OB(H)AMA(S)

We are shocked, shocked, to find the media (again) derelict in its duties.  Barack Obama has run his campaign with numerous advisors who the campaign would have everyone believe are just not that plugged in to the campaign.  Additionally, Obama refuses to divulge who these people are.  Inevitably, however, word gets out that Obama has, yet again, surrounded himself with an undesirable.

This time the undesirable is Robert Malley.  Coming on the heels of the Obama campaign saying it was “flattered” by terrorist group Hamas’s endorsement, the foreign press — in this case the London Times — pointed out Mr. Malley has close ties to Hamas.  All the left has been willing to do is point out that the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch.  

Back in February, in fact, the New York Sun pointed out Bob Malley’s close ties to the Obama campaign and Malley’s close ties to Hamas.  At the time, however, the mainstream media ignored the story because, well, the Sun is a right-wing paper.  Thank God for all the right wing news organizations or we might never have known Obama is getting advice from a man who views Hamas as a legitimate organization.

Obama’s response, like with his grandmother, his preacher, and other advisors who distract from his public image, was simple.  He tossed Malley under the bus.  What is more troubling, though, is Obama’s willingness to surround himself with people who view Israel as the bad guy.  Obama has gone through great lengths to show a pro-Israel campaign face.  Behind the scenes Iran and the terrorist gangs of the Middle East see a man who will side with them, or at least turn a blind eye to them, as they wage war on Israel.

At some point the press needs to do its job and start finding out the other Obama “informal advisors” who are telegraphing to terrorists a different message than Obama’s public facade.

HILLARY’S VICTORY

The media has willingly joined the Obamanation while ignoring a very troubling trend for the would be savior of America (or is that “Amerikkka”).

Since March, Obama has increased his deficit in the popular vote.  Stated another way, Hillary Clinton, despite what you might have heard, has been winning the popular vote since the beginning of March.  Likewise, save North Carolina last week, Obama has not won a race since February, except Guam by seven votes.

Right now, Hillary has 51.1% of the popular vote since March 4, 2008, compared to 48.9% of the popular vote for Obama.  Obama has, since March 4th, won Vermont, which the Democrat will win regardless, and Wyoming, Mississippi, and North Carolina.  John McCain will more likely than not win all three of those.  Obama, has been unable to win critical states — Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.  He has also failed to show up in Michigan for more than 300 days.  If John McCain can hold Florida, Indiana, and Ohio, as well as pick up Pennsylvania and Michigan, it will be game over for Obama.

If Hillary Clinton holds up to what polling is showing will be a blow out for her today in Kentucky and West Virginia, she just might win the popular vote overall in the Democratic primary.  Luckily for the Republican Party, the Democrats have decided to embrace Obama as their nominee despite the evidence that he cannot win a general election.

I BELIEVE THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON A PARTIAL VICTORY

Heading to Washington, D.C. on a Monday morning from Atlanta, I took my position in the security line at 7:50 a.m. for a 9:20 a.m. flight.  At 9:00 a.m. I made it the security check point.  At 9:10 a.m. I made it to the front of the line.  Then the TSA agent decided to shift the position of William Pitt the Younger in my bag.  On the second go through the machine, the bag got stuck putting me on stand by and four hours late into Washington.

I could not help but think, as I snaked my way through the security line, which ran through baggage claim, up and down a corridor, and through the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport atrium before even getting to the security checkpoint, that the terrorists have won a partial victory.  As the pretty blond with the infant tried to figure out what to do with her child’s bottle and the man next to her shoved his contact solution in a zip-lock bag, I was sure they had won a partial victory.

The government tells us that we are safer now.  We are in fact more secure.  We are also a heck of lot more inconvenienced.  And why?  Most likely because the government refuses to engage in any sort of profiling lest it be accused of discriminating.  Did the eighty year old lady really look like she was going to take out a flight?  Did the parents with the three little girls really need to go through the hassle?

The answer, of course, is no.  But the government is fairly well intent on ruining the flying experience for all of us so it can never be accused of profiling for those who might be terrorists.  I have no idea how much this inconvenience has cost the nation, but I bet the terrorists are happy.


Sign Up