What are your Thoughts on the Todd Akin Senate Race?


Missouri Senate Debate

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2012

 

I post on a few blogs. May central blog is SlantRight 2.0. One of the social blogs I posted “Get Over the Gaffe and STILL Support Akin for Senate”. I posted this title at several blogs including of course SlantRight 2.0; however the place I have received the most feedback via comments is at my AC2C blog.

 

At first the comments were somewhat split with differing opinions between men and women. The women wanted Akin to quit his bid for the Senate seat currently held by Left Wing Senator Claire McCaskill. The men tended to be more forgiving of Akin’s faux pas “legitimate rape” and were ready to move forward with Pro-Life Akin against pro-baby murder Claire McCaskill.

 

Republican Tea Party supporter Sarah Palin was not forgiving as a woman even noting that if it was possible she would support a Third Party candidate in the hope that both Akin and McCaskill would lose. I am thinking Palin was talking about her Tea Party endorsed GOP candidate Sarah Steelman who lost the GOP Primary to Todd Akin in Missouri.

 

VIDEO: Sarah Palin Run Sarah Steelman As 3rd Party

 

 

I am a huge Sarah Palin supporter but I think she has gotten wrong on this one. Akins voting record from State Congress to the U.S. Congress has been one of Pro-Life and Conservative. I was with Palin on her endorsement of Sarah Steelman; however a majority of the Missouri GOP voters decided with Todd Akin. AND until Akin spoke in a public interview before engaging his brain was ahead in the poll predictions by 10 points. After the Leftist media and a number of prominent Republicans (including Governor Palin) went on the dump Akin train he sank to 10 points behind McCaskill.

 

Here’s what I am going to do: I am going to share the AC2C comments to date (more may be forth coming). Feel free to add your two-cents about Todd Akin continuing or bowing out of the Senate race. If I resided in Missouri at this point I would be an Akin supporter come Election Day 2012.

 

JRH 8/27/12

Please Support NCCR

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

Comments on ‘Get Over the Gaffe and STILL Support Akin for Senate’

 

Comment by Mark Currier on Thursday

 

This is exactly what I’ve been saying all week!  The man is on the ballot.  It’s either him or McCaskill.  The choice is obvious.

_____________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Thursday

 

I am a little conflicted…should he go or should he stay.  Everyone says something stupid from time to time and most of the time it is not what the person really believes.  When a republican, however, has a mishap of the tong, it is ‘off with his head!’  A democrat can actually be accused of rape and remain president.  I am leaning that he should stay and fight to the death, instead of bowing to it.  His battle could shed more light on the double standards of the Liberal MSM and the democrat party. 

_________________

Comment by Jamie Shafer on Thursday

 

Laura – please read this article that explains a great deal. Yes, women’s bodies can render a REAL rape without pregnancy consequences. http://americanvision.org/6278/legitimate-political-gang-rape/#.UDZ…

Please inform yourself. I was going to share your remarks until I hit the comments that showed your lack of knowledge of the situation. Too bad.

 

And why drag in Crony Capitalism – a real non sequitur in my opinion.

 

What this whole Akin thing is about is the embarrassment on the part of the economics-only crowd that social issues discussions cause them. I hear this in my own family from good conservatives. I got news for them: I know people who will ONLY vote for Republicans based on social issues!

 

Respectfully,

 

Jamie Shafer

 

PS Of course I support Akin – and the sooner everyone shuts up the better. I think Republicans have a lot more to worry about in the upcoming days and weeks.

_________________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Thursday

 

Shuts up?!  Is that the opposite of Blog up?  I respectively disagree.  The more talk there is the better.  Like I said, his battle could shed more light on the double standards of the Liberal MSM and the democrat party.    

_______________________

Comment by Mark Brocious on Thursday

 

Mr. Akin should STAND HIS GROUND.  One honest mistake does NOT make him a bad person or mean that he should quit the race.  He is a MUCH better candidate than Clare McCaskill who is a liberal and voted for ObamaCare.  His winning in November is vital to taking control of the U.S. Senate and possibly giving Romney (if he wins) a sure majority (it is possible).  Need I go on?????

____________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Thursday

 

Mark, I am starting to believe if the GOP gets behind Akin, they just might score points. 

_________________________

Comment by Laura J Alcorn National Director on Thursday

 

Jamie,

 

Man, you really told me, after all I’m a woman.

 

The problem is that he said ‘legitimate rape’.  Rape is rape.  It is an act of violence and there are no varying degrees of rape.

 

It’s not about how many women get pregnant from rape.

 

And yes, I agree with the stats from americanvision that you asked me to read.  Most rapes do not result in pregnancy.  Getting pregnant is determined by how sexually active the man has been.  The more sex the more the sperm will swim and penetrate the egg. 

 

Getting pregnant has nothing to do with rape, legitimate rape, first time sex, bad sex, or good sex.

 

There were 2 other people ready to step into Akin place to defeat McCaskill.  Akin decided to stay in the race and now he’s running 10 points behind.  Until he make that ‘gaffe’ he it was 43 to 44.

 

He also lost about 10M in campaign funding and put the women’s social issue in front that Obama is running on.

 

Here’s the big thing:  Like Mark said, If he loses to McCaskill, that will be one less Senator we have to take over the Senate and defeat Obamacare.

 

He’s playing politics like he play with his genitalia.

__________________________

Comment by Van Scheurich on Friday

 

Looks like a Texas judge is on Akins’s side also!

 

It is now time to defund Planned Parenthood:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/08/22/court_rules_ac…

_______________________

Comment by Paul Schmehl on Friday

 

It was not a gaffe.  It was a horrible choice of words that many found insulting to women – not just liberals were outraged.  That should tell you something.

 

If Akin stays in, then certainly conservatives should vote for him rather than McCaskill.  But Akin should never forget his stupid comments, nor should conservatives let him forget them.

________________________

Comment by Jim Coles on Friday

 

I’m from Kansas City…still have much family up there…still own property there (I’d like to sell it…a big home on a private lake, two docks, now priced at $350K below the pre-crash value…) I vote in Alabama so I can’t add my election day support to him…but the reality is we’re better off with the stupid, clumsiest Republican who ever walked the face of the Earth than we are with Claire McCaskill on her best day.

 

The women in my family are pissed at him for his stupid word choice but they’re still voting for him if he stays in.

________________________

Comment by Sara James on Friday

 

It wasn’t a gaffe, it illuminated the shallow thought process that goes on in this man’s mind.  He clearly elaborated on his belief that women’s bodies will repel sperm that is not welcomed (you know, if you aren’t lubed up enough it will die or something.)

Come on.  He makes the Republican Party look like its members live in caves and believe in the Easter Bunny, too.

_____________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Friday

 

I never heard of this guy…Akin, and now he is the hot topic…of the day?  Of the week?  How long? It sounds like it is McCaskill or Akin.  How long has Akin been around?  Would it be normal for him to talk that way?  Just reading here there sure seems to be conflicting opinions.   It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out. 

____________________

Comment by Sara James on Friday

 

Akin has a history of being very pro-life, his campaign is run by his campaign manager son and his wife is his closest adviser.  He defeated Sarah Palin’s choice for the seat, Sarah Steelman, and another primary contender.  He’s not so much a tea party type guy as he is known for being very pro-life.  Why he is such a lightening rod right now is because Missouri was a seat that could have been a loss for the Democrats, and we need the Democrats to lose the Senate if we want to halt the march to emulate China.  Missouri is trending red in recent elections so it looked to be a pick up for the GOP.  All he had to do was not do anything stupid until November.  But then he opened his mouth and his brains fell out.

_______________________

Comment by Laura J Alcorn National Director on Friday

 

He’s a hot topic because he is COULD have taken out McCaskill in the Senate.  We need seven seats and there are only nine slots open.  With what he has said, he narrows the number of winning and taking over the Senate.

 

In our local GOP, we had a similar situation.  Our candidate went crazy (he later committed suicide) and would not step aside.  The Dem won.

 

These are races, we MUST win.  It has nothing to do with abortion, or women’s issues.  That is what Obama is running on.  We do not need to go there.  We should not go there.

 

It is about winning the race, political strategy, and  polling,  Akin was tied with McCaskill. He is now 10 points below.

Sara is correct.   Akins thought process demeans women and he does not understand sexual behavior or he would not have said woman can control pregnancies.

 

In the information age, this makes him look out of touch and he doesn’t represent the majority of people, who know better.

________________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Friday

 

OK, ummmm, it sounds like Akin is a winner in everything up to the point he said what he said?  Is there no chance for him to win now?  He won against two others in the primary and that say a lot.  Is it a problem in Missouri that he is pro-life?  This can’t be fixed?  There is no way for Akin to fix it himself?  If it were a democrat that made that slip, the democrat party would have promoted the person. 

_______________________

Comment by Laura J Alcorn National Director on Friday

clip_image001

Threat Against Rep. Akin Being Investigated; (Updated)

 

FOX 2 News in St. Louis just reported an ongoing investigation to a threat against MO Senate Candidate Akin

 

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – The FBI and US Capitol police are investigating a reported threat against Congressman Akin. This is an active investigation.

Police are not willing to release more details. At this time authorities are keeping security operations and procedures confidential.

FOX 2 is working on gathering more details in this threat. They will be posted as this story develops.

 

Updated:

 

“Capitol police are working with an outside law enforcement agency regarding threatening contact with our official office. The office of Congressman Akin has received threats of rape of his official staff, family and the Congressman himself along with suggestions that individuals should die.”

 

Akin has been in the national spotlight this week.  His comments on FOX 2′s Jaco Report last Sunday have had some calling for him to bow out of the race for US Senate.  During the program he was asked if rape could ever be a reason to have an abortion.  He said, “It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

 

MO GOP heavyweights Blunt, Ashcroft, Bond, Talent & Danforth have also asked Akin to quit the race.  Even Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has asked Akin to bow out.

 

Despite calls from fellow Republicans for him to withdraw, the deadline for him to drop out passed on Tuesday.  In a radio show Tuesday, Akin said he’s staying in the race because “there are people who fe…

 

The cynic in me says that it will be 20-something year old vet and he’ll be taken into custody for mental health issues.

__________________________

Comment by Sara James on Friday

 

Michael, yes, he was a winner in the primary.  But now it is the general election and more people will vote in November.  The pro-life contingent comes out heavy in primaries, and he rode that wave of support.  It won’t be the same electorate in November.

His comment makes him look like the neanderthal that Democrats love to paint older white men as.  Frankly, as the mother of three sons, and wife to a middle aged white male, I am tired of society painting them as caricatures:  stupid and bumbling or arrogant and selfish. 

He basically opens himself up to all those caricatures.  He has no chance of winning in November.

_____________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani on Friday

 

Sara, Well, as much as he could have helped with taking over the Senate, if he is inclined talk first and think second, maybe it is just time he retire, but from what I am reading, he in it to the end.  Maybe it is time to just chalk this one in the lost column and move on.  It must sting a little, so close and all.  We can still pull it off….I think.

____________________

Comment by John 12 hours ago

 

I’ve noticed the comments here on whether Akin should stay in or get out are somewhat divided between male and female including AC2C National Director Laura J. Alcorn. The gals went Akin out and the guys say it was stupid but forgive him.

 

I tend to still believe he should stand his ground especially since has apologized and has humbled himself publicly.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that Akin has been a career politician. Now a lot of tried and true Tea Party Conservatives would say that is all the more reason to get rid of Akin; however I view the career politician that has marketed himself as a pro-life candidate has a history of not screwing up in public or he would not be an oft reelected politician. He screws up publicly as a pro-life candidate and the entire Republican Party wants to sack him. I guess the “sack’em” attitude seems to be over the top.

________________________

Comment by Laura J Alcorn National Director 12 hours ago

 

Missouri Voters Like Mitt’s Small Gov’t, Lower Taxes BUT Akin Loses 9 for Not Wanting to Abort a Child of Rape

 

August 25, 2012

By Maggie

 

Like most Conservatives, I wanted US Congressman Todd Akin to step out of the US Senate race for Missouri when he abhorrently used the “L” word (“legitimate”) about the act of rape. At the time Akin had a nine-point lead over one of the most incompetent  Senators in the country, Claire McCaskill. I’m skipping over the details of Akin refusing to bow out, and the shunning given him by the GOP.  My opinion: IF Akin is the candidate, we MUST get onboard and support him.

 

I understand that “Independents” are thought to rule the day, but if Independents want smaller government, lower taxes and less spending, why would they shift to McCaskill?

 

It’s the same thing as saying:

 

I want to fix America’s financial crisis and would have voted for Aiken for that reason, but now that I know he believes a child of rape should not be aborted, I will vote for McCaskill and let our economic freedom go to hell. I will support continuing Democrat-control of Congress

 

Abortion is legal in this country and that is not going to change. Most doctors and hospitals will immediately give a rape victim the “morning after pill,” if wanted, and all the other longstanding procedures are available to allow a woman to do what she thinks is right – so why would a once-Akin-supporter give up the economy and a chance to gain control of the Senate for something that will change nothing about our economic freedom?

 

Let’s look at some of Akin’s voting record:

 

He proposed H.R. 6000 to validate the immigration status of aliens receiving federal benefits, voted for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (passed House), for the repeal of Obamacare (passed), for the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act (passed), against Project Labor Agreements (passed), for Ryan Budget (passed), for returning water to California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Act – to heck with the Delta Smelt act (passed), for the development of Shale Oil Resources (passed), for prohibiting Insider Trading by Government Officials (passed), for amending the budget baseline (passed), against the President’s authority to raise the debt limit (passed), for limiting regulation on Farm Dust (passed), for Congressional approval of regulations (passed).

 

On the slim chance that some of these may or did make it to the Senate floor, do you think McCaskill would support any one of them? She will not. I don’t agree with a few of Akins votes, but I agree with all of the above and anyone wanting smaller government and U.S. sovereignty should agree with them as well, and reward Aikin for them, because most are lying in a drawer somewhere in the Senate where Claire McCaskill, agreeing with Harry Reid, thinks it is just swell not to bring them up for a vote and allow The People to exercise their full power through their elected officials.

 

A vote for Claire McCaskill is a vote for Obama’s sponsored infanticide. As an Illinois State Senator, BO was the only legislator to vote NOT to give life saving measures to an aborted child born alive. A vote for Claire McCaskill is a vote for EPA regulations, illegal Presidential Executive Orders and Signing Statements. A vote for Claire McCaskill is a vote for continual downgrades and dumbing-down of education, the DREAM Act and no American energy independence.

 

Why would a true small government voter abandon Akin at a time when our future hangs on making smart, Constitutional decisions?

 

If the GOP can get Akin out and come up with a candidate that has a chance of beating McCaskill, that’s well and good. If not, get behind the voting record of Todd Akin. We have everything to lose. Don’t be a part of a continuing nightmare by voting for Claire McCaskill. See details of the Mason Dixon poll at Hot Air where Romney leads, but a Rasmussen Poll tells a different story.

 

Linked at BadBluethe baddest and best news on the planet!

_______________________

Comment by Jim Coles 10 hours ago

 

I kind of think Akin will pull it out … or rather, McCaskill will tank because the folks are just tired of her insanity…either way, I think Akin wins…and when he does I hope he makes the RNC/congressional GOP leadership pay a price for each vote he casts to support the agenda…Akin a lump of not-smart on legs but he’s our lump of not-smart…and on his worst day he’s better for us than the Dems’ lump of really stupid all the time is for anyone…

Of course we have to support Akin and we should thump on the career pols who turned on his so quickly…but not so hard that it stops our road to victory.

_________________________

Comment by Sara James 8 hours ago

 

There are a LOT of people who would have good voting records if they got into the Senate.  However, they will never get there because of one reason or another, mistakes they have made in the past will haunt them and no amount of mea culpas is going to change that.

Akin’s “gaffe” was in fact, a window to his thought processes.  You do NOT make such an egregious statement if you don’t believe it….it’s not something that just sits on the tongue waiting to be said.  It has to be thought first.  It wasn’t made off-handedly. 

Thankfully I don’t live in Missouri so I won’t have to pull a lever or push a button for Akin.  But there is no way on earth I would send him a dollar.  I disagree that “of course we have to support Akin” — oh really?   I’m tired of being manipulated – back and forth – someone says “do this” and then, the next day, it’s “no, do that”.  I don’t look to Mike Huckabee to tell me how I should think.  I’m an adult and I come to my own decisions.  Sometimes I just get a sense of a person, and that’s enough.  God gives us intuition for a reason.

I’m still very much hoping that he lets someone else who actually passed Biology 101 take his place on the ticket.

_________________________

Comment by Laura J Alcorn National Director 2 hours ago

 

The Left’s Version of ‘Legitimate Rape’

Posted by Daniel Greenfield Bio on Aug 27th, 2012

 

The progressives have picked a spectacularly bad time to attack Republicans over insensitivity to rape. While the left continues its obsession with Todd Akin, its own hero, Julian Assange, is doing his best to avoid being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges.

 

The leading lights of the left have contributed to Assange’s defense fund and paid for his bail; which enabled him to flee prosecution and seek asylum in Ecuador’s embassy in London. Assange’s escape was made possible by bail money from leftist director Ken Loach, leftist socialite Jemima Khan and Maxim publisher Felix Dennis.

 

With the Assange case, the left has shown that it has its own version of legitimate rape. Prominent progressives have ridiculed Assange’s victims and claimed that the assaults on them did not constitute legitimate rape. Or as Whoopi Goldberg once put it, “rape-rape.”

 

Michael Moore, discussing the case where Assange raped a sleeping woman, told the BBC that the assault was only a “so-called crime” and suggested that it “wouldn’t actually be a crime if it was committed in Britain.” Moore has shown his faith in Assange’s legitimate rape by donating $20,000 to Assange’s defense fund.

 

Michael Moore

 

Recently Michael Moore teamed up with Oliver “Hitler was misunderstood” Stone to write a New York Times editorial that claimed Ecuador’s refusal to hand over a rape suspect was “in accordance with important principles of international human rights” and ladled on conspiracy theories to avoid dealing with the fact that the left had chosen to back a progressive rapist over his victims.

 

Keith Olbermann went even further than Moore, retweeting a link from Bianca Jagger to an article written by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier that named Assange’s victims and accused them of working for the CIA. UK Left-wing activist Craig Murray named one of the victims, prefacing his statement by saying, “Let us look at the conduct of these women.”

 

Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, branded the rape charges false and slanderous. Naomi Wolf suggested that Assange’s accusers don’t deserve to have their anonymity protected by rape shield laws and accused them of “using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings.”

 

George Galloway, who became a hero to the American left for his defense of Saddam Hussein, said that even if the two women were telling the truth, the only thing that Assange was really guilty of was “bad sexual etiquette.” Galloway is currently a part-time Muslim and it is hard to say whether his notion that rape is just “bad sexual etiquette” is rooted in him being a bad human being or in the pages of the Koran.

 

Ecuador’s leftist leader Rafael Correa echoed Galloway, saying that “the case would not in his view constitute criminal behavior in Latin America.” That might explain why over half of Ecuador’s schoolgirls have reported experiencing sexual abuse in schools. It might also explain why Daniel Camargo Barbosa, one of the worst rapists and serial killers in history, chose, like Assange, to escape to Ecuador and was able to kill 71 girls there in two years.

 

Domestic abuse and sexual assault are commonplace in Ecuador and most rapes go unreported. That, along with its left-wing government, makes Ecuador a natural destination of choice for Julian Assange. And the horrors in Ecuador have not stopped the left from holding a vigil outside Ecuador’s embassy in support of Assange and Ecuador’s leftist regime.

 

Page: »

________________________

Comment by Michael Trivisani 20 minutes ago

 

Laura, what a great read.  However, leading with Michael Moore’s picture wasn’t a good start to my blogging morning…lol.  I have come to understand that there is a fundamental difference with how people view the transgressions of both political parties and their ideologies.  Expected and unexpected.  What is perceived as normal or not.  An analogy that comes to mind is gas prices.  They have been so high for so long, three dollar and above per gallon has become the norm.  We have been trained to live with it.  We have learned to live with what the democrat party has become and much of the lessons have come from the Bill Clinton’s presidency.  Here we have someone that wasn’t running for office, he was a sitting president having sexual relations with a very young woman in the White House where his wife was not far away.  That transgression was only the tip of the sexberg, yet Bill Clinton survived, elected to a second term and now he is being honored to speak at the Democrat National Convention to nominate none other than the Obama, a living transgression.

  

I can only comment about Akin in general terms and based on what little I know of him. My first inclination was that he should fall on the sward for the good of the party.  Now I wonder if it would be better for the party to get behind one of their own.  If Akin is steadfast and goes forward with his campaign, stand and fight, the party should stand with him. 

_______________________

I did some minor editing with spell check. Abbreviations and misspelling are common in Comments so no impunity is intended.

 

An Examination of Klein Book ‘The Amateur’


The Amateur bk jk

John R. Houk

© May 19, 2012

 

I received an email from AC2C friend CJ pertaining to Reverend Jeremiah Wright being interviewed by Edward Klein. Wright had told Klein in that interview that Barack Hussein Obama had offered him $150,000 to hold back from any incendiary preaching until after the 2008 election.

 

I have already listened to Liberal pundits that have brushed of these revelations as insignificant. I have heard Left Wing pundits say things ranging from Americans don’t care about the Obama-Wright relationship to Conservatives should keep their hands off of Obama’s personal faith.

 

As to Americans “don’t care,” this is an insinuation that American voters are stupid and wouldn’t care that Obama was deceptive in his 2008 campaign to win the Presidency. As to keep your hands off of Obama’s personal faith, that is a load of crap as Leftist are attacking Mormonism’s Family Values track record which for example would be against abortion and homosexual sin. It is a load of crap to talk about Romney’s Mormonism and ignore Obama’s association with Jew-hating Black Supremacists like Wright, Farrakhan and Pro-Palestinian Israel-haters.

 

Now I am not a big fan of Romney’s Mormonism; however my disdain of Mormonism has nothing to do with Family Values. My disdain is due to my belief that Mormonism is a Gnostic-Christian cult spin-off from legitimate Christianity. Criticizing Romney’s faith but giving Obama’s odd secrecy of his personal faith is the height of Leftist hypocrisy!

 

CJ points to a Sean Hannity radio interview with Edward Klein and to an American Thinker article by Ed Lasky. The Hannity-Klein interview focused on the bribe issue between Obama representatives and Jeremiah Wright. Lasky’s book review focused on some of the damning personality traits of Obama exposed in Klein’s book “The Amateur”.

 

Here is some of the Jeremiah Wright wording courtesy of Hot Air:

 

 In his on-the-record interview with Klein, Wright claims that an Obama ally offered him $150,000 to keep his mouth shut and stop preaching until after the election, in excerpts published by the New York Post today:

 

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

 

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

 

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

 

“He offered you money?”

 

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

 

“How much money did he offer you?”

 

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

 

According to Wright, Obama met personally with his then-pastor to ask him to do the same, although Obama apparently didn’t offer money for his silence.  Wright’s version of the conversation makes it clear that Obama knew very well what his pastor had preached from the pulpit, and what he was likely to do once attention focused on him:

 

“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’

 

“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’

 

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’ (Jeremiah Wright claims Obama ally offered $150,000 bribe in 2008 to shut up; by Ed Morrissey; Hot Air, 5/13/12 – READ ENTIRE POST)

 

The big question is: Will the mainstream media step in to report this legitimate news story and force Obama to do more than call Wright a liar? I am certain Obama will paint Wright as bathing in sour grapes. What I want to know is Obama willing to sue Wright for defamation? If not, then Obama is the liar. BUT we all know Obama is a liar.

 

Below is CJ’s post at AC2C which is an amalgamation a Theodore’s World post of the Hannity-Klein radio interview and Ed Lasky’s American Thinker article. I am to going to take the editorial liberty to also include Wild Thing’s Theodore’s World comment not included in CJ’s post.

 

JRH 5/19/12

Please Support NCCR

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

“The Amateur”…Revealing book based on a 3 hour taped interview with the Rev. Wright…and naughty Michelle

 

Posted by CJ

Posted May 17, 2012 at 1:00 am

America Conservative 2 Conservative

 

May 16, 2012

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

VIDEO: Ed Klein Wright on Obamas Christianity

 

 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright Says of Obama, “I made it Comfortable for Him to Accept Christianity without having to Renounce His Islamic Background”

 

Here is audio of Edward Klein, author of “The Amateur,” talking with Sean Hannity about his new book and his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Klein interviewed Wright for more than three hours for the book, and says he has much of it on tape.

 

Among other things, he said Wright is “fulminating” at Obama for having “thrown him under the bus” back in 2008 when Wright’s “Godd*mn America” sermon came out. Klein reports that Wright told him that he could not say he “converted” Obama to Christianity, but that “I made it comfortable for him to accept Christianity without having to renounce his Islamic background.” http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2012/05/rev_jeremiah_wright_says_of_ob.html

 

[Wild Thing’s comment…….

 

Like Tom says OBama is a Muslim.

The thing is we have learned that with Isalm (sic) Obama or anyone would be threatened and very possibly taken out if they were Muslim and turned away from their beliefs. They have done it enough times that we should believe them.

IMO Obama would have a very tuff time if he was ever really vetted to prove he was NOT a Muslim. His actions, associations, his administration that is heavy with Muslims and so many things prove it along with what this Rev. Wright has said…imo. ]

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

 

May 14, 2012

 

The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House

 

By Ed Lasky

 

Edward Klein’s new book on Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, is a withering portrayal of a radical adrift, in over his head, drowning in his own incompetency — while being weighed down by a small circle of “advisers” who are compounding the problem of the Amateur in the White House.

 

Klein’s book begins with a talisman-like quote uttered by Barack Obama when his recently appointed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner tried to boost Obama’s ego by telling him, “Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.”  To which Barack Obama responded, “That’s not enough for me.”

 

As all of America knows by now, Obama has aggressively sought to “fundamentally transform” America — one of the few promises he has kept from the days of 2008.  Five trillion dollars of borrowing, ObamaCare passed over the objections of the majority of Americans through legislative legerdemain and special deals made with resistant politicians, failed stimulus, green programs failing left and right as taxpayers are left holding the bag, a recovery that is the most anemic on record, an America that has been sundered by the man who promises to unite us, America weaker abroad and at home — yes, America has been fundamentally transformed.  Mission Accomplished.

 

But how and why did Obama succeed in such a catastrophic way?  That is the question that Klein successfully answers in his extremely readable and enjoyable book, with enough spicy details to satisfy the craving of anyone interested in how President Obama and those closest to him have driven us to the condition we find ourselves in as we approach November.

 

One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama’s sheer level of incompetency.  He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego.  That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit.  And Obama has that trait in abundance.

 

Stories tumble out that reveal a man who believes he is all but omniscient — unwilling to give any credence to the views of others (especially but not limited to those across the aisle).  Experts in management are interviewed who point out that he lacks essential qualities of leadership.  Indeed, the book gets its title from an outburst from Bill Clinton, who was trying to encourage Hillary to take on Obama in the Democratic primary of 2012:

 

Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s…he’s…Barack Obama’s an amateur.

 

But Klein does not rest there.  He delves into associates from Obama’s career in Cook County politics, his stint as a state senator, and his rise to the United States Senate.  There is a common pattern: Obama likes to campaign, but once he is elected and actually starts working, his interest flags, and he starts looking for the next “big thing” — electorally speaking.  He had few if any accomplishments or professional standing in any of his previous positions.  Even when he served as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, he avoided any encounters with other faculty who enjoyed discussing the law.  His reluctance to engage them is revealing in and of itself, suggesting he had a reason for his lack of confidence.

 

His disdain toward working with others is manifest.  He has gained a reputation over the last few years as being cold and distant, refusing to engage, as have other presidents, in the give-and-take of politics, in the social niceties that help grease the wheels in Washington.  Liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently advised him to read Robert Caro’s newest volume on the life of Lyndon Johnson as a primer on how to be president.  Johnson, of course, was a master at pulling levers of power, but he also knew how to persuade individual politicians on both sides of the aisle to work with him on legislation.  But, of course, LBJ also had the common touch and, having risen from humble beginnings, never considered it beneath him to work with those underneath him.  Not so Barack Obama.  He complained to foreign leaders that he had to waste time talking with “congressmen from Palookaville.”  At another time, he switched locales and said he was tired of dealing with people from “Podunk.”

 

His campaign trail comments regarding small-town America as being populated by “bitter” people who cling to guns and Bibles was not a one-off.  They are reflective of his views.

 

But the high and the mighty also come in for the Obama treatment.  Klein reveals dismay among former Obama supporters who feel they have been mistreated, maligned, and thrown under the bus.  Obama’s most generous early donors have been all but ignored; early mentors in the black business community have been sidelined if not completely ditched; people don’t hear from him or his staff unless a fundraiser is coming up.  But there is more: Caroline Kennedy is angry at the way she and her family were used for campaign purposes in 2008 and then summarily dismissed and stored away like so many movie props have been (the latter is my description).

 

Even Oprah Winfrey has been stiff-armed by the Obamas.  According to the book, Oprah took a big risk in supporting Obama in 2008 and campaigning for Obama in Iowa, being a big boost in his campaign.  The ratings for her show weakened significantly (and her new network has been a huge disappointment).  But when she has tried to visit the White House, she has been all but treated as persona non grata.  Apparently, Michelle Obama is a possessive person who fears the influence Oprah may have over Barack Obama (more on this below).  Oprah blames it on Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign.  She is quoted as saying, “Michelle hates fat people and doesn’t want me waddling around the White House.”  Klein digs up a quotation of Michelle Obama’s from a White House source that seems to confirm Oprah’s suspicion:

 

Oprah only wants to cash in using the White House as a backdrop for her show to perk up ratings. Oprah with her yo-yo dieting and huge girth, is a terrible role model. Kids will look at Oprah, who’s rich and famous and huge, and figure it’s okay to be fat.

 

Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Pastor Jeremiah Wright (who merits a chapter), and Obama’s former long-time doctor (who feels Obama is distant and lacks feeling, passion, and humanity) all join a long list of people whom the Obamas have used, abused, and then cast aside once they moved into the White House.

 

A few have survived the winnowing process, of course.  There is Michelle, who might be described as the living and real-life descendant of Lady Macbeth.  The book provides some history of the early days between Barack and Michelle: marked by some tempests, yet also marked by Michelle’s overwhelming push for Barack to win power and wealth.  Insiders are reluctant to tangle with the First Lady, and with good reason.  Michelle, like her husband, has a proclivity to blame others for her husband’s failures.  Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs felt her sting when it was revealed that Michelle had complained about life in the White House to the then-first lady of France, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.  Gibbs acted to control the damage by arranging for the Élysée Palace to issue a denial.

 

But the response did not come quickly enough for Michelle, and she arranged for Valerie Jarrett — close to the Obamas for years, and who has an omnipresence in the White House that makes the unelected and unconfirmed czar issue seem trivial — to deliver a stern rebuke to Gibbs, who counter-attacked.  Anyone heard from Robert Gibbs lately?

 

The role of Valerie Jarrett has prompted much speculation.  As Edward Klein notes, she has a mouthful of a title —  senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement — that “doesn’t begin to do justice to her unrivaled status in the White House.”  Valerie Jarrett apparently has a role in most major decisions: she often appears in meetings the president has with major political leaders from Capitol Hill and with foreign leaders as well.  She often stays behind to have private discussions with the president.  Obama admitted that he ran every decision by her.

 

That is worrying since, as Klein notes, Jarrett’s own career is not one that would prepare her to assume such a prominent role.  Hers is no rags-to-riches story that would give her the “chops” to have such a Svengali-like influence over the president of the United States.  She was blessed with a wonderful set of advantages — descended from a highly regarded political family in Chicago.  Jarrett was a force to be reckoned with in the Daley administration and then capitalized on her political connections to land a job heading up a real estate company in Chicago where she oversaw, among other developments, properties that under her company’s management degenerated into slums.  Business leaders are aghast that she has such a powerful role in the White House.  A donor is quoted as saying that not only is Valerie Jarrett a liability, but others in the White House concur with his views.  Jarrett has butted heads with Rahm Emanuel, who felt that it was wrong to focus on passing ObamaCare when the economy and jobs should have been higher priorities.

 

Who won that match?  Rahm returned to Chicago and became mayor in 2009.

 

The roles of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett cannot be overstated.  They are symptomatic of a larger problem in the White House decision-making process (one that I noted in “How Obama Makes Decisions“).

 

Barack Obama, to a greater extent than any modern president, refuses to listen to the views of others or consult with experts and advisers outside his own tight and constricted circle from Cook County.  There are many revelations of his faulty decision making uncovered by Klein.  Indeed, one of Jarrett’s roles is to shield Obama from dealing with people who don’t agree with him or who may say something that deflates his ego.

 

When Bill Daley (the chief of staff) realized that the contraception and abortifacient mandates of ObamaCare might offend Catholics, he arranged a meeting without Jarrett’s knowledge between Obama and New York then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan to deal with an issue that would offend many as violating the principle of religious freedom (as well as Catholic beliefs).  Jarrett went to the president and vented her anger.

 

Anyone seen Bill Daley lately?

 

On issue after issue, President Obama remains his insular self, refusing to seek counsel or input from others with more experience.

 

Critics believe he has made a mess of foreign policy precisely because not only does he have a dearth of experience in this area, but because, under our system, foreign policy is one of the few areas where a president enjoys almost unlimited power.  Thus, he is free to formulate his own agenda regardless of the views of others and the damage these policies cause.

 

When pro-Israel Americans met with Obama to discuss his actions toward Israel (that many, including myself, view as being counterproductive) he dismissed the ideas of Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, with the statement “you are absolutely wrong.”  The president, who has no compunction telling people that they are not only wrong, but “absolutely wrong” in public, needs to start feeling some of the empathy he accuses Republicans of lacking.  According to veteran journalist Richard Chesnoff, quoted in the book, “Obama’s problem in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conundrum” comes “from his one-man style and his inflated view of his own leadership talents[.] … [P]erhaps, even more egregiously, he seems to have an exaggerated sense of his own depth of understanding of the Middle East, which is simply not borne out by his background or experience.”  There may be more to it than that to explain the pressure he has put on our one true ally in the Middle East, Israel.  American Thinker published numerous articles in 2008 covering not only Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Junior’s views of Israel as an apartheid state, but Obama’s associations with anti-Israel Palestinians in Chicago, his own suspect language regarding Israel, and his close relationship with Samantha Power (now playing a key role on his National Security Council), who not only has a long anti-Israel history but also made an anti-Semitic remark that was smothered by the media in 2008.  There were good reasons for the Los Angeles Times to run a column during the campaign that “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama.”

 

Readers will thoroughly enjoy Klein’s book on Obama.  There are substantive issues raised about Obama’s leadership abilities that are enhanced with interesting digressions regarding life inside ObamaWorld and how those dynamics effect decisions made from the Oval Office.

 

Klein concludes the book with doubt that Obama could ever change his approach toward governing and suspicion that his agenda is to impose a vast redistribution scheme upon America that has worked so well in the decaying and disintegrating European Union.  He wonders if Republicans are up to the task of pointing out to the public the truth about Obama’s agenda, given the overwhelming media bias in favor of Barack Obama.

 

Klein’s book could serve as a roadmap for Republicans.

Read more: American Thinker

______________________

America Conservative 2 Conservative Main Page for this Ning Social Network.