Anti Obama Websites
Here is a list of the best "anti Obama" websites.
Sections
Recent Comments
- MCCAINSUX on CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBAMA
- MCCAIN SUX on CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBAMA
- Little Richardjohn on CONGRATULATIONS TO BARACK OBAMA
- Trotsky on What Do We Know About Obama?
- Therese Daniels on Anti Obama Websites
- liberty on What Do We Know About Obama?
- John on Hypocrisy from the Left?
- Ohhhbama on Hypocrisy from the Left?
- Rick on Anti Obama Bumper Stickers
- matt on Don't Go Away
LEO C. DONOFRIO v. NINA MITCHELL WELLS, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY - US Supreme Court Docket # 08A407 - continues to be subjected to misconduct by the US Supreme Court Clerk’s office, particularly by Mr. Danny Bickell, the Stay Clerk.
No. 08-570 Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al
October 31, 2008
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (08-4340)
Dear Honorable Justices of the United States Supreme Court,
You are facing one of the most unique and historical challenges to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not since the Civil War of 1861 has there been an issue of such vital importance to the future safety of United States of America.
"America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship..."
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Though Berg is a rule on “standing”, it is vital that “standing” be established so the true heart of the matter be settled once and for all. Beneath the stack of technicalities there is but one issue and only one issue to determine. Is or is not Barack Hussein Mohamed Sotoero Obama eligible to be president under the Constitution as it is written?
Right now the whole world is focusing upon you, The Supreme Court of the United States, who are the guardians of the our Beloved Constitution and the protectors of American rules of law that separate us from chaos and tyranny. The world is wondering if you will have the courage to do what is right. It fears you will crumble under the pressures of public opinion, hollow “racist” accusations, fear of race riots threats, invisible intimidators and deal makers, or accusations of failure to respect the will of the people since Obama was elected by the people. (Everyone knows only 25% of the people voted for Obama. He was elected by a minority.)
The American public has been witnessing distortion of justice in the courts for years and suspects it will soon witness one more travesty of justice. The public’s silent fear is that Obama is not eligible to president but will be become president because The supreme court will fail to hold him accountable through a technicality like “standing”. Imagine a usurper becomes the president of the United States is permitted to remain so because no one in America has “standing” to make the man accountable in the courts of law. It this becomes so, then what good is Article II in the Constitution?
It is believed the Supreme court will conspire with those who have vested interests in Obama to manipulate or convolute the articles of the Constitution in such a way it will legitimize a usurper to the Presidency. The whole world knows beyond a shadow of a doubt Obama is not a “natural born citizen.” If Obama slips through the net of these lawsuits and takes the oath of Presidency, the whole world will know the Constitution of the United States and its holy guardians have failed the American people. Our Constitutional Guardians will have rendered our precious constitution impotent and opened the gates to the most pernicious form of tyranny-- that which disguises itself as a benefactor to its victims. The Presidency of the United States is merely a commodity. The hour of your choice is crisis of our history.
This is not about Obama. This is about the hope and future of America. This case asks far more profound questions than whether or not Obama is a citizen. This is the crisis of Constitutional history. Though issues are different, the significance is equal in challenge to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. When Lincoln was preparing America for the idea slavery would be abolished in all states, seven states seceded from the union. The civil war was to save the union. I often think about how painful that must have been for Mr. Lincoln. I am in awe at his courage and vision. The Emancipation Proclamation changed history for the better. Obama’s case is about upholding, protecting, defending and saving the integrity of the Constitution. This is the case that will change America as we have known once, for all, and forever. This time, if the Supreme court fails to act on the side of the Constitution, it will be a change for the worse.
Time is of the essence.
May you do right for America.
____________________________
museumofinnocence.blogspot.com
blogtallkradio.com/vos
Posted by: Therese Daniels | November 18, 2008 at 03:36 AM
You thought the Bus administration caused us grief
This man (Obama) in there is a huge mistake- I
talk to smart conservative people who teach Political Science- This is a mess. Why did they want this man in ? What is in the minds of Americans?
Posted by: Ms Williams | November 16, 2008 at 06:33 PM
At the end of the posted blog "We will soon be facing the death of America", information is given regarding of planned march organized by API. I obtained that information from their web site. Since then I have been informed it is not a very reliable site and to take the information they present with more than one grain of salt. Today I went to learn if there was any more information on the site regarding the alleged march. According to Word Press the site has been disconnected. I am so sorry for any misinformation I have given regarding this.
Posted by: Therese Daniels | November 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Claire, I know a lot of Doctors who dread having an NHS-type system. Get ready to wait for up to 6 hours for an appointment because the emergency room is filled with people waiting to be treated on the NHS. I once sat next to a seat that had a pool of blood on it for 3 hours--noone bothered to clean it up because the underpaid staff were too busy and this was considered one of the better NHS hospitals!
Oh yeah, the elderly (which we will all be someday) are the LAST in line for any treatment. It's appalling the level of care the elderly get under NHS. You see, because the NHS is all cost driven, keeping the elderly alive is not cost effective. Many times these poor elderly folk get only a pain reliever and some very basic care and are left to die. This is not scaremongering. Once again, this is fact.
Posted by: liberty | November 14, 2008 at 06:37 AM
All Anti-Nobama Patriots, Join the Resistance Now!!
http://www.grassfire.org/111/petition.asp?PID=18731534#J1
Posted by: ProUSA | November 14, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Liberty, I could not have worded it better myself. I am an RN BSN(yeah you know, us uneducated conservative rednecks!) who has been horrified at the prospect of NHS.
I worked with nurses from England, Canada, and Austraila years ago when I lived in New Orleans. I often asked why they had come to the US to practice nursing. Their overwhelming reply was always that NHS made conditions unbearable to work in , and they came to the US b/c it was so much better here.
I was flabbergasted when the ANA(American Association of Nurses) endorsed Obama.
Many conservative nurses were outraged .
Although NHS is one of my many concerns. Like you, I don't see the fairness of breaking my back so someone who doesn't choose to do so, gets half of my paycheck!
As a nurse, I work hard and do some things that are physically and emotionally draining. Why should someone who chosses to "live on the dole" benefit from my hard work?
I also find it creepy at how mesmerized Obama supporters seem to be.
Comedians such as Bill Maher have already said they find nothing to really make fun of him with. He's just too cool. Those were his exact words.
Posted by: Claire Kruszka | November 13, 2008 at 06:17 PM
Did someone say Iran contra?
Posted by: Ozcar | November 13, 2008 at 05:52 PM
Didn't Clinton let the Chinese see plans for some weapons near the end of his administration? It was all over the papers as I recall. Didn't Clinton also get a substantial amount of donations through bogus Chinese donors? Didn't Clinton, arguably as a result, allow China most favored trading partner status even though it flew directly in the face of US policy to never trade with a communist country like cuba for instance? We are seeing the results of those problem decisions right now.
These are facts.
This is why transparency in donations is vital to national security. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be all those laws that say it is. :-)
So please don't tell me things like sharing top secret info or donation payback doesn't happen. It does.
You might think I sound "afraid." But you sound naive to me...
Posted by: liberty | November 13, 2008 at 05:02 PM
ProUSA - you gave no proof. I have heard all that stuff you copied and pasted from Hannity's personal diary and I have not heard or read any of this "proof" you talk about. Just questions like "if he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he open his records?" "Why doesn't Obama explain his relationship with Ayers?" You know what, he did explain it. Here's the transcript:
"In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Senator McCain's campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let's get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.
Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan's former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.
Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican-leaning newspaper.
Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House."
Now, if you buy the stuff you're being fed, that is fine but my question remains: even if Obama did have chats with radicals, does that mean that Obama shares their radical views?
Liberty, I am happy you don't fear Obama. But you say he may "hand over weapons designs to countries that don't particularly like the US"?? That sounds frightened to me. Do you honestly think he would do that? Honestly? Or are you just "putting it out there"?
Posted by: Ozcar | November 13, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Ozcar, you really must stop watching MSNBC for all your news. Do you really think Ayers and Khaladi are flimsy associations? Both associations go back years and on many occasions. They sat at the same tables at parties. They went to eachother's houses. This does not amount to a flimsy association. They were friends. Why can't you admit it? No it doesn't make Obama a radical...but why did he deny then obscure questions about both these guys? Why can't the guy just give people a straight answer. Oh, I forgot, he said anything to win the election. My bad.
Didn't Ayers write an endorsement for Obama's book or vice versa? I'm a writer and I would only accept people I admire or who had a similar world view to me if I recieved an endorsement from them. When you write a book, it becomes like a baby to you--you don't just publish anyone's endorsement on the cover of your book. This is a no-brainer even though, once again, it's been watered down by the press.
You said, "As a reason to be afraid of Obama, right? You have a fear he could be anti-american too, yes? So, if he spends the next couple of years doing good for this country and proves that these radicals haven't influenced him in the ways you say they have, will you give him a chance in 2012?"
What if he doesn't? You are assuming that Obama is going to be all sweetness and light. What if he isn't? If he isn't, he could hypothetically, hand over weapons designs to countries that don't particularly like the US--maybe he has packback for some of that $600,000, 000.
Please do not be naive to think that this is NOT how it works in politics. This is EXACTLY how it works in politics..why do you think there are so many special interest groups?
Once again, we come back to transparency BEFORE the election. The American people had a RIGHT to see where Obama's funds were coming from so we could judge the man on his associations. So excuse us if some of us don't trust a politician who has not been forthcoming at all about anything, really.
Please. Stop with the fear thing. No one is afraid of Barrack Obama--lack trust him, sure, but fear--come on.
Posted by: liberty | November 13, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Ozcar, you are so very typical of the liberal left. Ask for specifics, ask for proof and when it's presented, dismiss and disparage it and/or the messenger.
You disingenuous pleas for understanding and the chance for Obama to earn our respect are insulting. Please stop. You're making yourself look silly at this point. We can think for ourselves and make our own conclusions. Until our thoughts are mandated by the government and free speech and thought are outlawed, we should be able to speak our minds without any complaints or insults from the likes of you.
Posted by: ProUSA | November 13, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Hey Obama, why don't you fill out your OWN questionnaire? !
This cracks me up--The Elusive ONE is requiring his staff to fill out a questionnaire before he hires them. NOW, he wants transparency--where was HIS transparency during the election. I still don't know diddly squat about who he is...
Read the questionnaire here -
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/13/obama.questionairre.pdf
Obama Puhlese!
Posted by: liberty | November 13, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Sorry for the delay, ProUSA, I got work to do.
Truth? Please spare me. Copying and pasting from a far right blog is not truth. Get some perspective, man. The reason these flimsy connections were concocted was to keep Obama from winning the election. Just as Kerry, the war hero, was painted to be anti-american somehow and McCain was accused of fathering an illegitimate black child. Ridiculous. But it is too late. These conversations are meaningless now. They were also judged to be meaningless during the last year or so which is why Obama won. People didn't buy it this time.
You may not understand this but not everyone is one note. Some people are complex. The smartest people in the world may have some radical ideas. That doesn't mean all they believe is radical. It doesn't mean they don't have some perspective. The world is not as easy as an action film - with the "bad guys'" scarred faces and crazy leather. I am sure you have known someone, maybe even a family member, who has said some ignorant, possibly racist things. But it doesn't mean those people are all bad. It is easy to take one statement from someone and make him the devil. My own grandfather would be accused as such if I took 5 carefully selected quotes and told you nothing more about the man.
Now, you bring up these connections for what reason? As a reason to be afraid of Obama, right? You have a fear he could be anti-american too, yes? So, if he spends the next couple of years doing good for this country and proves that these radicals haven't influenced him in the ways you say they have, will you give him a chance in 2012? Not that you have to vote for him but at least defend him against the attacks like yours?
Okay. On to your post...
Farrakhan and Khadafi?? Thanks for the history lesson. You forgot to mention Genghis Khan. He inhabited central Asia and I think Barack went there for a Summer during college. But you won't hear about it in the liberal media. Does he have something to hide?
Wright. I already talked about him. But since you are so interested in him, attend his church for a couple months and really listen to what he says. You will find that the 5 20-second clips ripped out of context over a 20 year span are far from his weekly message. Afraid you might learn something or become an elitist or anti-american yourself?
Khalidi? You should stop only reading right wing nut-job posts about some video that may or may not exist. First, the connection between Prez Elect and Khalidi is weak. Because they had discussions about the Middle East, even if it is from the perspective opposite of our ally, is not cause for accusing Obama of having an anti-israeli agenda. Again, whether you and Bush believe it or not, it is important to understand an opposing view from your own. The world is not black and white, good vs. evil. Khalidi is a Palestinian and he doesn't like what Isreal is doing. Is that hard to understand? The rights have accused this professor at Columbia University (Elitists!!) of everything from anti-Semitism to baby-sitting for Mr. Obama’s children. According the the New York Times, "In 2004, pro-Palestinian professors were accused of intimidating Jewish students. Mr. Khalidi was NOT ONE OF THOSE TEACHERS, but he was barred the next year from lecturing New York City public school teachers for having used the words “racist” and “apartheid” in discussions of Israel." And he never baby sat for the Obamas. But all that aside, Obama's conversations with a Palestinian radical doesn't make him a radical too. It's not like the flu.
Rezko? Seriously? Hasn't that weak connection been squashed too? Rezko had a company to improve living conditions for the poor, as you admit, then the company collapsed? And that is Obama's fault? Please.
Oh yeah, Ayers. Another flimsy connection.
So, let's tally the score... 3 flimsy connections, 2 zero connections and 1 complex preacher. Is that all you got? You asked if I wanted more. Please try to quote a reputable rag this time.
Posted by: Ozcar | November 13, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Ha ha ha you idiots. Obama won long live the USA God Bless blah blah he won so stfu
Posted by: Dan | November 13, 2008 at 01:10 PM
I think it's funny that Obama-who is an ultra-liberal and presumably anti-draft--wants to NOW start up his Civilian Police Force (or whatever that brown shirt-like thing is). Isn't that going to be like the draft, Mr Nobama? Huh? If it's mandaotry (like the draft) it will be...but that's okay then?
And my guess is people will somehow rationalize this horrible idea as be "the kind of change we need."
I do realize it is tough to admit to being brainwashed so I have some compassion for the Obama supporters.
Posted by: liberty | November 13, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Thought so. Another one bites the dust.
Truth. The only known antidote to Nobama fever.
Have a good life Ozcar. Try not to let the truth get you down...
Posted by: ProUSA | November 13, 2008 at 09:40 AM
Quote from Ozcar:
"As in Draft Dodger."
I thought that's what you were going to say.
George W. Bush served 6 years in the National Guard of Texas and Alabama. The US Department of Defense released all the records of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service in June 2005.
(we can't even get the state of Hawaii to release Obama's birth records!!)
But if we want to talk about suspicious arrangements during the Vietnam War, how about your guy Bill? I share here excerpts from his letter written from hiding in England in 1969 to the head the ROTC Program at the U. of Arkansas:
"First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been...
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity."
That's what a draft dodger sounds like...at least Bush never praised draft resisters as "brave"...which is pretty rich coming from a coward.
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Quote from Ozcar:
"Who, Ayers? That is a flimsy connection and you know it. Who are these terrorist you talk about? Be specific and explain why you consider them terrorists and what exactly their connection with Obama is or was."
Lessee, where do I begin...?
How about we go in alphabetical terrorist order?
A for Ayers: In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.
“Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School. “If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”
F for Farrakhan: Farrakhan is, of course, one of the world's leading anti-Semites, an admirer of Adolf Hitler even. His newspaper, The Final Call, is openly anti-Semitic. His hate speech has paid off, though — big time. In 1985, Khadaffi presented Farrakhan with a $5-million-dollar loan. In 1996, after a tour of the Middle East, Farrakhan announced that he had received a Khadaffi pledge of $1 billion. One has to wonder how much of that billion has been delivered to the Nation of Islam. Maybe it's been spent on travel instead: In 2002, Farrakhan visited Baghdad, where he was quoted declaring that "the Muslim American people are praying to the almighty God to grant victory to Iraq." "Farrakhan has even described Judaism as a "dirty religion."
K for Khadaffi: see F is for Farrakhan.
K for Khalidi: Characterizing Israel as a "racist" state that is "basically an apartheid system in creation," Khalidi claims that the Israeli army is in possession of "awful weapons of mass destruction (many supplied by the U.S.) that it has used in cities, villages and refugee camps."
"...mere days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he rebuked the news media for what he termed their exaggerated "hysteria about suicide bombers."
Khalidi is a longtime friend of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. In the 1990s, Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi's Chicago home. During the 2000 election cycle, Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi organized a fundraiser for Barack Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, while Mr. Obama served on its board, made grants totaling $75,000 to Khalidi's Arab American Action Network. In 2003 Obama would attend a farewell party in Khalidi's honor when the latter was leaving the University of Chicago to embark on his new position at Columbia.
"In a 2008 interview, Khalidi praised Obama effusively, stating that, if elected President, Obama would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than other politicians. "He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi noted. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."
R for Rezko: Tony Rezko, a duel U.S./Syrian citizen, who had a long time connection and was financed by billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi, who was deeply involved with Saddam Hussein.
Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years. Rezko has been a political patron to Obama and many others, helping to raise millions of dollars for them through his own contributions and by hosting fund-raisers in his home.
Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many African-American families in buildings riddled with problems -- including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat, squatters and drug dealers.
W for Wright: Mark Steyn, writing in the conservative publication National Review, stated: "Reverend Wright['s] appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old."
Stanley Kurtz, writing an opinion piece in a National Review cover story on Wright, said, "Nearly every sermon Wright preaches, as well as his now-infamous bulletins and church magazines, is filled with his radicalism, and it's therefore impossible not to conclude that Obama was broadly attracted to Wright's politics."
(BEN WALLACE-WELLS, Campaign '08: The Radical Roots of Barack Obama)"This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."
Jeremiah Wright, is notorious for his crude, hate-filled, anti-white, anti-American sermons and for his praise of and associations with the likes of Louis Farrakhan (see F for Farrakhan) and Mommar Khadaffi (see K for Khadaffi). Obama actually titled his second memoir, 'Audacity Of Hate' after one of Wright's sermons. His Church put Hamas propaganda in their bulletin - and Obama ended up getting the endorsement of that very same terrorist organization."
Wright has traveled to Libya to meet with General Khadaffi and has bestowed honors on Louis Farrakhan.
Why do these associations matter for a Presidential candidate, now a President-elect? Oh, I dunno, perhaps it speaks to his character and judgment. But don't say it doesn't matter. That's kust stupid talk.
(Ed Koch) "A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a President of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America - foreign and domestic -- and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line."
Want more?
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 10:54 PM
As in Draft Dodger.
Posted by: Ozcar | November 12, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Quote from Ozcar:
"I thought Bush was the one that was so good at dodging. Oh, snap!"
Are you kidding?? You're calling Bush a dodger?? Could you please be more specific?
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 08:55 PM
But I'm always up for a "challenge" (term applied loosely).
The first of your flimsy equivocations I will take on is your reference to the Keating 5. Let it be known that McCain was one of 5 senators accused of corruption in 1989 as part of the savings & loan crisis of the 80's and 90's. McCain was the only Republican of the 5; the rest were Democrats. This might be a dubious example of his maverick nature and his proclivity for crossing the aisle as they say. This tendency to act like a duck and quack like a duck (i.e., Democrats) also explains why many conservatives, including myself, did not prefer McCain over the other Republican presidential candidates.
But you're right. He's not squeaky clean. But he's also not dirty as they come as in Obama. Even though not perfect -- never said he was -- his agenda does not include the sell out of America and most principles I hold dear. In other words, he wouldn't be trying to socialize my country, with lots of help from people like you.
Stay tuned for the next response Ozcar. You just might learn something.
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 08:26 PM
I thought Bush was the one that was so good at dodging. Oh, snap!
Posted by: Ozcar | November 12, 2008 at 08:18 PM
As a backer of Obama, you've got the audacity to accuse me of dodging...??? HA! Classic.
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 08:14 PM
"And that is because Obama is closely associated with anti-American terrorists."
Who, Ayers? That is a flimsy connection and you know it. Who are these terrorist you talk about? Be specific and explain why you consider them terrorists and what exactly their connection with Obama is or was.
While you're at it, please explain McCain's role in the Keating 5, his speaking at Falwell's Liberty University and Hagee. Not because I think these are particularly relevant but they are just as relevant as your "anti-american terrorist" nonsense.
I assume ProUSA will dodge this post as he has so many times during the last week.
Posted by: Ozcar | November 12, 2008 at 07:14 PM
Quote from Ozcar:
"As I said above, it sucks to be called an anti-american terrorist when I oppose our president. You will see what I am talking about. And I will be defending you all the way."
There's one big difference and the reason anti-Obama forces won't share your pain in being called "an anti-american terrorist" for opposing the President. And that is because Obama is closely associated with anti-American terrorists. You've actually come full circle. Now you're among the inner circle of Obama supporters. Hey! How did that happen??
Posted by: ProUSA | November 12, 2008 at 06:54 PM