Ah, the lies that liberals tell - the liberal myths. Who was it that said if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it? I don’t know, but in reading Townhall this morning, I came across an article by John Hawkins that does an excellent job of describing five liberal myths that have been repeated so often that many accept them as fact.

When I read liberal blogs, I’m blown away by the usually well-informed people who parrot these myths as truth. Click the link to read the entire article. I’ve chosen to highlight here the three liberal myths that particularly irritate me.

George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: This is actually one of the most easily disproved myths because after looking at the same intelligence George Bush was given, many prominent Democrats said almost the exact things Bush did about Iraq’s WMDs.

For example, here’s Hillary Clinton,

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Now here’s John Edwards,

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

They weren’t tricked by the Bush Administration and they weren’t part of some cover-up designed to lie us into war. To the contrary, they looked at our intelligence reports and came to the same conclusions the Bush Administration did. That’s why both of them voted for the war. If the Democrats were honest, they’d be willing to admit that Bush told the truth.

Al Gore would have won the election in 2000 if all the votes had been counted:

Or my personal favorite: “George Bush STOLE the elecdtion.”

The problem with this assertion is that all the votes were counted after the fact — by mainstream media organizations that are hostile to the Bush Administration. What was their conclusion? That George Bush would have won had the unconstitutional full recount been allowed to go forward.

The Miami Herald did a recount and here’s the headline and the first paragraph from their article describing the results,

“REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH

Republican George W. Bush’s victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward.”

There was also a 2nd recount done by eight media groups. Here’s what the New York Times, one of the participants, had to say about it. Again, I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph,

“Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward”

So, the reality is that even if the unconstitutional recount of the Florida ballots had gone forward, Bush still would have won the election.
. . . .

There is a consensus on man-made global warming: Because the global warming alarmists can’t give a good answer to many of the most basic questions that people have, they’ve simply been claiming that almost every scientist believes they’re right. The idea here is that people will think, “They may not be able to make a case for what they believe, but if all those scientists agree with them, they must be spot-on!”

However, while there is a consensus that the earth warmed a small amount over the last century, there is no consensus on whether mankind is responsible, whether the warming will continue, and whether the consequences will be serious if it does. In fact, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating the following:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don’t, but what should be beyond dispute at this point is that there is certainly no scientific consensus on global warming.

Hawkins includes the myth of a 9/11 conspiracy, but I didn’t quote that one because really, does any sane person truly believe that?

It makes you wonder about liberals. They believe these myths, and they willingly ignore the profound questions and negatives about Barack Obama. It is truly a case of believing what they’re determined to believe - regardless of the facts.

In reading the news this morning, I came across this quote from Barack Obama - from a talk he gave at a Democratic fund raiser ($28,500 per person) last night:

“But that accurately captures, I think, the strategy” Republicans are trying to use against him, Obama said. “Come on. They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy. They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right? And so that drumbeat - we’re not sure if he’s patriotic or not, we’re not sure if he is too black. I don’t know, before I wasn’t black enough. Now he might be too black. We don’t know whether he’s going to socialize - well, who knows what.”

“They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy.” Well, conservatives don’t have to “try” to make him into a scary guy. Obama IS scary, and the idea of an Obama presidency is beyond scary.

We’ve got a candidate (Obama) who has been on the national political scene for a very short period of time, has done very little as a senator, has “friends” and “advisors” who are blatant and vocal racists, attended for 20+ years a church that preaches hatred and racism - and only resigned his membership a few weeks ago because his membership was causing problems for the church, has had to “disassociate” himself from numerous people who - until Obama started running for POTUS - had been close friends and advisors but now are shown not to be “the people he knew”, and instead of being forthright in responding to questions about his background and associations, he dissembles. He has shown poor judgment in too many decisions he’s made as a presidential candidate. He makes rash statements, and then later has to go back and explain what he “really” meant by them. Are we ready for such a trainwreck of inexperience and bravado? Are we so desperate to have an African-American president that we will accept this totally unacceptable man?

The reality of it is that the very same Democrats who swoon over Obama’s superficial feel-good message of hope and change, would totally condemn and blast him if he were a Republican. Don’t change anything about him except his party affiliation - and he’d be vilified in Democratic circles. It is sad - and scary - to see people who are good and thoughtful people - be so willingly blind about a candidate.

So Barack Obama won’t release his birth certificate. I wonder why? I really don’t believe there is anything amiss here - except why on earth not release Barack Obama’s birth certificate? I can’t think of any reason not to release it. In most states it’s a matter of public record that anyone can accesss anyway. He just happened to be born in a state (Hawaii) where it isn’t.

Hot Air provides some possible reasons why Obama won’t release his birth certificate.

Even the New York Times seems to feel that Barack Obama needs to come clean when it comes to his birth certificate.

It just seems like a really stupid thing for Obama’s campaign to do - unless they have a reason for it. Actually, I would think it would be a REQUIREMENT for anyone running for POTUS to have a birth certificate on file. Don’t candidates have to file documents of some kind to run for president? A valid United States birth certificate would certainly seem mandatory.

Update: June 15, 2008: Here is the original first paragraph of this post:

So who started PUMA? I don’t know. Don’t really care either. Here is another blog - PUMAPAC that has information about the movement. (Thanks to Pumas4Change for pointing me towards that blog). (End of 6/15/08 update).

My only question is: Why aren’t there more PUMAs? I can’t imagine that anyone who isn’t totally brainwashed by being in the Democratic party for too long wouldn’t question Barack Obama as a choice for POTUS. Are there truly that many people who are so easily swayed by a good looking smooth talker?

I am fortunate in that I have the advantage of never associating myself with one political party or the other. I’ve always studied the candidates and voted based on the candidate - not the candidate’s party affiliation. That enables me to look at the candidates more objectively than most people. I feel some empathy for the folks who have been so connected to one party or the other that they are unable to look at the situation objectively. We have all these Democrats who can’t allow themselves the freedom to vote objectively. In their own minds, they can only vote for Obama - simply because he’s the Democratic Party’s candidate.

So congratulations, all you PUMA folks. You are the people who have the courage to go against the grain of the Democratic party and against the overwhelming media bias. Party Unity My Ass. I like it.

A video via The Nose on Your Face:

Really, the ONLY reason this man has not been kicked to the political curb long ago is because he’s so charismatic and the democrats are so enamored of having a black candidate that they’re giving him a pass on some monumental negatives.

Today I heard someone describe Obama as “all frosting - no cake.” It was such an apt description. Can someone tell me a reason OF SUBSTANCE for supporting Barack Obama? I have yet to hear anything except for lofty and high-minded exhortations of change and unity and “YES WE CAN!” Yes, when Obama is elected, all will be well with the world - all the other countries will love the United States, and because we have suddenly become so lovable, there will be no more terrorism, everyone will live happily ever after, and all will be well with the world. The media have been in an orgasmic orgy of praise and ectasy about the historic and momentous occurence of Obama’s getting the required number of delegate votes to secure the Democratic nomination.

After all, with Obama in the White House, the demon George Bush will be gone - and we can enter the era of Democratic nirvana. You remember George Bush - the man who STOLE the election from Al Gore - because Al Gore won the popular vote — kinda like Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries. Oops! Didn’t mean to bring up an inconsistency with the Dems.

Of course it’s different when it’s Barack Obama who won the most delegates. It is NOT racist for him to be a member for 20 years of a church that demonizes whites. It is NOT racist for him to support Farakhan who demonizes Jews. It is NOT unpatriotic for him to not put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. It is NOT racist that 90%+ of black Democratic voters voted for Barack. And if you don’t agree with all that, then you are obviously a racist yourself.

So, really, how will Barack Obama create this heaven on earth?

Considering all that Obama has done in order to win the nomination, it is obvious he is willing to sell his soul and much more for the presidency. He has turned on two of his closest “spiritual advisors”, he has turned on his own grandmother. He treated Hillary Clinton worse than dirt during the primaries. If I were close to him, I’d sure be careful not to say or do anything that might reflect negatively on B.O. because it seems that anyone who stands in the way of his becoming the “chosen one” of the Democratic party is pretty much disposable. Loyalty isn’t a character trait he values much - except for maybe the loyalty of all the Democratic sheeple to him.

Put Obama in front of thousands of people with a prepared speech, and he is inspiring and awesome with rhetoric. Put him in a non-scripted situation, and he’s a bumbling idiot.

All frosting - no cake - that’s Obama.

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning that speaks directly to my feelings about Barack Obama. . . and many Democrats. Rather than face the moral issue of abortion, they try to justify their stance on the issue by saying they can’t legislate someone else’s personal decisions. It’s all about “choice.”

Abortion is no more a “personal decision” than . . . let’s say “murder.” Instead of working towards a woman having the “choice” to kill her baby at any time - even after birth, why not work towards safe and effective birth control? Why not work towards helping women who have unplanned pregnancies make other choices that don’t involve killing their babies?

No matter how you skirt around the issue, abortion kills a human baby. It stops a beating heart. It is painful for the baby. There are many websites where you can find documentation and even video about how abortion affects the baby. Of course the ultimate effect is the baby’s death. But between the beginning of the abortion and the baby’s death, there are horrors indeed for that defenseless baby. It’s heart-rending. Apparently, however, since the baby is unseen by the mother and by society, it is easier to relegate it to a “mass of cells” or a “fetus” instead of a living baby.

And now we have Barack Obama running for president - a man who has a 100% record of voting for “reproductive freedom” i.e. killing a baby - even after birth is it is unwanted.

I wrote about Gianna Jessen a couple years ago. Actually I wrote about her here and here, too. We had the same personal trainer at the gym I attended at the time. I watched as Gianna ran in the gym’s neighborhood. I felt humbled because she ran despite overwhelming physical difficulties - difficulties that are the result of the saline abortion she survived.

This morning’s WSJ article is entitled “The Audacity of Death” and the author tells about Gianna Jessen. Guess who Gianna WON’T vote for in November?

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”

. . . . On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like “I don’t want [my daughters] punished with a baby.” Or he’ll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo’s family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his “biggest mistake” in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

I’ve written before that morally and ethically I could never support Barack Obama. I would have a difficult time supporting any Democrat.

Freedom of speech isn’t valued much in France. Brigitte Bardot has been sentenced to a hefty fine for insulting Islam. I wonder if the French courts fine Muslims who insult Christians or Jews? I really doubt it.

PARIS — Former French film star and sex symbol Brigitte Bardot has been fined 15,000 euros ($23,160) for remarks insulting Muslims.

A Paris court fined the animal rights campaigner for her repeated verbal attacks on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, which involves slaughtering a sheep, among other Islam traditions.

Bardot, already fined four times since 1997 for similar racial incidents, will have to pay the hefty fine in addition to damages to several anti-racism organizations.

Bardot’s lawyer Francois-Xavier Kelidjian told French newspaper Le Monde that it is doubtful Bardot will appeal because she is “tired” of trials. Bardot was not present for the most recent decision.

Barack Obama will definitely bring about change if he’s elected. Unfortunately it will be change for the worse. The man is such a two-faced hustler that if the United States is ignorant and blind enough to elect him, we will deserve what we get.

Here’s one quote referring to his now former church:

Obama said he has “tremendous regard” for the church community, but said he could not live with a situation where everything said in the church, including comments by a guest pastor, “will be imputed to me, even if they conflict with my long-held, views, statements and principles.”

Interesting, isn’t it? He also mentioned that the church didn’t deserve to be denounced.

“I’m not denouncing the church, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church,” he said in response to a question. “It’s not a church worthy of denouncing.”

Looking at the video of both Wright’s sermons and Pfleger’s sermon, the folks in the church were clapping, jumping up and down and cheering wildly as both “reverends” spewed their racist and profane rhetoric. It was very apparent that the people in the church agreed with what the un-reverends were saying.

I believe God has a special place in hell for people like Wright and Phleger who take their positions as spiritual leaders to foster and incite racial and class animosity. I would say that Trinity United Church of Christ - along with the race baiting preachers and cheering congregation - are very definitely worthy of being denounced.

Obama made other statements that I found amazing:

Mr. Obama said he and his wife would search for a new church but probably would not make a decision until after the election in November.

He acknowledged that the search would be a tricky business, not least because African-American pastors often pride themselves on speaking with a clear “prophetic voice” about social and racial injustices. Their aim is not to force parishioners to agree with every word, they say, but to spark thought.

“There is a cultural, a stylistic gap,” Mr. Obama said, between the tradition of some black churches and some white churches.

The ministers’ words, torn from their context, can detonate politically, he said.

“There is certainly a tradition in the African-American church to speak against injustice, against racism, against sexism, against economic inequality,” Mr. Obama said. “My hope would be that any presidential candidate can go to a church and hear a sermon and even hear some controversial statements without those views being imputed to them.”

Did you notice that at no time did he mention religious beliefs or Christianity. It’s not about Protestant, Catholic, Jew - Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian. Church, to Obama, isn’t about faith - it’s about “black churches” and “white churches.” It is also interesting that he talks about “African American churches” preaching against racism - when the most vile and blantantly racist comments I’ve ever heard are from the pulpit of Obama’s church and were spoken by “ministers” that Obama has lauded. Actions speak louder than all of Obama’s slick words.

However much Obama would love to distance himself against the racism and hatred of his former church, it is painfully obvious that even if he doesn’t share all their beliefs, he definitely has tolerated the expression of racist beliefs in his own church and by men he considers “spiritual advisors” for twenty years. And even now, he can’t bring himself to denounce his church’s toxic beliefs. IF he believed so strongly in equality and in bringing people of all races together, he would have left Trinity United Church of Christ - and Wright - and Pfleger - about twenty years ago. It’s twenty years too late to believe a word Obama says.

As I listened to and watched today’s news, I wondered yet again when the Democrats will finally (if ever) admit what a disaster Obama is. There comes a point when even Obama’s most blind disciples must face the truth. The man is a fount of virtually nonstop bad decisions and bad associations.

It looks like Obama will beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination, and that’s too bad for the Democrats. I believe Hillary would have a chance at winning the general election. Obama, on the other hand, has no chance in the world of winning. There are simply too many negatives about him. Plus, he demonstrates little ability to handle criticism. Someone said that they don’t notice the color of his skin - only the thinness of it. His constant whining about every little perceived insult has already gotten old for all but his most staunch supporters. He could take a page from George Bush’s book on how to handle criticism.