The Many faces Of Barack

The many faces of Barack Obama are very different and completely contradictory. However, this should not come as a surprise, as nearly everything liberals claim they believe, contradicts some other ideology they claim.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a great column for Townhall.com titled, "A Speech Sen. Obama Could Have Given" here. Had Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., just said the following words last week in his speech on race in America, his problems with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would probably now be over:

And Stephen Spruiell's column on Obama's campaign ad (featuring Delphi) that "might qualify as the most deceptive of the 2008 race." here First, Delphi did not exist as an independent company when Congress passed NAFTA in 1993. It was part of General Motors until it was spun off as an independent supplier in 1999. Second, foreign competition did not drive the company to eliminate American jobs. It declared bankruptcy in 2005 because the legacy labor costs it inherited from GM made it impossible to compete against other U.S.-based suppliers. Third, workers at the Warren, Ohio plant were offered generous buyouts and early-retirement packages. Its employees were not just kicked to the street.

Larry Elder wrote: here American blacks live in a post-slavery, post-Jim Crow world, with a growing, thriving black middle class. We live in a country where, for the most part, hard work, focus, ability and some luck determine success. Why, then, the continued anger, negativity, and finger-pointing, in a country to which much of the world -- if it could -- would happily relocate?

And Marty Peretz (Obama supporter) wrote: I've just read Dayo Olopade's fascinating piece, "Far Wright," on Barack Obama's far-left preacher, Jeremiah Wright. What's more interesting is Wright's comfortable upper-middle class upbringing. Peretz's friend Morton Klein is quoted in the column: It was hardly the scene of poverty and indignity suggested by Senator Obama to explain what he calls Wright's anger and what I describe as his hatred.
***************
If Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson (and others like them) did not have race to dwell on, what would they talk about? How would they appeal to blacks? Aren't there more pressing issues facing black and white voters than black and white?

Earl Ofari Hutchinson said it best when writing about Cynthia McKinney's 2002 defeat: The bitter truth is that guilt-tainted racial appeals by black politicians for black solidarity and voter registration caravans and buses into black neighborhoods are not going to make blacks dash to the polls to vote for politicians who wage media-grabbing empty fights over issues that many black voters regard as remote and foreign to their needs and interests.

It's just about grabbing power and headlines - which translates to big income.
Everything is economic. don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
Barack Obama is as big a race baiter as any of the more obvious cons... he's just worked a little harder at being polished.

Lie Down With The Liars

Hillary Clinton inserted her foot in her mouth - again, by telling an unnecessary lie about the danger of her visit to Bosnia. And Then, she had Chelsea support her statement.

The funny thing about liars is that they lie even when they don't have to - the mark of a Sociopath. How many Americans would have questioned the danger in Bosnia? We knew Bosnia was dangerous. She didn't need to embellish, but she's a liar by nature, and liars are compulsive. She's also a liberal, and liberals think that the average Joe is too stupid to draw reasonable conclusions, so they make stuff up.

And then she wouldn't admit that she even embellished because she's never wrong. It doesn't matter how many acting coaches and professional handlers Hillary has: she's still a cheap, tawdry harridan, blinded by ambition and power. She's dangerous for America... besides being a harpie.
*********

Sen. Clinton this morning after newsreel footage discredited her account of "landing under sniper fire" on a March 1996 trip to Bosnia.

YouTube - Hillary Clinton Lies About Her Bosnia Trip

I don't need to offer much comment about this. Chicago Tribune readers did a superb job:

"Call it "misspeak". Call it "exaggeration", as Obama did in his politically correct way. If it not the truth, it is a lie."

Chicagotribune.com user gjs writes, "I thought that when you misspoke it was an Innocent incorrect statement. How does telling the same thing twice in a two week period of time be misspeaking. Sound like an out and out lie to me."

A reader posting with the username Hilary writes, "Misspoke? Misstatement? Sounds like she didn't use any of the right words in any of the right places. Kind of like lying. "

User Boy George says, "Once again, Hillary proves that she will say anything to get elected.

Remember how she 'had always been a Yankee fan' when she was running for NY Senator?"

Liam says, "This was a deliberate Fairy Tale being told to convince people that Hillary is cool under fire, and that she would be remain cool when her imaginary Red Phone rings.

JB Nimbel writes, "If you ever stopped off a plane in the middle of "sniper fire", I doubt you would forget that experience. "

Jeff in Orlando agrees. "Don't you think, no matter how many trips you made, you would vividly remember if someone was shooting at you when you landed? Especially when you had your daughter with you."

Jane English Leary writes, "Surely, she remembers that Chelsea was with her and wouldn't have chosen to take her daughter into such a risky environment. Come on. Not a misstatement at all."

Whether Clinton's "misstatement" is or is not lie, chicagoharry reminds readers, "It's all a matter of what 'is' is."
***********
and Here's a few Clintonian lie-highlights from a FreeRepublic reader:

1. "I remember when I was a boy they burned the black churches in our area -BJ Clinton No black churches burned in Arkansas during that period." Bill

2. "I did not have sex with that woman." -Bill

3. "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary." - Hillary Rodham She was born years before Edmund Hillary became internationally known.

4. "Chelsea was jogging near the twin towers when the plane hit." -Hillary - Not even close.

5. "We were under sniper fire." -Hillary

6. "I have thirty-five years of experience for the presidency." -Hillary
*****************

Still lying after all these years...

Chelsea Clinton: Bill Reborn?

Yesterday when Chelsea Clinton verbally chastised a college student for daring to ask her about her mother's reaction to Monica Lewinski, I realized that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. She pulled a Bill Clinton.

As she nationally campaigns for her mother, she has put herself in the public eye and is not untouchable any longer. She is also 27, a college graduate and has a career. Her mother is running for President, and has made her own near perfection, a campaign issue.

I always wondered who Chelsea would take after - mom or dad. Bill or Hill. Liar or bigger liar.

Anyone has the right to ask a candidate who is campaigning, anything. They candidate does not have to answer.

This is the Clinton legacy, and Chelsea is now left holding the bag.

Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school's newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president."

It wasn't clear what aspect of the former first lady's actions he was referring to. Before she was fully aware of President Bill Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky, Hillary Rodham Clinton said allegations about her husband and the White House intern were manufactured by a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Strange's question at Chelsea Clinton's appearance Tuesday at the school brought a stinging rebuke from Clinton's daughter. "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Chelsea Clinton said during the campaign visit for her mother. (wnbc)

Chelsea is unfortunately showing that she is like her parents; if she doesn't like the question, she deflects and attacks. Sounds like dad... and mom.

On Crows Feet, Clogs & Rebranding

I ran into a darling friend the other day while shopping with my son when he was home for spring break. As we chatted, she reached out and touched my cheek just below my eye. "I never noticed that you had crows feet," she said. Then when I admitted that I try to downplay the wrinkles with makeup, she quickly tried to spare my feelings. "Oh, but I mean that in a good way," she said. I told her that since I earned them, (looking at my son), it was just fine with me. She went on to say that she thinks crows feet are attractive... in that "older woman kind of way."

Uh oh. My son looked as if he wanted to run. Luckily, I know exactly what she means. I am fine with my face - crows feet and all. And yes, when I smile big, I have crows feet. So what? If I never smile, who will know? God love good friends who can tell you anything!

This incident reminded me of the latest typical American craze that some women are falling prey to: Rebranding. Columnist Maria McErlane with the Daily Mail wrote this: The rebranding party is a craze currently sweeping America. The idea is that instead of friends telling you how wonderful you are, they tell you everything about you that they don't like - with tips on how to change. Each attendee must be brutally honest about the elements of your personality they feel may be holding you back. They must bring positive and constructive ideas, offer assistance, and are given carte blanche to say whatever they want, on this one occasion, without you taking offence.

And in fem-magazine Marie Claire, the "I don't like you much party" is described as: the hottest party craze currently sweeping the States is the 'rebranding' do, where women ask their friends to come along and tell them exactly what's wrong with their life/lover/wardrobe over drinks and nibbles.

Uh oh, again. Not only am I sure that I don't want to give my friends that kind of liberty with me, I am pretty happy with the way I am. I think. Not that I couldn't use a little help from those who have to look at me... I get dressed up when I have to... even my 18-year old son thinks I look pretty good all dolled up. But what about the rest of the time...

So, if I entertain participating in this craze, my rebranding party invitation would read:

45-year old married gal, wears golf attire and yoga pants too much (& the clogs have got to go), needs a manicurist/pedicurist, can get too skinny, needs to be more disciplined with weight lifting for her bad back, should wear lipstick more often, needs to curb her opinion in social situations, should be more aggressive with her political writing career, needs to learn to return phone calls quicker, must get out for lunch more frequently (and stop eating leftovers while writing at her desk), needs to clean her house regularly and not just when people are coming over, takes in way too many stray animals (geese, birds, cats, dogs, rabbits...), rabble rouses too much, (at least she has a good husband)...

Oh no. I am afraid my Rebranding party would take weeks instead of just one evening. Forget the crows feet and yoga pants, I am a work-in-progress. Maybe some rebranding wouldn't hurt.

Obama's Doublespeak

Obama has done it again - or so he thinks. The mainstream media are all atwitter with his latest delivery, but his speech is full of contradictions.

Again.

Obama finally admitted to being a divider, not a uniter. He divides by race, by gender, by class. He is class jealous.

He claims to want unity, but in the next breath continues to talk about the black experience, and the suffering. He has not transcended race or hate - he is promoting it.

My descendants suffered atrocities and unspeakable inhumanity. The Celtic tribes of my forefathers fought ruthlessly and brutally, enslaved women and children, and tortured and brutalized them. My relatives came to this country after the Irish Civil War looking for hope, and found themselves instead indentured servants and laborers.

I have been the recipient of outrageous sexual harassment, discrimination, jealousy, all in the workplace. But instead of calling myself a victim, I vowed to make something of myself, work harder and smarter, and not let the loosers who tried to subjugate me, win. I won. And it's not because I am white or female; it's because I am not a victim and I am a fighter.

Is this any excuse to race bait, and hate? Or is it just an excuse?

Obama is a master of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Why won't his followers actually listen to his words instead of swooning over him like hormonal teenage girls at an Elvis concert?

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

Obama's Big White Lie

Suddenly, the mystery surrounding Obama's lack of substance becomes clear. how long did he think he could pull off the no-comment no-substance campaign?

******************

Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14
Ronald Kessler

Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.
**************************
Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.
Senator Obama has sought to separate himself from his pastor’s incendiary remarks, issuing a statement Friday rejecting them as “inflammatory and appalling” but failing to renounce Wright himself for his venomous and paranoid denunciations of America.
In his press release, Obama claimed, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity [United Church of Christ] or heard him utter in private conversation.”
Appearing on cable news shows this past weekend, Obama claimed when he saw recent videos that have Wright making such comments as “God damn America,” he was “shocked.” Obama implied that the reverend had not used such derogatory language in any of the church services Obama attended over the past two decades.
If Obama’s claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright’s trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted “white” America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright’s reputation for spewing hate is well known.
In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. [See: ”Obama’s Church: Cauldron of Division.”]
In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the “United States of White America” and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright’s attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.
Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”
Obama’s most famous celebrity backer, Oprah Winfrey began attending Wright’s church in 1984. Last year, Newsmax magazine reported that Winfrey abruptly stopped attending years ago, and suggested that she did so to distance herself from Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric. She soon found herself a target of Wright, who excoriated her for having broken with “traditional faith.”
The Reverend Wright’s anti-white theology that Senator Obama expressed surprise over is evident on the church’s website. The site says the congregation subscribes to what it calls the Black Value System, which is described as a disavowal of “our racist competitive society” and the pursuit of “middle-classness.” That is defined as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in the church-affiliated magazine Trumpet four years after the attacks. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
*****************************

read the rest from NewsMax here

Michelle Malkin has plenty to say: Jeremiah Wright’s Greatest Hits

and Jeremiah-gate: Glowbama’s losing his glow Update: Report: Obama nodded in agreement last summer

and Scott at Power Line

and The Los Angeles Times blog

Mickey Kaus has posted a La Raza press release listing Obama’s scheduled appearance at 1:30 p.m. There is also video of Obama’s appearance

and Now we know where Michelle Obama’s resentment of America comes from

Laura Ingraham found this: Abracadabra! Rev. Wright can't be found any longer on the Obama website.

THE TRUTH about Obama's lie: "Attempting to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama characterized Wright as "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

The Double-Edged Sword of Harassment

This week, all of my company's managers converged upon our attorney for a two-hour session of state mandated Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Prevention training. We did not learn anything new other than the fact that when an employee feels that she has been the victim of discrimination or harassment, the manager can be personally named in the complaint and ensuing lawsuit.

Oh goody. Trial lawyers lining their pockets again. I guess going after the employer just didn't provide enough funds.

California now makes it mandatory for companies with 50 or more employees to provide this training to managers, and the Human Resources director is no longer "qualified" to do the training - even though HR professionals are charged with the responsibility of investigating the harassment and discrimination claims. No. Now we must pay an attorney or other "certified" and "qualified" person thousands of dollars to "train" manager how to stop harassment and discrimination.

Is there discrimination and harassment in places of work? Yes. And it's wrong and frankly a disgusting and pathetic attempt at power by very small people.
However, no one ever talks about how women dress inappropriately - for work, or play . Yes, this is a real issue.

When a young girl or woman chooses clothes, she is very aware of her sexuality as well as the impact it has on men. Trust me - all women know this from the time they first flirt with their daddies.

When a woman chooses tight jeans, a lowcut t-shirt and high heals, she knows that all of her assets are on display for anyone and everyone to ogle. However, when she dresses like this for work, unless she works at Hooters, she should be sent home by her employer and told to dress more appropriately.

But men are terrified of women at work. Can her boss send her home? Can he even address her attire? When he points out to her that her attire is not appropriate, is that Sexual harassment because he was looking?

Do you see the outrageous legal conundrum we have as employers?

But trust me - a woman knows the effect her attire will have on men.

Employers can send an inapropriately dressed employee home to change as long as proper attire is addressed in the Company Employee Manual. In fact, I encourage it. Obviously some women never learned from their mommies the word "appropriate," or the timing of appropriateness and the workplace is not the venue to test this out.

I distribute memos every year to my employees, reminding them of our Company policy and what is appropriate attire in the workplace. And every year I have to send one or two women home to change their clothes. And yes, they have threatened to sue me, they have threatened discrimination and harassment, and a few have even informed me of their "right" to dress how they want to. They were terminated on the spot.

In the 18 years I have worked in Human Resources Management, I have fired several men for unbelievable behavior - disgusting harassment. I have never had a discrimination case with any validity. My company would not tolerate that behavior for five minutes. But more of the complaints are the result of hurt feelings, spurned lovers, tough managers who are demanding, or young, flirtatious women flaunting themselves at guys and then deciding they don't want the guy after all; the embarassment usually leads to a sexual harassment claim.

Preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace is a double-edged sword. Managers and owners cannot be afraid to declare attire policies, as well as zero tolerance for any discrimination, and then enforce the policies.

And don't be afraid to tell a female coworker that she is dressed inappropriately. Dressing like a floozie is ugly anytime, but we don't have to tolerate this at work... we see it enough at the mall, the grocery store, the video store, at school, at the gym...

Cutting Illegal Aliens' Benefits Before We Cut Education

While California State Democrats are pounding their chests and bloviating again about the need to cut education if we don't raise taxes to balance the state budget, illegal aliens continue to receive the lions share of taxpayer-funded freebies.

Republican Assemblywoman Audra Strickland has introduced legislation to require proof of legal residency in order to receive the myriad of welfare benefits and other subsidies that illegal aliens have been enjoying. A few of the benefits illegal aliens receive are, subsidized college tuition, welfare, food stamps, adult and career technical education, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, as well as Workers Comp benefits through employers, medicare, and unlimited health care at emergency rooms all over the state.

Strickland wrote in a guest commentary on the FlashReport: "That is why I have introduced AB3x 20 and its companion bill ACA 14. If signed into law, AB3x 20 will require all adults applying for state benefit programs to prove legal residency in order to qualify. ACA 14 would place an initiative with identical legislative provisions on the ballot for voter approval. Passage of these measures is estimated to save the state anywhere from $5 billion to more than $10 billion a year."

"Before we consider cuts to education and lay off teachers, before we consider cuts to children in foster care, before we jeopardize public safety by releasing 22,000 prisoners, before we increase tuition for lawful students, before we adopt the Democrat's multi-billion dollar plan to increase taxes, we should stand firm against state taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. It is time to end the Democrat's ruse and put Californians first."

Finally, a legislator willing to take on the politically incorrect, multi-billion dollar illegal alien experiment.

California Democrats Shameless Tax Increases

California Legislature
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS RELEASETOP 10 LIST OF DEMOCRAT TAX INCREASES

Democrats Threaten To Hold Up State Budget For Tax Increases

SACRAMENTO – Assembly Republicans today released a Top 10 List of tax increases proposed by Democrats in the Legislature to highlight the lengths to which the majority party will go to try to raise taxes on California’s hardworking families.

Last week, Democrat leaders declared they would hold up passage of the state budget later this year if it did not include at least $5 billion in higher taxes. So far this year, Democrats have proposed over $25 billion in tax increases on Californians.

“It is simply irresponsible for Democrats to stick their head in the sand and refuse to reduce state spending to address our massive budget deficit,” said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, of Fresno. “Raising taxes will do nothing but hinder our economic growth and punish taxpayers for the fiscal mismanagement of the liberal majority.

Republicans will stand firm in protecting the wallets of hard-working Californians from higher taxes and we will reject each and every attempt by Democrats to raise taxes.”

Here are the “Top 10” tax increases proposed by Democrats so far this year:

10. The iTunes Tax
Assembly Bill 1956 (Calderon) would require state tax officials to begin imposing sales taxes on music, movies and software purchases made online, such as on iTunes. Democrats have also talked about taxing all items purchased on the Internet ($500 million tax increase).

9. The Plastic Bag Tax
Assembly Bill 2829 (Davis) would impose a new plastic bag tax, at a still-unspecified level, on the plastic bags used by grocery stores and other retailers to package purchases.

8. Making It Easier for Politicians to Raise Taxes
Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 (Torlakson) would make it easier for local politicians to raise taxes, by allowing educational finance districts to impose special taxes by a majority vote.

7. Increasing the Car Tax
Assembly Bill 2388 (Feuer) would raise the car tax based on the weight of the vehicle and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions it emits, to a still-unspecified level.
Assembly Bill 2522 (Arambula) would authorize San Joaquin Valley air quality officials to impose a new $30 car tax on local drivers, without a vote of the people.
Assembly Bill 2638 (Coto) would impose a new sales tax on the sale of cars in California that get less than 15 miles per gallon.
Senate Bill 1731 (Yee) would authorize San Francisco Bay Area transportation officials to impose a higher car tax on local drivers, without a vote of the people.
Democrats have also proposed restoring the higher car tax imposed by former Governor Gray Davis and repealed by Governor Schwarzenegger upon taking office, a $6 billion tax increase.

6. Increasing the Gas Tax
Assembly Bill 9xxx (Núñez) would impose a costly new “oil severance” tax on the cost of oil production in California. This will cause gas prices to soar new heights in California as this new tax will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump. Assembly Bill 2744 (Huffman) would authorize San Francisco Bay Area transportation officials to impose a new gas tax, of as much as 10 cents per gallon, to pay for new government spending.
Assembly Bill 2558 (Feuer) would authorize Los Angeles transportation officials to impose one of two different taxes, subject to a majority vote, to address climate change – an increased gas tax as high as 3 percent, or an increased car tax as high as $80.

5. Raising Income Taxes
Assembly Bill 2372 (Coto) would impose a new 1 percent tax on Californians earning more than $1 million per year, raising the state’s highest income tax rate to 11.3 percent.
Assembly Bill 2897 (Hancock) would impose a new 10 percent tax rate for individuals earning more than $136,115 every year ($272,230 for joint filers) and a new 11 percent tax rate for individuals earning more than $272,230 per year ($544,460 for joint filers).

4. Closing So-Called “Tax Loopholes”
Democrats and others have pushed closing “tax loopholes,” which is an effort to raise taxes on working Californians. These so-called loopholes include taking away the senior citizen tax credit (a $255 million tax increase) and reducing the child dependent tax credit ($2.4 billion) – which will hurt middle-class families.

3. New Health Taxes
Democrats have proposed the largest tax increase on businesses in state history, an $8 billion jobs tax, to pay for government-run health care. In addition, Assembly Bill 2967 (Fuentes) would impose a new .06 percent tax on the gross operating costs of every California hospital, to pay for new government health care programs.

2. Creating a New Tax on California Businesses
Speaker Núñez has talked about creating a new split-roll property tax on California businesses, which would be a $3 to $7 billion tax increase on businesses. This would lead to higher prices for consumers and the threat of job losses.

1. Taking Away the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
Democrats have proposed eliminating the state home mortgage interest deduction, also known as the homeowner’s tax, which provides significant tax savings for working families and helps many Californians afford the expensive costs of home ownership. This would be a $5.3 billion tax hike.
*************

Shameless Democrats.

Michelle Boo Hoo Obama

Ralph R. Reiland of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported on Michelle Obama's recent stop in Zanesville, Ohio where 1/4 of the population lives under the poverty rate. However, that didn't stop Mrs. Obama from whining about the cost of piano lessons and summer camp for her daughters. Looking out at an audience of families who live on less than $22,000 per year, she flt that it was acceptible to lecture them about their education and career choices - about "giving back."

Michelle Obama is an elite Democrat.

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she told a group of women at a day-care center. "Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."

"Employed as vice president for community affairs, Mrs. Obama's annual compensation jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.
That's a $195,052 raise -- not bad for someone who looks down her nose at the "money-making industry."

"All told, the total income declared by the Obama household on the couple's 2006 income tax return, figuring his Senate salary, book royalties and her compensation from sitting on corporate boards, was $991,296 -- again, not bad for sacrificing themselves in the "helping industry."
Still, Mrs. Obama complained about the amount of money she has to spend on piano, dance and other lessons for her two children and the burden of paying back student loans from her time at Princeton and Harvard."

Someone please slap her back into reality. Apparently the "two Americas" theory is alive and well, living within the elite wing of the Democrat party.

"It's doubtful that many in the audience could feel Mrs. Obama's pain. The median income for female workers in Zanesville last year was $20,142. In surrounding Muskingum County, 88 percent of adults don't have a college degree and an estimated 20 percent don't have high school diplomas."

“We spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements. And summer programs… Do you know what summer camp costs?”

Boo hoo Michelle. After-school programs just don't cost that much. Even sports don't cost that much. Where are her kids going? To fantasy spring training camp? She is obviously grooming her children for a life of elitism.

Jack Kelly has more.

Where is the media reporting on this outrageous display of elitism? And where has Michelle gone? Into hiding? Is that how the Obama camp keeps her quiet? What happens if she's First lady? what will she whine about then...the used White House china?

HO HO HO: Sptizer's Gotta GO

Allahpundit from HotAirblog has this to say:


The “no schadenfreude” rule is still in effect, but rules were made to be bent. Only a little, though: There are still innocents caught in the crossfire here.

Unable to accept that a Democrat might be guilty of malfeasance without some greater Republican malfeasance to explain it, the nutroots splits into two camps: (a) Spitzer didn’t really do anything wrong since the only true crime is hypocrisy (of which he’s also guilty, but never mind that); (b) the whole prosecution is a politically motivated witch hunt by Bush’s DOJ, a claim debunked here by Karl in wondering what the feds were supposed to do, precisely, once Spitz’s bank raised the alarm about shell companies and “structuring.” read on and watch the video:

more on this story:
Spitzer Linked To Prostitution Ring by Wiretap
Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood: Sex + Hypocrisy
Spitzer Addresses Media

****************

Just as I said with Foley, Craig, Condit and Bill Clinton, these lying, cheating, hypocrites need to disappear from public life. But the Democrats never do... will Spitzer leave, or continue to live a life of hypocracy, while dragging his wife and children through the gutter?

Nasty Feminists Don't Get The Love

What happens to women who have shunned men and consequently have shot themselves in the... not foot... well... let's say they don't get any love.

Man haters have cooked their own gooses. But they don't cook either. Oops.
Hmmmm.

Man haters have cleaned their own clocks. Oh Darn. They don't clean.

Okay. Let's try again. Apparently the housekeeping analogies don't work with this subject.

Man haters have shot their... nope. That doesn't work.

Let's just say that man hating women are S. O. L. Does that work?

Man hating women have created so much inner hated for the traditional and natural man/women love relationship, that they are now alone, ugly, miserable, and forced to hang out together, forever complaining about what they are really missing in life.

Have you ever met a happy feminist? Nope. And I'll bet you won't.

I was forced to take a miserable feminist class in college, way back in the early 1980's. It was taught by a militant lesbian feminist. Those of us young ladies who dared to wear makeup and have boyfriends were punished for being conventional. Apparently the urge to love a man is far too conventional for a radical feminist. This feminist teacher "taught" us that traditional sexual relations between husbands and wives is rape, and we were nuts for desiring a husband and children. Today's young women are taught far worse - and now most "women's studies" courses on university campuses are taught by bitter, mean, nasty females, but not by women.

Being a women is a privilege.

Feminists are all pent up and pruned faced from years of scrunching their faces whenever the subject of "man" is brought up.

Men are wonderful. Men are delightful. Men are normal and natural and great, and real women love men. While men make us crazy because we are so different (and visa versa), at least we do it together.

What do militant feminists have? Jane Fonda? Cindy Sheehan? Rosie O'Donnell? CA Senators Carole Migden and Sheila Kuehl (hags)? Other shriveled up, angry, women? Or the harlets in Hollywood who never marry the fathers of their children? Some role models...
Nasty feminists don't get the love... that is, they don't get the love they need. Maybe that's why they wear such ugly clothes. The fear of looking feminine and pretty must be dangerous to a feminist.

Self-Reliance or Entitlement?

How is it that two successful black women, who both have experienced racism in their lives, can take such different ideological paths in life?

Condoleezza Rice chose to follow her father's advise that black people would have to prove themselves worthy of advancement, and would simply have to be "twice as good" to overcome injustices built into the system. “My parents were very strategic, I was going to be so well prepared, and I was going to do all of these things that were revered in white society so well, that I would be armored somehow from racism. I would be able to confront white society on its own terms.”

Michelle Obama however, chose to be a victim: "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before."I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

Both women are highly educated. Condoleezza Rice Rice graduated from St. Mary's Academy (a private all-girls Catholic high school) in 1970. In 1974, at age 19, Rice earned her BA in political science, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver. In 1975, she obtained her Master's Degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame. She first worked in the State Department in 1977, during the Carter administration, as an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In 1981, at the age of 26, she received her PhD. in Political Science from the Graduate School of International Studies at Denver.

Michelle Obama Michelle graduated high school from Whitney Young Magnet High School (a highly selective-enrollment Chicago public school) in 1981 and went on to major in sociology and minor in African American studies at Princeton University, where she graduated cum laude with an Artium Baccalaureus in 1985. She obtained her Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1988.

Their career choices are interesting as well. Condi Rice was hired by Stanford University as an Assistant Professor in Political Science (1981–1987). She was granted tenure and promoted, first to Associate Professor (1987–1993), and then to Provost, the chief budget and academic officer of the university (1993–1999), and full Professor (1993–present). Rice was the first female, first minority, and youngest Provost at Stanford. She was also named a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. She was a specialist on the former Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George Breslauer in the mid-1980s.

Following law school, she was an associate at the Chicago office of the law firm Sidley Austin where she first met her husband. At the firm, she worked on marketing and intellectual property. Subsequently, she held public sector positions in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor and Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies.

In 1996, Obama served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University's Community Service Center. In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May, 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs. She still holds the position, though is working part time in order to devote more time to being a mother.(information from Wikipedia)

Michelle Obama recently said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
(Watch the video of this second comment HERE.)

She said in a speech, "We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

Where does all of this despair originate from a woman who has benefited so greatly in America? Her ambition was never quashed. She was accepted to Princeton and was able to pay for it using student loans. She fulfilled her dreams of elite education, elite jobs and career. Why the despair?

Compare Obama's quotes to Condoleezza Rice's: "I found a party that sees me as an individual, not as part of a group... In America, with education and hard work, it really does not matter where you come from - it matters where you are going."

"Birmingham [Alabama] was odd. It was completely segregated. But the black community built its own world. I went to ballet classes and took French lessons and etiquette classes. My father had a picture of me when I was about four sitting on Santa Claus's lap and I have this really odd look on my face, and I wonder if that's because I'd never been that close to a white person before."

"I was going to be so well prepared. And I was going to do all of these things that were revered in white society so well, that I would be armoured somehow from racism. I would be able to confront white society on its own terms. My family is third- generation college-educated. I should've gotten to where I am."

One woman is all about entitlement, and one is all about self-reliance. Michelle Obama is bitter and depressing, while Rice is positive and full of hope, and what can be.

Obama is a classic, whining feminist who waves the victim flag and screams, "What can you do for me?" while emasculating her husband. Rice, although unmarried, is not a feminist. She honors her culture and history, is not embittered by it, nor does she wear her race like a scarlet letter. Rice drew protests when, as provost, she departed from the practice of applying affirmative action to tenure decisions and unsuccessfully sought to consolidate the university's ethnic community centers (LA Times). How's that for self-reliance?

Chatting With an Obama Believer

Chatting with an Obama supporter yesterday, left me with an insatiable desire to claw my eyes out.


This was not a woman I know - I was waiting in a long line at a grocery store when she walked up behind me, wearing an OBAMA t-shirt.

Curious, I asked, "Going to vote for Obama?" I said nodding, as if I understood her plight. Her eyes glazed over and she smiled that knowing smile. "Oh yes!" she exclaimed. "I first joined Obama a few months ago," as if she joined a church. I asked, "joined Obama," with my eyebrows raised practically up to my hairline.

She explained that she "converted from Hillary to Obama," and is now a devotee. So I bit. I asked her what specifically about his policies that she loved so much. She just stared and blinked, with a soft smile. So I instead asked her what it was about him that she loved so much. This was an easier question to answer because she practically bubbled. "I love how he brings people together," she said.

"To do what?" I asked kindly and softly.

She stared and blinked again... blinked like Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union... blink, blink, blink, blink, blink...

"Uh, well, he has such an amazing ability to bring people together to get things done," she proudly answered.

"What kinds of things?" I asked again.

"Well, when people come together everyone benefits," she said.

I nodded and smiled. What kind of beast can argue with this logic? "How will you benefit?" I asked her.

"Well, like when people come together like say, in environmentalism, with more people recycling, the world will be a better place."

Now I was staring and blinking. Rapidly. My eyes were stinging. I bit my cheek.

"So if more of us recycle our garbage, this is Obama's doing?" I replied. I am confused.

"Well, okay. When people come together and are inspired by him, we all will benefit. We all will see the good in each other, and get more done" she explained.

I said, "Wow, he sounds more like a prophet than a politician." And then I moved in for the kill. "So, getting back to his politics, which of his policies do you like?"

Again she stared, and began to pick at her cuticle. The rapid blinking started up again. But then a smile started to form at the corners of her perfectly lined mouth. "The war!" she exclaimed loudly. "He's against the war."

Hmmm.

"Yes. He says he is against the war," I said. "So what will he do?"

Blink. Blink. Blink.

"Well," she said changing tactics, "He represents Americans."

"Okay," I said, practicing a level of patience unfamiliar to me, "How does he represent Americans? What does that mean?" I deplored. I felt as if I was talking to a kindergartener.

"He gives us hope for a bright future," she answered.

I had wondered when she would bring up "hope."

"How does he give us hope?" I asked, still smiling, but clicking my tongue.

She was now getting frustrated with my questions even though I was asking them in the nicest way possible.

"Look," she said, "I am just a Obama volunteer. We aren't given details. I just like him a lot. I know he will do great things for America. He will bring about change. He will bring back hope. He has plans. That's all I know," she finished breathlessly, clearly her way of saying that this discussion was over.

I thanked her for helping me understand Obama better, as if she had enlightened me. She smiled and rapidly blinked again. It was obvious she wished I would go away. But I was ahead of her in the line. Finally it was my turn - the clerk began scanning my groceries.

My blinking friend grabbed a People Magazine and stared at the pictures. I had just one more question. Turning toward her, and looking at the page she had opened in the People Magazine I said, "Well, at least you are in good company with Oprah - she loves Obama."

This was like talking about the Dali Lama to a Hollywood star. "Oh I know," she said with conviction. "And who doesn't listen to Oprah?" she added.


"Yup." I smiled. I bit my cheek again. And started blinking rapidly.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

As an employer in the United States of America it is my responsibility to verify applicant's identification as well as their social security numbers. If any of this looks fishy, then what?

Some lawyers say that legally employers cannot refuse employment to an applicant because their identification is suspicious because the applicant can bring a discrimination lawsuit against us. Hmmmm. Shouldn't I be able to sue them for the time, labor and cost it takes me to find out they are not who they say they are?

But government officials say that employers are to blame for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.

In the past, if an applicant provided identification that looked "homemade," I would call it in to a phone number at the Social Security Administration (a number that I had been given by an INS drug agent) for verification. However, if the number did not match the person's name, the only thing the Social Security employee would tell me is to have the applicant go to their nearest office and apply for a valid social security number, and that I could not refuse to employ them.

Then along came Homeland Security. They had developed an employer's page where we could verify the validity of an employee's identification, albeit with all of the disclosures that we could not use the information in our decision to hire or not hire someone.

But that service just quietly disappeared - after I took the two hours filling out the lengthy application, received approval, and was thoroughly screened myself.

Today, I tried once again to sign up on the Social Security website for social security number verification, only to be dumped into a dead end page claiming that my employer would be notified "usually within 2 weeks." I am the employer! This after I had to provide my Federal Tax ID number, my personal information, etc... Somehow, my valid information is not valid enough for me to be cleared by the Social Security Administration as an employer who just wants to verify someones social security number.

So now I have yet another employee who has been working here for months, who just can't provide valid identification. And no one can tell me if he is illegal, has a record, or is in the witness protection program.

But it's my fault if he is illegal.