The Thomas Chronicles

He agrees that immigrants should speak English. Plus. He thinks that our kids should speak Spanish. Equals. Schizophrenic European Spanglish America.

Can you parlez-vous Espanol?

“He stole the election!”

Probably one of the most vehement accusations against the Bush Presidency these past seven years is that the wasn’t a legitimate President. In the 200 election, they accused President Bush of stealing the election with legal chicanery. They said, and still say, that he “won” or “stole” the election with judicial decision and not by the popular will of the people, which made him a sham of a president. As evidence to this, they point out that Al Gore received more of the popular vote than President Bush (a point that was untrue then as it is untrue now, but that’s beside the point).

The Left was disgruntled and antagonistic, but they left well enough alone at least temporarily, not in thought and word but in deed because President Bush seemed such a dunce, a lightweight, a kicker cowboy well out of his depths. In the aftermath of 9/11, however, they were proven very wrong.

It was around this point, the point at which the Left discovered that President Bush wasn’t a bumbling nincompoop that they actively attempted to castrate and discredit his administration by unendless accusations and perpetual negative campaigning (compliments of George Soros and the Leftists.).

So, as to this Democratic Primary, where are the outcries of injustice? Where are all the denouncements of foul play, chicanery and lies, lies, lies?

What I am referring to, you might ask?

It is simply this. Hillary Clinton received more votes than Obama. She has won more states than Obama. The states that Obama won were oftentimes caucus states that lock out the general public voting. So, when all’s said and done, it’s Hillary that has more claim to the Democratic nomination than Obama.

But Hillary Clinton will concede the election this week because she doesn’t have the delegates, superdelegates and the love of the Leftists— and she certainly doesn’t have the support of Soros who’s ditched her for Obama. Anyone ever wonder where Obama’s endless millions comes from?

Well, someone should be posing the question, and I hope it’s just not me.

Is it not interesting that US media, which has been universally acknowledge as being anti-military, anti-troops and anti-American for decades now, are backing Obama. More than backing actually. It is not the typical and historical American attitude toward politicians and Presidents, that we are voting for the lesser of two evils. Our media are in fawning rapturous support of him, so much so it’s embarrassing.

The one that immediately comes to mind is Chris Matthews describing his reaction to one of Obama’s speech as a tingling “thrill going up my leg.”

An rabid anti-American media passionately in love with Barack Obama… Doesn’t that just about say it all?

Hello. This is a friendly update from Obamaland. Please refrain from wild outbursts and head-scratching as content might confuse or bewilder commonsensical people. Reader discretion is advised.

Speaking to veterans in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Obama said:

“I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps and the story in our family is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn’t leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” he said.

The problem is that his mother was an only child, meaning, he didn’t have an uncle.

What’s more, the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. Unless Obama had a far removed Russian uncle who fought in World War II with the Soviets, this is just plain weird.

Kind of sounds like Hillary’s nonexistent sniper fire in Bosnia if you ask me.

… But then this might be cleared up with the practiced doublespeak from the Obama camp, or the practiced doublethink some of his supporters. (No, I don’t know if that is true.)

Mini Update 5/27/08:

Why do people insist on referring to lies conducted by politicians as “gaffes“? They’re lies, not pigtailed school girls committing faux pas in polite society and laughing with their hands over their mouths. They are grown adults wanting (or threatening) to lead 300 million people, and if these folks habitually invent histories out of thin air, we have cause for worry.

This. Is. Obscene.

Never before in the history of our great country have we seen such adoration for a politician. One might almost expect votive candles lit up at intervals throughout the crowd with heads and bodies prostrate atop praying mats.

He’s above reproach. He cannot be questioned. He will force you to change whether you want to or not.

Now, I am truly scared. God help us…

Obama was quoted on Drudge saying, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

How much you want to bet his mansion, his car and his offices will be kept cool all summer long? If Obama is so sincere in his global warming schtick, he should lead by example, as should Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. C’mon, show us Barack Obama how it is done.

Until such a time as Obama would be walking instead of driving, and driving instead of flying, he should enact real change and switch the “WE” in his speeches into “YOU“.

The video I posted in my previous post shows a clearly disturbed and meloncholy Barack Obama. Even though he still exuded his usual easy confident mannerisms, he was much more abrupt, even sharp in his statements.

I was wrong in my original post on this subject. I think Obama did for once unequivocally denounce the Rev. Wright’s statements and denounce his views on America. One might say that Obama’s vehemence was even an overreaction. As one person described the event, “Obama threw Wright under the train, let him roll around for a little bit, and then jumped atop him like mash potatoes.” Well, uh… that sounds about right.

I actually feel sorry for Obama and this whole controversy. He seemed genuinely hurt emotionally by Rev. Wright’s vitriolic rants at the NPC. Not because of what Wright actually said, but because Obama reacted as though he’s been personally betrayed.

Let us be clear here. Obama didn’t denounce Wright out of a sense of moral outrage. He denounced him because Wright’s actions didn’t allow him to do anything else.

Charles Krauthammer gives this opinion about the whole hoopla:

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright’s latest comments — Obama cited three in particular — were so shockingly “divisive and destructive” that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama’s three citations? Wright’s claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American “terrorism.”

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright’s words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them — live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama’s Philadelphia pretense that this “endless loop” of sermon excerpts being shown on “television sets and YouTube” had been taken out of context.

Obama’s Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright’s remarks: “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright’s outrages. But hadn’t Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America’s history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama’s own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright’s racist rants.

Regarding Rev. Wright, I’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he must really believe at least some of that rubbish Wright says. Wright’s comments, which have circulated the world via the internet, and his outlandish statements at the National Press Club, is nothing new. It’s been what Wright has preach for about thirty years and it is in perfect accord with Black Liberation Theology and the Black Value System, which is the professed ideology of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

The alternative to this is much worse.

Faced with the alternative I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he actually believes at least some of Rev. Wright’s radical views. The alternative to this is that Obama sat in that congregation for 20 years, gave tens of thousands of dollars to that church, and knowingly corrupted his children simply because he wanted to get ahead in politics.

One makes him a misguided man who believes in an inherently racist ideology. To other makes him an amoral opportunist who would do anything to be President. He’s already exposed his daughters to Wright’s vitriol, which could possibly poison their views for a long time to come; he has thrown his white grandmother under the train and belittled her as “typical white person” who’s really racist at heart; and now he’s thrown Wright under the train.

Far better if he actually believes in Wright’s ideology rather than being a an amoral user tearing through the lives of others.

Even with all my doubts of Obama, I don’t think Obama’s supporters should be derided either. There is a genuine hunger for bipartisanship. For the past seven years, the Democrats and the Republicans have conducted a very visible sumo wrestling match that made both of sides appear like whining children throwing tantrums.

Into this void of severe dissatisfaction with our government steps Barack Obama, who promises to brush aside all this bickering. He proposes that we work together instead of working against each other.

In a word, he is proposing a peace. Or at least a truce.

It is not surprising thing, then, that people are responsive to this basic message and platitudes, even though, unfortunately, Obama’s done more belittling of his opponents and has done more to silence opposition than any candidate thus far. It seems that his definition of bipartisanship is to do things his way and no other. (Note: He has not draft one single bipartisan piece of legislation. His invariable liberal voting record speaks for itself.)

With this said, however, his supporters shouldn’t be faulted for their support. They too want peace and an end to two party sumo wrestling match.

In fact, I do too. I just don’t think Obama’s the ticket for achieving that end.

If you haven’t seen Obama’s press conference where he vehemently denounced Rev. Wright, I can assure you it is worth the watch. So, I’ve taken the liberty of posting the press conference in full today.

I will discuss this further in my next post.