Hamas Endorses Obama

On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, “We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election.” Why? “He has a vision to change America.” Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to “change.”

Of course, Hamas’s taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as “this noble man” who “did an excellent job as President.”

Yousef was asked about Obama’s condemnation of Carter’s visit with Hamas, but didn’t seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.

You can listen to the entire interview by clicking the “play” button below: (there is an audio, at

Power Line



Now Hussein Obama, what was that you were saying to that Jewish group?

Posted in Obama. 4 Comments »

All created from food items…Damn FANTASTIC WORKS of art and creativity. Courtesy of a friend.

Posted in Art. 8 Comments »

Flight 93 blogburst: 40 tortured souls

Alec Rawls

Obama Explains Divergent Positions on Hamas, Iran Diplomacy

Barack Obama declined to condemn Jimmy Carter Wednesday for Carter’s decision to meet with Hamas but said he supports diplomacy with Iran because it has recognized status internationally.

In a meeting with Jewish community leaders in Philadelphia, the Democratic presidential candidate stopped short of condemning the meeting between the former U.S. president and the designated terror group. However, he said direct talks with the Islamic Republic have practical benefits that are in Israel’s interest.

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” Obama said, explaining the distinction. “They obviously have developed great influence within the Palestinian territories, but they do not control the apparatus of power; they are not legitimately recognized as a state. They do not have a seat in the United Nations. And so I think there is a very clear distinction; not necessarily in terms of some of the odious rhetoric that comes out of Iran’s leadership versus Hamas’ leadership. But there is a distinction in terms of their status within the international community.

Obama has frequently been taunted by his rivals for suggesting as president he’d sit down with America’s enemies without preconditions. He attempted to clarify Wednesday that he would go into meetings with Iranian leaders with a “very clear set of objectives and a very clear set of demands.”

Among those, he said he would press the country to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and stop threatening Israel.

“My interest in meeting with Iran is practical; it is not based on my assessment of who they are or my judgment about their values, but rather it is a practical assessment in terms of how we can best achieve our ultimate goal, which is an Iran that is not threatening its neighbors, is not threatening Israel, does not possess nuclear weapons, is not funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said.

“They may not agree to any one or all of those demands. But, by having made them directly, it becomes much more difficult for them, I think, to posture on the international stage and it then positions us to be able to obtain the kinds of assistance from potential allies that we need,” Obama continued.

The Illinois senator spoke as Carter is traveling in Israel ahead of meetings with top Hamas leaders, scheduled to take place Thursday and Friday in Egypt and Syria respectively. On Tuesday, Carter met with another Hamas leader, senior politician Nasser Shaer, in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

His trip has been roundly condemned by the Bush administration, U.S. lawmakers and Israeli officials.

Back in Philadelphia, Obama, who is being eyed for a possible future Carter endorsement, further discussed his views for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, saying both sides are going to have to cede ground.

*“Israelis are going to … have to concede enough territorially that you got a coherent Palestinian state, not one that is just a state in name, but one that is functional, that works,” he said.

The candidate also refused to say whether he thought Jerusalem should be divided and East Jerusalem given as a capital for a future Palestinian state.

“I believe this is a decision that has to be made by the parties, not by the United States. But let’s be clear. Israel I think has a historic claim on Jerusalem, and I think that obviously there are sacred sites in the old city that are central to, not just Judaism but also Islam and Christianity. I think it is very important for us to find a way in which all those claims are respected. And this is something that I think is very important for the parties themselves to decide on. But I believe that it is not an acceptable option for Jerusalem to be severed from Israel along the lines of the 1967 border,” he said.

Obama closed his meeting by saying he did not think his relationship with his retiring pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who among other things, has accused Israel of state-sponsored terrorism against the Palestinians, would hurt him in the general election.

**He added that he thought some of the discomfort people have about him has to do with “scurrilous e-mails,” references to his middle name, Hussein, and his race. But he said he has a long history of cooperation with the Jewish community.

“My links to the Jewish community are not political. They preceded my entry into politics,” adding that he’d been influenced by liberal Jewish writers, philosophers and friends.

“There is a kinship and a sense of shared community that predates my political career and will extend beyond this particular election. Know that I will be there for you, just as I believe that you will be there for me,” he said.

*The response from several in the crowd was warm, with Pennsylvania state Rep. Josh Shapiro, an Obama supporter, saying that he thought Obama had adequately responded to issues that concern the Jewish community.

However, Hillary Clinton supporter Nancy Gordon, who chairs the Philadelphia chapter of the Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs, a Jewish organization, said she was not satisfied with Obama’s claims that he hadn’t been aware of Wright’s sermon just after Sept. 11, 2001, in which Wright said the terror attack on the U.S. was an example of the “chickens coming home to roost.”

Gordon said Clinton had her backing because “her commitment to the Jewish community has been steadfast and knowledgeable. His experience on these issues does not compare to hers. You could tell that this is not as much in his core as he says it is.”

*Gee, I dunno, just those two emphasized by me, seem just a damn tad apart. Ahhh, not to worry, Left Wing Jews…help vote him in. I mean, what the hell, it’s Isarel first, THEN the U.S.

**“scurrilous e-mails,” references to his middle name, Hussein, and his race.

Come on Barack Hussein Obama! Hussein IS your “middle name” and you ARE half Black, but ONLY when it suits you, obviously.

Fox News

Posted in Obama. 2 Comments »

Obama Damaged, but Still Favored after “Bitter” Comment


Supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) privately admit that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination could end for her-in defeat-before the June windup of primary elections. At least one poll shows her losing the Indiana primary May 6 that she has been expected to win, and a loss there probably would be curtains for her.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) appears to be weathering the furor over his radical pastor and his remarks about bitter small town residents as far as the race with Clinton is concerned, but the general election will be a different story. Independent Republican attacks will return to those items repeatedly.

Democrats will be equally relentless in identifying McCain as “Bush III”-the third term of President George W. Bush. The theme will be that the “old” McCain of 2000-independent and anti-Bush-has been replaced by a Bush clone. McCain’s reversal of his opposition to the Bush tax cuts–just what has made him palatable to conservative–will be turned against him repeatedly.

While McCain’s newly revealed economic program is assailed as “Bush Lite,” it contains many departures including the plan to give taxpayers the option of staying with the present system or supporting a flat tax (the plan pushed in Congress by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee).

Another non-Bush position was this week’s unexpected endorsement by McCain of a journalist shield law protecting them from giving up sources. It is strongly opposed by Bush.

McCain is a long way from picking a vice president, but it can be safely said that two widely mentioned prospects are very unlikely to be selected at this point: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Democratic Presidential

Obama: Obama made a serious misstep with his remark that small-town voters in Pennsylvania “cling” to guns, protectionism, bigotry, and religion “as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The comment damages Obama because it so perfectly fits the Obama stereotype. Obama is a Harvard-educated liberal with a mostly wealthy liberal base. The candidate of Jackson Hole, Boulder, Fairfax, and Connecticut, he has struggled to connect with working-class voters. The venue– a fundraiser in San Francisco–is icing on the cake.

Clinton’s attack on this line has been fair on the point that this perpetuates the perception of Democrats as anti-gun, anti-religion, wealthy elites. The loss of the God and guns vote explains the GOP takeover of the South in the past decade.

His inclusion of immigration and trade in the comments are also telling. Elites in both parties have long favored open borders and free trade (globalization), while popular sentiment tends to favor immigration and trade restrictions (protectionism). Obama and Clinton have both been trying to walk fine lines on these issues, and Obama’s comments stir the pot.

Obama’s comments, while reflecting condescension and poor political sense, also reflect some truth. NAFTA and Mexican immigrants are the culprits of first resort for laid-off Midwest workers, who also tend to be negative about the economy. Tying their gun-ownership and faith to this “bitterness” and “frustration” is simply ignorant and offensive.

Hillary’s aggressive exploitation of this comment contrasts her passive response to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos, letting Republicans and the news media do the attacking for her. The Wright flap damaged Obama, but he seemed to recover, as far as the race for President is concerned. This time, she is attacking, airing television ads in Pennsylvania about the comments.

The more acute question is whether this could help swing the nomination to Clinton. It could. The comments hurt Obama in Pennsylvania, and could pad Clinton’s margin of victory there.

The incident, by contrast, brings to light how skilled a politician Obama is. To get to this point–the brink of the nomination–he has had to walk a very fine line. Obama has appealed to hard-core liberals without sounding the bitter tones of the anti-war, anti-Bush protestors, and (until now) not showing disdain for middle-Americans.

Clinton: Clinton is still the underdog, but she shows no signs of giving up. As long as she has a small chance of winning the nomination, she will keep fighting.

Her strongest chance is to win the nation-wide popular vote–a difficult feat that requires a big victory in Pennsylvania next week. If she gets more votes nationwide than Obama, she has as strong an argument to super-delegates as Obama does.

On the score of persuading super-delegates, Clinton has some serious advantages over Obama. First, being a former first-lady and professional dealer in patronage, she will be stronger at offering sweet deals and making believable threats. Second, the Wright and “bitter” flaps have strengthened her case that Obama is less electable than she.

Her “firing” of strategist Mark Penn was no such thing, it appears. The campaign has spread word that pollster Geoff Garin, renowned among Democrats as an ethical operator, is now the chief strategist. Garin’s role may certainly be overemphasized as a mask for Penn’s continued involvement, which the campaign wants to downplay after his active involvement in the Colombia Free Trade Agreement was revealed.

Central to this situation is the huge debts her campaign owes Penn’s polling firm. One close source posits she owes the firm $10 million. If the debt is not repaid, is this an illegal campaign contribution? Because the firm is ultimately owned by a British company, is this an illegal foreign contribution? March campaign reports show that she owes nearly 2.5 million to Penn’s company.

In the Gallup tracking poll, Clinton hit her all-time low Tuesday, posting 40% support to Obama’s 51%. This is a national poll, and so it has little direct bearing on the nomination battle, but it makes a Clinton comeback looks still not difficult.

The talk of an Obama comeback in Pennsylvania is premature. The only poll showing the race close (Bloomberg/LA Times) is of registered voters. The likely voter polls show 9-to-14 point leads for Hillary.

It’s a similar story in Indiana: Clinton leads by double digits in a poll of 571 likely voters, while Obama leads in the Bloomberg/LA Times of registered voters. Clinton is still the heavy favorite in both of these states.

Republican Presidential

McCain’s Economic Plan: McCain unfurled his economic plan this week, throwing bones to conservative activists, but certainly not sounding a pure free-market tone.

His speech Tuesday night hit a variety of different themes, but the overriding tone was one of compassion and almost populism: he argued for an economics interested in more than “simply running the numbers,” blamed “the excesses of traders and speculators” for the current troubles, and excoriated the “extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs.”

He focused some fire on the Democratic presidential contenders, too. He hit Obama and Clinton as tax-hiking, protectionist, class-warfare-inciting, fiscally irresponsible, porkers.

His third target was the broad culture of corruption in Washington, including his own party, and to a lesser extent his own President. He criticized the “poor planning of politicians,” and attacked Congress for “squandering” money on pork. McCain criticized the GOP for becoming “indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose.” He also implicitly criticized Bush for not vetoing wasteful spending.

On the policy front, his platform was a similarly mixed bag, with proposals ranging from new welfare programs to flat-taxes and subsidy-abolition. On the whole, it resembled Bush economics: generally free-market, but certainly not libertarian.

His housing-crisis proposal was far more modest than any from the Democrats, but it is a government bailout nonetheless.

McCain’s boldest free-market proposal was his suggestion that subsidies be abolished for ethanol and sugar. He was a hard-line free-trader, throughout, attacking Obama and Clinton for their protectionist stances.

His proposals, on the whole, were not terribly bold or realistically attainable in a Democrat-controlled Congress. Politically, the most appealing ideas were a summer moratorium on the gasoline tax and a plan to reduce Medicare premiums.

He repeatedly and forcefully hit government spending. This is the issue that gives him the sharpest contrast with Hillary and with Washington broadly. It is also his strong point with conservatives and one of his strong points with the media. Expect him to hammer away at this theme until November.

Evans-Novak Political Report®

Political Correctness Is Going Too Far

Way, way, way too far.

‘The Boss’ Says He’ll Rock Vote for Obama

WASHINGTON — Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, saying “he speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years.”

In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo “the terrible damage done over the past eight years.”

“He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president,” the letter said. “He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where ‘…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.’ ”

The bard of New Jersey is known for his lyrics about the struggles of working-class Americans, particularly in the economically ravaged factory towns of the Northeast.

Springsteen and his E Street band were part of the Vote or Change tour, a coalition of musicians opposed to the re-election of President Bush in 2004. He wrote the anti-war ballad “Devils and Dust” about Iraq.

Springsteen did not directly mention Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, in his letter, but appeared to take issue with her recent criticisms of comments made by Obama about working-class voters in small towns in Pennsylvania and controversial statements by his pastor.

“Critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships,” Springsteen wrote. “While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man’s life and vision … often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.”

Fox News

Bruce, do you mean the “past 35 years” that made you a millionaire? Like, what if Hussein takes all your god damn, stand there with a friggin’ guitar money and gives it all away for the “real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.”?

You see Bruce, the very first word after “real issues:” is “war“. Using that word, indicates that you are a dumb bastard, who lucked out making money. Not a thinker.

Your words are eloquent, but you are still, one dumb cluck. Have you ever read the “Constitution”, Clucksteen?

Sounds to me, that you were just lucky enough to be “Born In The U.S.A.” Made money and turned elitist, in ignorance and stupidty.

Try the drive-thru. Better yet, why don’t we just snatch Sadr, tie him to a post until he rots away. Same for the Persians, that assist him. Courtesy of a friend.

Posted in Iraq. 1 Comment »

When Machines Lose- When Ash Wins? OH, Courtesy of J.M. titled exactly that way. Hmmmmm.

My last laptop looked that way, J.M. OK, I lied…mine, was a tad worse.

Posted in Funny. 5 Comments »

Ordering Pizza, in the near future

Future Pizza

Posted in Food, WTF. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

The U.S. Government goes all out. Instead of allowing drilling in new areas, which means getting rid of IDIOTS, we just print different money. Courtesy of a friend.

Posted in USA. 1 Comment »

Ta Da

More later, if I feel like fighting the damn traffic in Pigeon Forge, TN. Friday.

One more to come. (after this one, that is) Jesus, I’m tickled shitless. It worked.

Posted in Cars. 1 Comment »

Restored Cars…Sorry Paco, didn’t see any Packard’s. But hey, the real full blown show, won’t be here until Friday.

Sorry about the finger, in the way. At least I think it’s a finger.

God Damn…I did it (I think). Got my first Picture of this areas first car show, out of my little friggin’ phone. Now all I gotta’ do is get the rest after putting it back together.

Posted in Cars. Tags: . 10 Comments »

Proof Positive that Lawyers are Amoral Shit, Spat out of Hell

I dare you – I fucking dare you – to read this, and come to any conclusion other than that Shakespeare was right when he said, through his surrogate character, “Dick the Butcher” in Henry VI part 2, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” No utopia is possible so long as a single lawyer sucks air.

“This is a story about an innocent man who has been in prison for 26 years while two attorneys who knew he was innocent stayed silent. They did so because they felt they had no choice.”

Think about that! These two shysters knew an innocent man was rotting his life away in fucking prison and they stayed silent about it.

“Now new evidence reveals that Logan did not commit that murder. But as correspondent Bob Simon reports, the evidence was not new to those two attorneys, who knew it all along but say they couldn’t speak out until now.”

Couldn’t speak out? NO!!! WOULDN’T speak out: They willed not to speak, they were not prevented from doing so. Sub-human bastards.

“Attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz knew Logan had good reason to think that, because they knew he was innocent. And they knew that because their client, Andrew Wilson, who they were defending for killing two policemen, confessed to them that he had also killed the security guard at McDonald’s – the crime Logan was charged with committing.”

Is that clear enough? These two scum-sucking, maggot-out-of-hell shysters knew this man didn’t commit the crime, and they also knew exactly who did. So what did they do? They let the poor guy spend half of his life in prison. How, ex-fucking-zactly is that not pure, unmitigated evil? It is, in thought, word, and deed, evil, which is my point: Lawyers are intrinsically evil slime who ought to be treated as the second-class scum that they, in fact, are. If it was up to me, they would all have a scarlet “L” tattooed on their foreheads so they could be instantly recognized for the losers that they are.

Get ready – brace for it – here it comes: A shyster thoroughly indoctrinated and brainwashed by the relativistic shit-sea that is wrongly-so-called a “law school” explains:

“Well, the vast majority of the public apparently believes that, but if you check with attorneys or ethics committees or you know anybody who knows the rules of conduct for attorneys, it’s very, very clear-it’s not morally clear-but we’re in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It’s just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn’t work without it,” Coventry explained.”

Get the kicker there: ” – it’s not morally clear – “?

What. the. fucking. FUCK?!?!?! I guess I’m just a simple musical genius, but that situation is perfectly morally clear to me: You tell the judge, you lose your job, and you go on to do something that doesn’t involve ripping people off and fucking them in the ass! The innocent man goes free, and you end up happier all around in the long run, and you might not end up in hell with every other shyster who ever wasted a lifetime turning perfectly good oxygen into carbon dioxide, perfectly good water into piss, and perfectly good food into shit.

That’s right, these stinking yeast-infected gashes weren’t risking jail or anything, they would have just lost their miserable, dishonorable jobs. So, to save their positions in the least honorable profession mankind has ever developed or even conceived of… they let an innocent man rot in prison. Any crack whore would have made a more honorable choice.

And, we let these evil piles of relativistic excrement make the law and judge the law: How is that not insane? Shysters should be limited to the adversarial part of the process, where their evil is actually necessary. No lawyer is qualified to be a judge or legislator due to their inherant evil, never mind the conflicts of interest.

If you took as a strategy the, “kill them all and let God sort them out” tactic with lawyers, God would have exactly no work to do. Lawyers are the very lowest of all human forms of life. At least pathological criminals have a pathology to explain their behavior; lawyers are just plain evil.

I hope the Lord has long, slow, lingering, miserable deaths in store for these two abject fucks.


%d bloggers like this: