Obama: Obvious.....or Obvious?

[idb]

GEORGE ORWELL ONCE SAID: “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”

At times....'obvious' may not be obvious....

1. Barack Obama spent his formative years in Indonesia. “In October 1967, Obama and his mother moved to Jakarta to rejoin his stepfather. Obama, his mother and his stepfather initially lived in a rented house at 16 Kyai Haji Ramli Tengah Street in a newly built neighborhood in the Menteng Dalam administrative village of the Tebet subdistrict in South Jakarta for two and a half years, with his stepfather working on a topographic survey for the Indonesian government.[19][20] From January 1968 to December 1969, Obama's mother taught English and was an assistant director of the U.S. government-subsidized Indonesia-America Friendship Institute,[21] while Obama attended the Indonesian-language Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi) Catholic School around the corner from their house for 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd grade.[19]” Early life and career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. “It was obvious. Mr. Obama’s father and stepfather were Muslim; Mr. Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia; as a boy, he studied the Koran; he has openly admitted that the “most beautiful sound” is the Muslim call for evening prayer (not, say, the “Star-Spangled Banner”); he frequently refers to Islam as a “revealed religion” while denigrating Christianity; and he claims that America is a “post-Christian” nation.” KUHNER: Jeremiah Wright can sink Obama - Washington Times



3. Obama spent 21 years learning at the feet of Jeremiah Wright. “Klein asked Wright if he converted Obama from being a Muslim into a Christian. “He said, I don’t know about that. but I can tell you that I made it easy for him to come to an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and not feel that he was turning his back on his Islamic friends and his Islamic traditions and his understanding of Islam,” Klein says.” Jeremiah Wright: I “Made It Comfortable” For Obama to Accept Christianity Without Having to Renounce Islam (Video Report) | The Gateway Pundit

a. “But [Jeremiah] Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.’” Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright: Former Muslim


4. Senator Obama slips up and says “my Muslim faith” in an interview with George Stephanopoulus:
‘OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.
Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–
STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.
OBAMA: — my Christian faith. Well, what I’m saying is that he hasn’t suggested–
STEPHANOPOULOS: Has connections, right.
OBAMA: — that I’m a Muslim. And I think that his campaign’s upper echelons have not, either.
Here comes the RAIN: “My Muslim Faith…” | The Moderate Voice





5. Obama supported movements aimed at throwing out pro-American tending governments in Egypt, and Libya….yet when pro-democracy movements in Iran took to the streets…”Yet instead of coming to their aid, Obama validated the America-hating regime's rigged election of the totalitarian theocrat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as freedom-seeking revolutionaries were gunned down in the streets.”
The Elephant in the Room: Obama's failing Iran policy




6. Valerie B. Jarrett is a Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama. She is also the Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls. Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett | The White House

a. Chicago businesswoman Valerie Jarrett has earned all sorts of nicknames as an aide to President-elect Barack Obama — from "First Friend" to "big sister" to "the other half of Obama's brain." 2-min Bio: Valerie Jarrett - TIME


b. Valerie Jarrett was born in Shiraz,Iran.
Valerie Jarrett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This sure looks like a 'JDLR' situation.....




...'Just Doesn't Look Right'

1. "White House opposed new Iran sanctions

2. The White House announced its opposition to a new round of Iran sanctions that the Senate unanimously approved Friday, in the latest instance of Congress pushing for more aggressive punitive measures on Iran than the administration deems prudent.

3. ...National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate passed 94-0. The new legislative language would blacklist Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors, while also placing new restrictions on Iran's ability to get insurance for all these industries. The legislation would also vastly expand U.S. support for human rights inside Iran and impose new sanctions on Iranians who divert humanitarian assistance from its intended purpose.

4. But the White House told several Senate offices Thursday evening that the administration was opposed to the amendment. National Security Spokesman Tommy Vietor sent The Cable the administration's official position, explaining the White House's view the sanctions aren't needed and aren't helpful at this time."
White House opposed new Iran sanctions | The Cable


Need clearer indication of this President's antipathy to Israel?

Oddly enough, their objections to the bill aren't as black and white as you suggest

"We do not believe additional authority to apply more sanctions on Iran is necessary at this time," read the e-mail, which the NSC legislative affairs office said represented the entire administration's view. "At the same time, we are concerned that this amendment is duplicative and threatens to confuse and undermine some of the TRA provisions."

One of the White House's chief concerns is that Congress is not providing the administration enough waivers, which would give the United States the option of negating or postponing applications of the sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

The White House also said that secondary sanctions should apply only to those Iranian persons and entities that are guilty of aiding Iran's nulear and missile programs. The new legislative language would designate entire categories of Iranian government entities to be sanctioned -- whether or not each person or entity is directly involved in such activities.

The new sanctions too broadly punish companies that supply materials, such as certain metals, that could be used in Iran's nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs, the White House worries. The bill allows those materials to be sold to Iranian entities that intend to use them for non-military or nuclear-related purposes, but the administration said that the ambiguity in that part of the legislation will make it hard to implement.

White House opposed new Iran sanctions | The Cable

 

[Too Tall]

And....a related story?


"The portfolio of embattled United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice includes investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran, according to financial disclosure forms."
Susan Rice's Investments in Business Dealing with Iran | The Weekly Standard


Of course....this is of no moment to Obama voters....is it?

The Weekly Sub-Standard!

They have less credibility than The Coultergeist, who has none.

WHILE ON A TOUR of Monticello as vice president, Al Gore examined busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator, "Who are these people?" A single newspaper reported Gore's embarrassing ignorance. Meanwhile when presidential candidate George W. Bush was unable to name the leaders of four nations in a reporter's pop quiz, it was a topic of media concern for weeks.

Ann Coulter's latest book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," is rich with delightfully revealing comparisons like this one, compiled to expose the liberal media's double standard when it comes to matters of left and right. ...
Source: The Weekly Standard

How about Sub-Slate and Sub_mediamatters?

Financial disclosures reveal that Rice has had $50,001-$100,000 in Royal Dutch Shell, a longtime purchaser of Iranian crude oil.

Susan Rice's Investments Have Ties to Iran. So Do John McCain's.

One of the biggest of the holdings, between $50,000 and $100,000, according to Rice's disclosure statement for 2011, is Royal Dutch Shell. The international oil giant stopped buying crude oil from Iran early this year as sanctions were tightened to block oil exports by Iran and to stop financial transactions with its central bank

Wash. Post Reports On Susan Rice's Investments With Ties To Iran, But Not McCain's | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

[Too Tall]

Right....

Remember Obama's reference to "57 states"?

I was just reminded that Snopes says there are "more or less 57 Islamic/nations/countries/states in the world."


Gee....another coincidence.

Actually Obama referenced 58 states, 57 he visited and one to go. Not that you actually research anything you post.

But what do you have to say about Willard Mittwit saying the USA is a foreign country for him on his tax return?

To begin with, only a fucking nitwit thinks that Romney fills out his own tax form and only a bigger dumbass posts a photo shopped 1040.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm still laughing that PC's hero George Orwell believed in socialism.

I wonder what Orwell would make of PC?

Meaning what?

That you 'believe in socialism' as well?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Right....

Remember Obama's reference to "57 states"?

I was just reminded that Snopes says there are "more or less 57 Islamic/nations/countries/states in the world."


Gee....another coincidence.

But wait...he could also have been referring to Agent 57, which is the name of the master of disguise in the television series Dangermouse.

Could it be a sly reference to the CIA?
Perhaps a harbinger of the drone campaign?

I do so very much appreciate all of the Obama-apologists leaping into the fray....

.... unfortunately, rather than dispense with the quandary, you draw attention to the fact that the thread lists a number of items.


All you have done is to validate this, from the Liberal Playbook:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Again? 6b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!



Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

 

[idb]

Right....

Remember Obama's reference to "57 states"?

I was just reminded that Snopes says there are "more or less 57 Islamic/nations/countries/states in the world."


Gee....another coincidence.

But wait...he could also have been referring to Agent 57, which is the name of the master of disguise in the television series Dangermouse.

Could it be a sly reference to the CIA?
Perhaps a harbinger of the drone campaign?

I do so very much appreciate all of the Obama-apologists leaping into the fray....

.... unfortunately, rather than dispense with the quandary, you draw attention to the fact that the thread lists a number of items.


All you have done is to validate this, from the Liberal Playbook:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Again? 6b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!



Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

No, I'm using the top secret e), which I can now reveal to you, as long as you promise not to spread it around.
'Illuminate the foolishness of the subject's conclusions by suggesting equally foolish conclusions'.

By the way, I note that the initials for PoliticalChic are PC which, when reversed are CP, which could be short for Cut & Paste.
Coincidence?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But wait...he could also have been referring to Agent 57, which is the name of the master of disguise in the television series Dangermouse.

Could it be a sly reference to the CIA?
Perhaps a harbinger of the drone campaign?

I do so very much appreciate all of the Obama-apologists leaping into the fray....

.... unfortunately, rather than dispense with the quandary, you draw attention to the fact that the thread lists a number of items.


All you have done is to validate this, from the Liberal Playbook:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Again? 6b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!



Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

No, I'm using the top secret e), which I can now reveal to you, as long as you promise not to spread it around.
'Illuminate the foolishness of the subject's conclusions by suggesting equally foolish conclusions'.

By the way, I note that the initials for PoliticalChic are PC which, when reversed are CP, which could be short for Cut & Paste.
Coincidence?

Here's an interesting fact that you might want to file away, and refer to from time to time: ...if you quit posting, you’d be the only one who knew you quit.

True story.

 

[idb]

I do so very much appreciate all of the Obama-apologists leaping into the fray....

.... unfortunately, rather than dispense with the quandary, you draw attention to the fact that the thread lists a number of items.


All you have done is to validate this, from the Liberal Playbook:

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.



Again? 6b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!



Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

No, I'm using the top secret e), which I can now reveal to you, as long as you promise not to spread it around.
'Illuminate the foolishness of the subject's conclusions by suggesting equally foolish conclusions'.

By the way, I note that the initials for PoliticalChic are PC which, when reversed are CP, which could be short for Cut & Paste.
Coincidence?

Here's an interesting fact that you might want to file away, and refer to from time to time: ...if you quit posting, you’d be the only one who knew you quit.

True story.

Aaah
The old 'try to make the other guy cry' routine.
Luckily, you can't see my tears.

 

[jillian]

More evidence?

you mean more propaganda and hyperbole.

thanks,

 

[PoliticalChic]

More evidence?

you mean more propaganda and hyperbole.

thanks,

I truly understand your reticence,...

...but merely as an intellectual exercise, could you come up with a scenario, a short story, if you will, that might explain all of the elements of my "propaganda and hyperbole."

For...if you cannot, it becomes more than a conundrum.....but hints strongly at the conclusion that, I am certain, you'd rather not face.



LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question….
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
T.S. Eliot.

 

[idb]

More evidence?

you mean more propaganda and hyperbole.

thanks,

I truly understand your reticence,...

...but merely as an intellectual exercise, could you come up with a scenario, a short story, if you will, that might explain all of the elements of my "propaganda and hyperbole."

For...if you cannot, it becomes more than a conundrum.....but hints strongly at the conclusion that, I am certain, you'd rather not face.



LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question….
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.
T.S. Eliot.

could you come up with a scenario, a short story, if you will, that might explain all of the elements of my "propaganda and hyperbole."

But that's the point, you start off with the assumption that all your points are connected.
Maybe there's no scenario that can be constructed because they aren't connected.