the racist diarrhea being used as a weapon by some others. But I do believe that they (the good ones) are the key to real racial harmony when they start disavowing the overzealous.

And just to finish out this rant, thank God that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chirs Dodd, etc. are all white, else the very fact that I dislike them in the extreme would also be considered racist.

~~~

Who do CEOs prefer?

There are a couple of subtle aspects of Obama’s associations that seem to have slipped beneath the radar. Yet both contribute to the Barack Hussein Obama that we’re all trying so desperately to know.

First, you’re familiar with these names: William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rev. Jerimiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, RevMichael Pfleger, and Frank Davis. These people are not candidates for sainthood, but they are the people that he associated himself with over many years.

Where are the testimonials from his good-guy friends. Where are his beer-drinking buddies, his bowling buddies, his poker buddies, his basketball buddies, etc.? Where are Michelle’s girlfriends? Do these people have any friends who weren’t politically expedient?

There doesn’t appear to be a long line of friends who will stand up and say that Obama is an honest, forthright, stand-up, guy who will always look out for you.

And secondly, everyone keeps asking why was Obama hanging out with that long list of ne’er-do-wells if he didn’t have something to benefit by the association – what was it, socially, financially, politically, philosophically, or just the enjoyment of their company?

Personally, I think that’s only half of the question. Why did they hang around with him? Was he a kindred spirit? A political brother? An apprentice? A partner in crime? A long-standing relationship has to be a two-way street - both parties have to benefit in some way. What benefit accrued (or will now accrue) to them?

Oh, the burning questions …

~~~

Everyone is talking about William Ayers right now. That’s good. Too many of the unenlightened masses don’t know the extent of the relationship between Ayers and Obama.

And there’s talk of reminding folks of Reverend Wright. That’s fine too.

There could even be more damaging news coming from Tony Rezko, another ne’er-do-well from Obama’s past.

And those most highly publicized associates are not alone, there are others waiting for their fifteen minutes of fame, like Dr. Khalid al Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Rev Michael Pfleger, etc.

But the concentration on individual characters obscures the big picture.

It’s not any one of these unsavory associations that is truly damning to Obama, it’s the pattern of his poor judgment. Aristotle said, “the whole is more than the sum of its parts,” and Ari was right. It certainly applies here.

It is probably prudent to establish the bona fides of the evidence relating to each one of the players, but it should be in the context of building a case for a verdict that Obama’s judgment is unquestionably faulty - not a good trait for a President.

And we shouldn’t overlook the left’s talking points that are trying to trivialize Obama’s relationship with these individuals by using the “guilt by association” misdirection. No one is saying that Obama has bombed a government office or preached a sermon damning the United States, or has been indicted for felonies – it’s that he has surrounded himself with the kind of associates that have, for years. It’s an indictment of his judgment.

“Choose your friends wisely,”

“Birds of a feather flock together,”

“You are known by the company you keep.”

Moms have been telling their sons and daughters that going back to Aristotle’s day – and, as we all know, moms are usually right.

~~~

The following comes from Hot Air, posted on Tuesday night:

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK

1. Open a new file in your computer.

2. Name it ‘Barack Obama’.

3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.

4. Empty the Recycle Bin.

5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’

6. Firmly Click ‘Yes.’

7. Feel better?

GOOD - Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi!

SilverStar830 on October 7, 2008 at 5:13 PM

~~~

On top of the usual cast of democrat voters (blacks, union members, trial lawyers, etc), the dems have instituted a massive get-out-the-vote which is targeting young people, the poor and homeless, as well as a secret untapped source of votes.

The young will vote for Obama since he is more “hip” than the old white-haired dude and his message is more inspirational; it’s much like a 60’s anti-establishment vote. Their votes will be based on feelings, since they have no experience and little knowledge upon which to base a reasoned vote. Get this; they really believe that Obama will do what he says he will do – poor ignorant saps. They’ll learn – but in the meantime, they’ll put the country and our way of life in jeopardy.

The homeless will vote for him because they get a brown paper bag containing a half-pint, and a Big Mac for their vote, thanks to those compassionate folks at ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). ACORN has a scheduled pickup at various locations around the city where they pick up the homeless and return them after voting. There have been accusations that the same people are voting daily for their booze and burger. ACORN denies this – “our bus drivers are trained specialists and keep a written count of passengers.”

And the poor will vote for him because he’s going to give them free healthcare, education, jobs, subsidized housing and transportation. Remember what George Bernard Shaw said: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

And in addition to the aforementioned, there is Obama’s previously untapped secret source. The “FAD” voters.

Felons, Animals, and the Dead will vote for Obama because ACORN will help them with all of those pesky registration and voting requirements. After all, pets and the dead really do need assistance to vote. It really is hard to hold a pencil or pen without an opposable thumb or when one is a stiff.

ACORN has a long-standing record of participation in the voting process. The democrat party has rewarded their tireless efforts to find and register voters, regardless of species or brain functionality, with millions in grants. And by golly, they’ve earned it.

They have been instrumental in going from cell to cell and registering those forgotten citizens who have been denied representation just because they were incarcerated and couldn’t make it to a voting location. And, in a really compassionate move, they bring along cigarettes and K-Y Jelly to distribute to the voters.

Recently, ACORN announced a “Bring your dog to vote” campaign. While it was initially thought that the campaign was encouraging voters to bring along Fido or Spot when the human voted, it was later clarified that the dogs would actually be voting, with assistance from ACORN (Association of Canine Organizers for Reform Now). They have been trained as “dog whisperers” to ascertain the dog’s preference for a candidate and to aid them in voting (dog tags are an acceptable form of identification).

And as a democracy (for the time being at least), we hold dear the concepts of “one felon, one vote,” “one animal, one vote,” and “one stiff, one vote.”

Of course, an exception to the “one vote” concept prevails when an individual forgets whether they’ve voted already or not. In that case, the only fair thing to do is to let them vote again – else risk being disenfranchised. This rule-of-thumb also applies when a voter has forgotten the location of their residence. It’s only fair to let them vote again in another precinct, just to be sure.

ACORN officials tell us that it is possible that some of the voters that they’ve assisted will vote for Obama but their nonpartisan approach precludes them from keeping track of a voter’s preference. In fact, most ACORN personnel were not even familiar with the name “John McCain.”

Some interesting “Pesky Truths” about how we voters feel about Congress:

A Rasmussen survey recently found that just 11% of voters say Congress is doing a good or an excellent job (some other polls have that figure in single digits). Congress’ approval rating has been below 17% for months, so that’s not exactly “above the fold” news.

But that’s not all, another Rasmussen report indicates the depth of disgust many of us have for our current members of Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that if they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw the current legislators out and start all over again.   59%!

Just 17% would vote to keep them in office.

When the Constitution was written, the nation’s founders expected that there would be a 50% turnover in the House of Representatives every election cycle. That was the experience they witnessed in state legislatures at the time (and most of the state legislatures offered just one-year terms).

For well over 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, the turnover averaged in the 50% range as expected. In the twentieth century, turnover began to decline. As power and prestige flowed to Washington during the New Deal era, fewer and fewer Members of Congress wanted to leave. In 1968, Congressional turnover fell to single digits for the first time ever and it has remained very low ever since.

And the parties operate like a street gang – if, as a rookie Congressperson, you want their help, cover, or protection, you’ll do as the leadership directs – or else. The “gang” mentality sees their strength in solidarity of purpose. Pretty soon the strength in numbers concept overwhelms any other altruistic motive and you fall in line with Nancy or Harry

There are some good members of Congress (a few), but speaking for myself, I’d be willing to dump my good ones: John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Rep. Sam Johnson, if it meant that all current members would go and the entire country would elect new (different) members.

There has been great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the misdeeds of two of our most infamous congresspersons, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Two of our favorite outspoken Reid and Pelosi critics were so eager to see these two so-called representatives of the people go, they would resort to VOODOO on behalf of the American people.

So, in honor of Mama Sue and Mama A. Sweetheart, I’ve enlisted the aid of Mama Cili D’Jambo, a genuine Haitian Priestess of the Zaca Bagay sect. She has given us a spell that will remove the two ne’er-do-well bumblers from office (I don’t know where they go).

Thanks to Mama Cili D’Jambo (a special spell for Nancy and Harry)

You heat the needles over the hair fire and plunge them into the dolls while chanting the spell. And POOF, they’re gone. Here is the spell:

Chapter Fourteen – Two debates with astonishing results

Chapter Fifteen – Obama and Britney consult with one another

Chapter Sixteen – The other shoe drops, the election, and the moose returns

In the absence of a built-in polling mechanism, I’ve tried to create a pseudo-poll. Using a list of reasons that I think people would choose as their reason to vote for Obama, please choose the reason(s) that YOU think are most prevalent among Obama voters.

Please comment with your letter choices (A, B, C, etc.) not the individual detail reasons. Also, I’d interested in any other major reasons that I’ve left out. I’ll tally the responses and post them daily (if there are any).

Again, these are NOT reasons for YOU to be voting for Obama, but reasons that you think are used by others who will vote for him.

• Because he will enhance our stature in the eyes of the world
• Because he’ll negotiate with our enemies – and bring direct, smart, aggressive diplomacy to our relations with other nations
• Because he’ll strengthen our ties to the United Nations
• Because he’ll revise U.S. policy to conform to a more “global” view.

B. Energy & Environment

• Because he’ll save the planet (a green President, not just a black one)
• Because he’ll reduce our dependence on foreign oil
• Because he’ll force us to move to non-petroleum-based energy

C. Economics

• Because he’ll roll back Bush’s tax cuts
• Because he’ll tax big business (but not trial lawyers or unions)
• Because he’ll tax the “rich” (“rich” not definitely defined yet)
• Because he’ll reduce taxes for poor and middle-income families
• Because he’ll jump start the economy, his policies will create a robust economy

D. Homeland & National Security

• Because he’ll capture Bin Laden and stop any terror attacks
• Because he will return the freedoms taken away by the Bush administration
• Because he will get us out of Iraq quickly (16 mos.)
• Because he will reduce military spending on useless systems
• Because he will be reluctant to deploy our troops again
• Because he will take the lead in disarmament of all nations

E. Race Relations

• Because he’s black (or at least half-black)
• Because he will bring racial unity
• Because he will bring true equality to African-Americans

F General:

• Because he's not George Bush
• Because he’s the smartest nominee since Al Gore and John Kerry
• Because he is not John McCain (NO Republicans, ever)
• Because most “intelligent” celebrities are for Obama
• Because he is articulate, handsome, and clean

G. Political Philosophy:

• Because he will accelerate the growth of socialistic programs in the U.S. – including redistribution of wealth

This piece is directed at House and Senate democrats. While there are some Republicans who are just as bad, let someone else write about them. Right now, I’m ticked off at the democrats.

The usual suspects in Congress have one overriding goal in everything they do – the acquisition of power. Power means control, and control means reelection. There needs to be a way to retire the artifacts that have been in Congress far too long.

Think about it. Once elected, a congressperson has a cushy job, an important, highly visible position with little individual responsibility. They get ample base pay ($169,300 for most, $188,100 for the minority and majority leaders, and $217,400 for the speaker) with lots of perks, excellent healthcare and retirement, an office with expenses paid, a staff (of from 18 to 60), travel expenses (both domestic and foreign), all for basically talking and negotiating for a living. They don’t even get their hands dirty.

Here’s a link to The Capitol.net if you want to learn more details about how much our public “servants” get for their “work.”

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

And then there are the “indirect” benefits. Especially the insider deals (like FOA (Friends of Angelo) home loans from Countrywide, real estate that benefits from a bridge to nowhere, or land that just happens to be adjacent to new highway routing. Family members that reside on boards or become lobbyists help to make ends meet. And there is lots of other inside information that leads to investment profits.

Larry, Moe, and Curley could be millionaires after a few years in Congress. Not surprisingly, most congresspersons are millionaires by the time their buttocks are pried loose from their congressional seat.

And what do they do to deserve the pay and perks? They do everything they can to get re-elected – that’s their job – to get re-elected. Everything they do is to that end. They may say that they’re “working for us,” but that’s BS and they know it, and we know it.

You know who the usual suspects are: the democrat “leadership,” namely: Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. and none of them are answerable to me and most of you.

I’m convinced that we need a new voting option. I’m not going to spend the time to research what would be required to implement my proposal, maybe at a later date, for now, I’m just interested in reaction to the concept.

The way things are structured now, Representatives and Senators are elected by voters in their state. Voters in other states have no input on the performance of those members from states other than their own, yet those representatives and senators do have a great deal of impact on all states. They are elected to national office, but only a single state elects them.

This is a problem. Take Nancy Pelosi, for example. How many of us (given an opportunity) would vote to remove her from office? Or Harry Reid, or John Murfa, or Chris Dodd, or Barney Frank, just to name a few.

It seems to me that all citizens of the U.S. qualified to vote should have some say in removing a Representative or Senator. I believe that the home state should be given the most weight, but if a majority of votes from the general voting population wants someone gone – they should go. The following mentions Senators primarily, strictly for simplicity. I would propose the same type of “non-performance-based” voting for U.S. Representatives, except that we could vote to relieve four at once.

I’m willing to take a chance with my two Texas senators: John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. Cornyn is a good one and Kay Bailey has been good although lately she seems to leaning more centrist. But I doubt that anyone would have reason to eject them. On the other hand, look at Ted Kennedy, how would he fare if voters outside of Massachusetts had an opportunity to dump him?

Obviously, if it could be set up under the Constitution, the mechanism would have to be worked out – something like a minimum percentage of registered voters in the “non home” states would have to vote in order for an outcome to be valid and the results implemented. I’d even be happy if national voting were limited to two Senators at a time and four Representatives at a time.

Right now, I’d vote to fire Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. My four Representatives would be Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Henry Waxman.

I would hope that two improvements would result from this new voting strategy: 1) since all Senators (and Representatives) could be fired by a number of votes from the general U.S. population, they would be somewhat more concerned about considering the welfare of the country as a whole, and 2) if Senators or Representatives performed at a substandard level, they could be voted out – regardless of their home state’s votes.