In the much discussed ABC Pennsylvania Democratic debate, Senators Clinton and Obama were asked if they would be steadfast in removing troops from Iraq even if commanders and generals disagreed. Senator Obama was adamant:

GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, “When he is” — this is talking about you — “When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.”

So you’d give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie.

That’s not the role of the generals.

And one of the things that’s been interesting about the president’s approach lately has been to say, “Well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus.”

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.

Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief. [emphasis mine]

Well, that was the primary, and this is the general, and in classic Obama form, he’s backtracking.

Read the rest

Obama’s ACORN: A Leftist Social Reform Group

Obama’s most questionable tie is to a leftist organization called ACORN. His connection to this group begins with a woman named Madeleine Talbot. She embraced Obama and taught him the ropes. He remained a part of this group’s training cadre. Obama taught leadership conferences for the group while working for Miner, Barnhill & Galland. His connections don’t end there. Obama actively sought and received the endorsement by ACORN for his local campaigns. He has now done the same in his bid for the USA presidency.

According to its web site ACORN (an acronym for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), is the nation’s largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities. At first glance, this organization seems to be benign. This is not true since it uses very aggressive tactics to get its work done.

Some recent reports about their activities include the following things. They have disrupted and blocked activities within the Chicago City Council during living wage discussions. In Baltimore, MD, they burst into the scene of a private law dinner. They bussed four loads of protesters to the site of a mayor’s house, where they spewed profanities at the mayor and his family. And these are just the ones we know about. Their thuggery is over the line by far.

These are not their only questionable actions. In the past they have been tied to illegal voter registration in at least three states. These three states are Washington, Missouri, and North Carolina. Read the rest

The Democratic party needs a updated lesson in politics.  I have never, ever seen anything such as what I have witnessed. I have only one recommendation, move away and separate the government policies and the military service of your opponent in your criticism, they don’t mix or belong in the grand scheme of things.  It’s not a requirement for the position they are seeking to attain,  and should be left out because there are hundreds of other issues that can be addressed that affect ALL the American people in our country as a whole on a daily basis. When you open the door to these type of comments, it has the ability to get out of hand and hurt more than help, when people become over zealous in their attempts to prove a point, that they eventually cross the line.

Anyone who has the audacity, the sheer gall to write an article stating any veteran received a lenient form of torture as a means to discredit the source, or attempt to paint a former prisoner of war as some form of war criminal, just to show someone else in a positive light, does not grasp or truly comprehend the possible backlash that could result from these articles. When those who have lost loved ones, or who have friends and family already deployed, and come across comments such as this:

 

 

"What I’ve never understood is how getting shot down, captured, and tortured makes one a hero. I’m willing to concede the point, but still, I’ve always thought that heroism required some special sort of action, like the private who throws himself on the grenade to save his buddies or the guy who braves enemy fire to take out an enemy position or the Swift Boat officer who takes off into the brush, disregarding his own safety, to go after someone who attacked him and his men. I’ve never thought that everyone who is in the military or even who sees combat is therefore a hero. I thought that to be a hero was a matter of special distinction even within the military fraternity."

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government….President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years." Al Gore

by psnyder on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 07:46:16 PM PDT

It opens a flood gate that no matter how you may spin it, will come out as being unpatriotic and out of touch.

Read the rest

From HRCin08’s channel, and inspired by: Read the rest

Help Hillary pay down her debt today by donating $20.08.
Read the rest

Guest Post by AnnabelleP

Cross posted at Pagan Power

When, in the course of U. S. Presidential Elections, it becomes necessary for one portion of a political party to assume among the people of the nation a position different from that which they have previously occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of their Constitution entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

In agreement with generations who have gone before us, we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed at birth with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

Prudence will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for transient causes; and accordingly experience has shown that citizens are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the political structures to which they are accustomed. But political parties are not governments, and when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under authoritarianism, it is their duty to throw off such a political party, and to provide different representation for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of many in the Democratic Party, and it is this suffering which compels them to now demand the representation to which they are entitled. The recent history of both parties is a history of repeated injuries on the part of elected officials against the electors, having in direct object the establishment of authoritarian power over them, for the purpose of profit. This has rendered the Democratic Party unrecognizable to ordinary citizens. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Read the rest

As reported by Marc Armbinder, at a meeting of Hillary’s fundraisers last Thursday, Senator Obama was asked if he would accept a roll call vote at the Convention. His response, according to a participant:

“Hillary and I are going to negotiate this thing and talk about it, and obviously we’re going to do what is right for the party. We’re all going to make sure we agree.”

There is nothing to negotiate. To remove anyone’s name from the ballot is not legal or moral. Senator Clinton has more than earned the right, in the closest Democratic Primary in history, to have her name put forth into nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic Convention and have a roll call vote.

This is about respect. Respect for 18,000,000 voters, and respect for the pledged delegates whose allegiances were assigned based on the votes cast over the last six months.

Achieving true democracy takes courage. If Senator Obama is truly the ‘uniter’ he claims to be, he would never want his fellow Senator’s rights to be negotiated away. Read the rest

Barack Obama explains today at the Huffington Post why he is now for FISA exceptions after he was against them. Too bad the U.S. Olympics gymnastic team is already set–they could use a man with this kind of flexibility. I have a spy inside the Barack team. It is time for me to come clean. Now that Barack is talking and acting more like a Republican I figured it was time for me to acknowledge that he is a changed man. I have decided to support Barack for President. What changed my mind?

I got a sneek peak at an upcoming piece that he will post of Huffington Post. He lays bare his soul and has convinced me that he is, truly, the One for America. Here is the piece: Read the rest

From today’s editorial, “New and Not Improved“ in the New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

The privileged Penny Pritzker threw grassroots donors under the bus:

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The editors naively think that this is a “new” Barack Obama? Uh, no. That’s the real Barack Obama.

If only the New York Times and other MSM had paid any attention to Tom Buffenbarger, president of the machinists’ union, when he described the REAL Barack Obama:

Read the rest

1) “New and Not Improved”. Today’s NYT editorial on the many Barack Obama repositionings.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

Here at NoQuarter, we were shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Wait, no we weren’t.

Read the rest