In the Lionizing of the Lead Liberal, Let Us Not Forget His True Legacy


I’m not the type of person to kick someone when they’re down (despite what some in the blogosphere might think). It’s eminently more satisfying to fight them when they’re kicking and roaring. We all also know I’m thoroughly addicted to graphics in my posts and I chose these two pictures for a reason. A reminder, if you will, of the three brothers in happier times. Oh, I had my choice of “snarky” photos, but this just isn’t the time for it.

Such is the case with Senator Kennedy. I don’t care for the man or his politics. I don’t like the way he’s abused his faith. I don’t like his stand on many, many things. That being said, I am more than happy to pray for God’s grace for the man. He–and his family–have met with more than their fair share of tragedies in the past 40+ years, and they’ve been forced to live those tragedies in the public eye, something we “common folk” are spared.

This past Saturday, Senator Kennedy suffered seizures and after testing, it was discovered he has a malignant brain tumor. While this is not a tragedy along the same lines of two brothers being assassinated and a nephew killed in a plane crash, it is still a devastating diagnosis to those who receive it.

While the MSM is already on deathwatch for Senator Kennedy, the public and body politic is swooning over all the “good” he’s done during his extensive time in the House.

I beg to differ. It is fine to worry about the man. It is fine to offer condolences regarding his condition.

Let us not forget his actual legacy. His actual legacy is anything but good.

My afternoon drive time is shortened daily by listening to Savage. He has compiled a list of Kennedy’s actual votes–his TRUE legacy. I’ll print Savage’s compilation, but it can also be found here and a follow up post written by Beowulf can be found here.

Here is Senator Kennedy’s REAL legacy, his REAL record:

The Real Kennedy Record

# Ted Kennedy was a strong supporter of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act–signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson–which dramatically changed US immigration policy. This legislation replaced the Immigration Act of 1924, which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. Proponents of the 1965 bill argued immigration laws and quotas were discriminatory, and American immigration policy should accept people not on the basis of their nationality.

# Ted Kennedy has been a staunch supporter of gun control initiatives. In 2006 he was one of the 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited the confiscation of legally-possessed firearms during a disaster.

# Ted Kennedy has …opposed additional Alaska oil drilling. However, he opposes the Cape Wind wind turbine project which would occur near his home.

# Kennedy is one of only five senators who have publicly announced support for same-sex marriage.

# He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

# In 2004, Senator Kennedy cosponsored a bipartisan amendment to strengthen the ability of federal, state and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

# Senator Kennedy introduced legislation to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

# To help in the fight against AIDS, Senator Kennedy cosponsored an amendment to provide additional funding for prevention and treatment activities in Africa.

# Voted NO on recommending constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)

# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

# Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

# Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

# Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)

# Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

# Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

# Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

# Voted NO on declaring English the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)

# Voted YES on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.(May 2006)

And from Beowulf’s article here:

We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965. We cannot forget that he voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget–in spite of his illness–he has voted for late-term abortion, i.e. infanticide. We can’t forget that… His poor health does not excuse him for what he has done to our country.

No, ladies and gentlemen, he is not a hero. He is an ill, old man with a history of undermining this country and its greatness. It is not a tragedy in the normal sense of the word, or even in the sense of the way his family has suffered tragedies. It is a medical diagnosis, albeit a devastating one.

I maintain what I have said in several comment threads regarding this man at this time.
He needs to retire with his dignity and live out his years with his family. His family needs this time to adjust to this latest news and be given the time to do so privately. As a human being, he deserves human compassion as does his family.

I have to question, though–obviously he had no knowledge of this tumor and it has been around for quite some time. How many of his votes and his actions have been influenced by this tumor? How many of his decisions are now suspect because of this tumor? Had he not had the tumor, would he have voted differently, made different decisions? We may never know and we have to accept that. What we DON’T have to accept is the sudden elevation to sainthood of a very flawed human being.

May he take the time he’s been given and get his entire being in order. Not everyone gets the blessing of a “wake up call” to make things right. Hopefully, he will take advantage of his wake up call.

In the Lionizing of the Lead Liberal, Let Us Not Forget His True Legacy


I’m not the type of person to kick someone when they’re down (despite what some in the blogosphere might think). It’s eminently more satisfying to fight them when they’re kicking and roaring. We all also know I’m thoroughly addicted to graphics in my posts and I chose these two pictures for a reason. A reminder, if you will, of the three brothers in happier times. Oh, I had my choice of “snarky” photos, but this just isn’t the time for it.

Such is the case with Senator Kennedy. I don’t care for the man or his politics. I don’t like the way he’s abused his faith. I don’t like his stand on many, many things. That being said, I am more than happy to pray for God’s grace for the man. He–and his family–have met with more than their fair share of tragedies in the past 40+ years, and they’ve been forced to live those tragedies in the public eye, something we “common folk” are spared.

This past Saturday, Senator Kennedy suffered seizures and after testing, it was discovered he has a malignant brain tumor. While this is not a tragedy along the same lines of two brothers being assassinated and a nephew killed in a plane crash, it is still a devastating diagnosis to those who receive it.

While the MSM is already on deathwatch for Senator Kennedy, the public and body politic is swooning over all the “good” he’s done during his extensive time in the House.

I beg to differ. It is fine to worry about the man. It is fine to offer condolences regarding his condition.

Let us not forget his actual legacy. His actual legacy is anything but good.

My afternoon drive time is shortened daily by listening to Savage. He has compiled a list of Kennedy’s actual votes–his TRUE legacy. I’ll print Savage’s compilation, but it can also be found here and a follow up post written by Beowulf can be found here.

Here is Senator Kennedy’s REAL legacy, his REAL record:

The Real Kennedy Record

# Ted Kennedy was a strong supporter of the 1965 Hart-Celler Act–signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson–which dramatically changed US immigration policy. This legislation replaced the Immigration Act of 1924, which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. Proponents of the 1965 bill argued immigration laws and quotas were discriminatory, and American immigration policy should accept people not on the basis of their nationality.

# Ted Kennedy has been a staunch supporter of gun control initiatives. In 2006 he was one of the 16 senators who voted against the Vitter Amendment, which prohibited the confiscation of legally-possessed firearms during a disaster.

# Ted Kennedy has …opposed additional Alaska oil drilling. However, he opposes the Cape Wind wind turbine project which would occur near his home.

# Kennedy is one of only five senators who have publicly announced support for same-sex marriage.

# He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

# In 2004, Senator Kennedy cosponsored a bipartisan amendment to strengthen the ability of federal, state and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

# Senator Kennedy introduced legislation to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

# To help in the fight against AIDS, Senator Kennedy cosponsored an amendment to provide additional funding for prevention and treatment activities in Africa.

# Voted NO on recommending constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)

# Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

# Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

# Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

# Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)

# Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

# Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

# Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

# Voted NO on declaring English the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)

# Voted YES on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.(May 2006)

And from Beowulf’s article here:

We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965. We cannot forget that he voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget–in spite of his illness–he has voted for late-term abortion, i.e. infanticide. We can’t forget that… His poor health does not excuse him for what he has done to our country.

No, ladies and gentlemen, he is not a hero. He is an ill, old man with a history of undermining this country and its greatness. It is not a tragedy in the normal sense of the word, or even in the sense of the way his family has suffered tragedies. It is a medical diagnosis, albeit a devastating one.

I maintain what I have said in several comment threads regarding this man at this time.
He needs to retire with his dignity and live out his years with his family. His family needs this time to adjust to this latest news and be given the time to do so privately. As a human being, he deserves human compassion as does his family.

I have to question, though–obviously he had no knowledge of this tumor and it has been around for quite some time. How many of his votes and his actions have been influenced by this tumor? How many of his decisions are now suspect because of this tumor? Had he not had the tumor, would he have voted differently, made different decisions? We may never know and we have to accept that. What we DON’T have to accept is the sudden elevation to sainthood of a very flawed human being.

May he take the time he’s been given and get his entire being in order. Not everyone gets the blessing of a “wake up call” to make things right. Hopefully, he will take advantage of his wake up call.

Myth vs Fact

Myth Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.

Sahih BukhariVolume 6, Book 60, Number 406

Narrated Ibn Umar:

‘Allah’s Apostle burnt and cut down the palm trees of Bani An-Nadir which were at Al-Buwair (a place near Medina). There upon Allah revealed:

‘What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm trees (of the enemy) or you left them standing on their stems, it was by the leave of Allah, so that He might cover with shame the rebellious.’ (59.5)

Tafsir

Tucson Teacher Exposes "Raza" Studies In TUSD


While getting ready for work this morning and listening to my morning talk, I noticed my commentator was reading a letter that had appeared in our local newspaper as a guest opinion. He was rather animated about it so I “tuned in” a little more to get the full story.

As anyone with a pulse in the past year or so knows, Tucson is ground zero for the illegal immigration battle. We not only fight it on the border, we fight it in our schools (which have decided to become sanctuary schools and have told the police, ICE and Border Patrol they aren’t allowed on school properties even in an emergency) through the “Ethnic Studies” programs.

We have long suspected what was taught with our tax dollars, whether we like it or not. Our suspicions were confirmed by this guest opinion. Much like Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” (which shuts up and black lists those who disagree with the globull warming hysteria), the “Ethnic Studies” here are churning out kids who have no respect for authority and who buy the lie the American Southwest is actually Aztec land under the memories of Aztlan–of course with no historical reference to the fact the Aztecs forcibly invaded and controlled the lands themselves. Whites are interlopers.

The author of this guest opinion is a former teacher of these studies. However, he is a teacher with conscience and refused to teach this drivel as history. Below is his guest opinion as published by the Tucson Citizen May 21, 2008:

All emphasis mine.

Guest opinion: Raza studies gives rise to racial hostility

JOHN A. WARD

As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District’s hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public’s consideration.

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.

Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a “teacher of record,” meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a “teacher of record” because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.

I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.

Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.

In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used “to keep minorities in their ghettos.”

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School’s advanced placement courses because their “white teachers” do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.

It was taught that the Southwest is “Atzlan,” the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants – to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America’s civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.

When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a “racist,” despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for “sellout.”

The culmination of my challenge to the department’s curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.

The Raza studies department used the “racist” card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.

It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.

Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.

The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as “witch hunt” and “McCarthyism” to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.

The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.

Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives (sidenote: one of the board members is Adelita Grijalva, daughter of US Congressman Raul Grijalva who got his start on the Tucson Unified School District board himself and was the initiator of these studies) and thus operates with much impunity.

Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.

Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.

John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.

Now, quite some time ago I wrote about a protest at another TUSD school, Catalina High Magnet School, wherein an illegal was suspected to have drugs on campus, it was found he was illegal, ICE removed him and his brother from a junior high and deported the family. Read about that here, here and here.

Ladies and gentleman, this is not an issue exclusive to Tucson. Check into your own school district’s curriculums. We have four schools on the chopping block due to budget deficits. The school district wants to close schools and continue to teach this hate rather than give up these special interest studies, cut their pork (Adelita’s learning well from her father, isn’t she?) and teach a proper curriculum. Your school district may be doing the same thing.

The writer makes an excellent point. Ultimately, the school districts are owned by the taxpayers. The legal residents who pay the taxes, not the illegal alien front groups who wish to continue educating illegals at your expense. Therefore, it is up to the taxpayers, the legal citizens, to do something (and NO I am NOT advocating violence) about this. The easiest thing to do is VOTE THEM OUT and put in supervisors who will teach instead of preach.

What are YOU going to do about your own school district? Contact information for TUSD can be found here, on the 104.1 The Truth morning show blog. Make your voice, your opinion and your vote heard.

Tucson Teacher Exposes "Raza" Studies In TUSD


While getting ready for work this morning and listening to my morning talk, I noticed my commentator was reading a letter that had appeared in our local newspaper as a guest opinion. He was rather animated about it so I “tuned in” a little more to get the full story.

As anyone with a pulse in the past year or so knows, Tucson is ground zero for the illegal immigration battle. We not only fight it on the border, we fight it in our schools (which have decided to become sanctuary schools and have told the police, ICE and Border Patrol they aren’t allowed on school properties even in an emergency) through the “Ethnic Studies” programs.

We have long suspected what was taught with our tax dollars, whether we like it or not. Our suspicions were confirmed by this guest opinion. Much like Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” (which shuts up and black lists those who disagree with the globull warming hysteria), the “Ethnic Studies” here are churning out kids who have no respect for authority and who buy the lie the American Southwest is actually Aztec land under the memories of Aztlan–of course with no historical reference to the fact the Aztecs forcibly invaded and controlled the lands themselves. Whites are interlopers.

The author of this guest opinion is a former teacher of these studies. However, he is a teacher with conscience and refused to teach this drivel as history. Below is his guest opinion as published by the Tucson Citizen May 21, 2008:

All emphasis mine.

Guest opinion: Raza studies gives rise to racial hostility

JOHN A. WARD

As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District’s hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public’s consideration.

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.

Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a “teacher of record,” meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a “teacher of record” because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.

I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.

Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.

In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used “to keep minorities in their ghettos.”

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School’s advanced placement courses because their “white teachers” do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.

It was taught that the Southwest is “Atzlan,” the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants – to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America’s civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.

When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a “racist,” despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for “sellout.”

The culmination of my challenge to the department’s curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.

The Raza studies department used the “racist” card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.

It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.

Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.

The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as “witch hunt” and “McCarthyism” to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.

The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.

Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives (sidenote: one of the board members is Adelita Grijalva, daughter of US Congressman Raul Grijalva who got his start on the Tucson Unified School District board himself and was the initiator of these studies) and thus operates with much impunity.

Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.

Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.

John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.

Now, quite some time ago I wrote about a protest at another TUSD school, Catalina High Magnet School, wherein an illegal was suspected to have drugs on campus, it was found he was illegal, ICE removed him and his brother from a junior high and deported the family. Read about that here, here and here.

Ladies and gentleman, this is not an issue exclusive to Tucson. Check into your own school district’s curriculums. We have four schools on the chopping block due to budget deficits. The school district wants to close schools and continue to teach this hate rather than give up these special interest studies, cut their pork (Adelita’s learning well from her father, isn’t she?) and teach a proper curriculum. Your school district may be doing the same thing.

The writer makes an excellent point. Ultimately, the school districts are owned by the taxpayers. The legal residents who pay the taxes, not the illegal alien front groups who wish to continue educating illegals at your expense. Therefore, it is up to the taxpayers, the legal citizens, to do something (and NO I am NOT advocating violence) about this. The easiest thing to do is VOTE THEM OUT and put in supervisors who will teach instead of preach.

What are YOU going to do about your own school district? Contact information for TUSD can be found here, on the 104.1 The Truth morning show blog. Make your voice, your opinion and your vote heard.

Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy Gaffes Caught On Video

Cross Posted from Wake up America

ABC News has an interesting piece out today detailing Barack Obama’s “evolving” foreign policy stances, where he said one thing, then he changed it, then he changed it again.

Lets put some context to the article with relevant video interspersed of Obama’s words, stated BY Obama himself.

ABC News:

Barack Obama’s original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the “leaders” of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition,” during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

“I would,” Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. “And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

You can see Obama’s answers yourself, via YouTube, from the Democratic debate where he answered that question.

The question and answer is in the transcript itself:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

John McCain has called that approached of meeting with state leaders that sponsor terror and terrorists groups, “reckless“.

“I have some news for Senator Obama,” McCain began, “Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.”

“It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests,” McCain said, to a round of applause at the NRA conference. “You know it would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that’s not the world we live in. And until senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

Barack Obama, in an interview has tried to back away from his stated position, and claims McCain has “misstated” Obama’s own words, by saying:

TAPPER: In recent days, it has seemed that some of your staffers and supporters have walked back from your statement that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, countries hostile to the U.S., without preconditions. Your foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said you wouldn’t necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad, Sen. Daschle said of course there would be conditions — (Obama interrupts)

OBAMA: You know, Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezula, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation.

I refer you to the video above, once again to see for yourself if Obama’s past words, match his attempt to “back away” from his previously stated position.

From ABC we see Obama supporters also attempting to change the definition of “precondition”:

Asked about Obama’s original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate — and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

“I would not say that we would meet unconditionally,” said Daschle. “Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. … ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.”

Then you have his top foreign policy adviser:

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama’s meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

“He said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be,” Rice said on CNN. “It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time — not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”

Back to the video above!!!!

But, if the video above is getting too “old” for you, then let us look at yet another video (hat tip Weekly Standard) where Obama says….thats right, He would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran. (Via YouTube)

So, “preparation” now means “preconditions” because the word “condition” cannot be used because Barack Obama already said he would meet with those leaders without preconditions.

Still on the same page in Obamaworld?

Let us not forget the medias help to Obama on this issue, via Joe Klein and the “crack team of researchers” at Time Magazine, who couldn’t find either of those two YouTube clips, obviously.

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate–specifically, by name — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.

Perhaps someone needs to email those two video clips to Mr. Klein and Time Magazine, since they are so hard for them to find for themselves.

Amazing what a person can miss when they do not bother to look, huh?

Back to ABC, where they point out that Obama, knowing he has been busted on his deliberate attempt to rewrite his own words, caught on video, told a crowd in South Dakota:

“Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations,” Obama told reporters.

“The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want, but that doesn’t mean that we would not have preparation,” he continued. “The preparation would involve starting with low level, lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic core work through with Iranian counterparts — an agenda. But what I have said is that, at some point, I would be willing to meet.”

Again, I refer you back to the first video in this post.

Of course other Democrats are seeking to “explain” Obama’s evolving position as evidenced by Joe Biden:

“This is a fellow who, I think, shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying, ‘I would, within the first year’ — it implied he’d personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him,” Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a former presidential candidate, who is now neutral in the race, said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

“That’s not what he meant,” Biden continued. “That’s not what he has said, since then, for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think, that he’s fully capable of understanding what’s going on.”

So, the answer from video one, from Obama’s own mouth, should be ignored because his answers since then have changed and he has “evolved”?

HEH.

Speaking of Obama gaffes, Michelle Malkin has a nice list put together of other Obama gaffes….all of which will be used heavily in Novembers general election because the Democratic supporters have put themselves in a position now where nominating anybody but Obama would fracture their party beyond repair.

[Update] The New York Times corrects their assertion that Obama never said he would meet with Iran’s leaders “without preconditions”,. Well they sorta, kinda, correct themselves.

Their correction: (At the bottom of the piece)

Correction: May 16, 2008
An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama’s position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing “to meet separately, without precondition” with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

OOOOPS.

Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy Gaffes Caught On Video

Cross Posted from Wake up America

ABC News has an interesting piece out today detailing Barack Obama’s “evolving” foreign policy stances, where he said one thing, then he changed it, then he changed it again.

Lets put some context to the article with relevant video interspersed of Obama’s words, stated BY Obama himself.

ABC News:

Barack Obama’s original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the “leaders” of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition,” during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

“I would,” Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. “And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

You can see Obama’s answers yourself, via YouTube, from the Democratic debate where he answered that question.

The question and answer is in the transcript itself:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

John McCain has called that approached of meeting with state leaders that sponsor terror and terrorists groups, “reckless“.

“I have some news for Senator Obama,” McCain began, “Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.”

“It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests,” McCain said, to a round of applause at the NRA conference. “You know it would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that’s not the world we live in. And until senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

Barack Obama, in an interview has tried to back away from his stated position, and claims McCain has “misstated” Obama’s own words, by saying:

TAPPER: In recent days, it has seemed that some of your staffers and supporters have walked back from your statement that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, countries hostile to the U.S., without preconditions. Your foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said you wouldn’t necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad, Sen. Daschle said of course there would be conditions — (Obama interrupts)

OBAMA: You know, Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezula, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation.

I refer you to the video above, once again to see for yourself if Obama’s past words, match his attempt to “back away” from his previously stated position.

From ABC we see Obama supporters also attempting to change the definition of “precondition”:

Asked about Obama’s original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate — and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

“I would not say that we would meet unconditionally,” said Daschle. “Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. … ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.”

Then you have his top foreign policy adviser:

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama’s meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

“He said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be,” Rice said on CNN. “It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time — not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”

Back to the video above!!!!

But, if the video above is getting too “old” for you, then let us look at yet another video (hat tip Weekly Standard) where Obama says….thats right, He would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran. (Via YouTube)

So, “preparation” now means “preconditions” because the word “condition” cannot be used because Barack Obama already said he would meet with those leaders without preconditions.

Still on the same page in Obamaworld?

Let us not forget the medias help to Obama on this issue, via Joe Klein and the “crack team of researchers” at Time Magazine, who couldn’t find either of those two YouTube clips, obviously.

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate–specifically, by name — with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.

Perhaps someone needs to email those two video clips to Mr. Klein and Time Magazine, since they are so hard for them to find for themselves.

Amazing what a person can miss when they do not bother to look, huh?

Back to ABC, where they point out that Obama, knowing he has been busted on his deliberate attempt to rewrite his own words, caught on video, told a crowd in South Dakota:

“Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations,” Obama told reporters.

“The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want, but that doesn’t mean that we would not have preparation,” he continued. “The preparation would involve starting with low level, lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic core work through with Iranian counterparts — an agenda. But what I have said is that, at some point, I would be willing to meet.”

Again, I refer you back to the first video in this post.

Of course other Democrats are seeking to “explain” Obama’s evolving position as evidenced by Joe Biden:

“This is a fellow who, I think, shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying, ‘I would, within the first year’ — it implied he’d personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him,” Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a former presidential candidate, who is now neutral in the race, said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

“That’s not what he meant,” Biden continued. “That’s not what he has said, since then, for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think, that he’s fully capable of understanding what’s going on.”

So, the answer from video one, from Obama’s own mouth, should be ignored because his answers since then have changed and he has “evolved”?

HEH.

Speaking of Obama gaffes, Michelle Malkin has a nice list put together of other Obama gaffes….all of which will be used heavily in Novembers general election because the Democratic supporters have put themselves in a position now where nominating anybody but Obama would fracture their party beyond repair.

[Update] The New York Times corrects their assertion that Obama never said he would meet with Iran’s leaders “without preconditions”,. Well they sorta, kinda, correct themselves.

Their correction: (At the bottom of the piece)

Correction: May 16, 2008
An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama’s position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing “to meet separately, without precondition” with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

OOOOPS.