I say in all seriousness: Joe had better watch his
back. He should remember what happened to Sarah Palin.Sarah hurt The One in her convention speech. She took him down, took the shine off, stood up to the media-crafted hagiographical illusion. The result? The MSM wanted her blood. They demanded DNA testing of her baby. They started going through trashcans. She had to be destroyed.
They're still trying.
So now they're going to want to de-fang Joe, reduce the damage that one plain, commonsense working-man did to the MSM's Savior. The MSM will be out to destroy Joe, for 0bama.
Keith Olbermann would like to do it. But he can't.
Diane Sawyer reportedly tried. But she failed.
Terry Moran doubtless wished he could have. But he couldn't.
Remember, Joe: the MSM never learns, never repents, never gives up.
PS: favorite title from FreeRepublic today —
Posts
17 comments:
Nice report, Dan. Is journalism your secret other vocation? :)
Yup, Obama critic gets surprise cell phone call and home visit from Secret Service:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnQ_NBcGcQA
Obama is dangerous on so many levels:
www.DangerousObama.com.
Thanks for taking your stand.
RR
A joyful video that contrasts with the culture-of-death mentality of Roe v. Wade, and the Supreme Court that Obama would reinforce:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-qTfoJER18.
While I'm neither a fan of Obama or Farrakhan, Farrakhan never stated that Obama was his messiah, only that he was 'the trumpet'.
While I wouldn't put much emphasis on anything Farrakhan says, his messiah could easily be another man's anti-christ.
To see the video of Farrakhan’s speech visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539
"Brothers and sisters," Farrakhan said, "Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way."
"Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."
Last night my fervent prayer (while decidedly NOT watching) was:
"Lord, help these men say what You wnat them to say. And help people hear what You want them to hear,"
I just didn't know I was praying for Three men!
I watched the Sawyer interview and read the other one and was struck by two things:
1. The simplicity, clarity and conviction with which JtP communicates about what many people think is a complex issue. It's how John McCan't String a Sentence Together should have been speaking all along. I have a communications background, so this is a hobby horse of mine, but it's a major factor in our media-soaked country. Joe gets it, and knows how to communicate it.
2. Given #1, you can bet that every weaselly Obama organizer was watching/listening as well and thinking "No way a PLUMBER can talk that way - he probably doesn't even have a degree from Harvard!! Must be a plant...." If I was Joe's wife,I'd be really worried.
Oh, and while for his soul's sake, I would pray that He knows the Lord, for this election's sake, if anyone finds out he does, it'll be even WORSE.
But if he Does survive all this, and by the grace of God McCain is dragged bodily over the finish line first by the American people, he'd make one heck of a consultant to the White House Press Office. Heck, make him Communications Director!
And so it begins - he's a tax cheat and, worse, isn't even a union member:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/
NothingNewUnderTheSun,
It's debateable whether Farrakhan was calling Obama the Messiah. I think he was.
Listen to the video again:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE.
He says:
"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
Although he seems afterward to contradict himself in his rambling, no one ever accused Farrakhan of being coherent, consistant, and logical.
Terry,
While I disagree with you on the point that Farrakhan was calling the Obama the messiah, I certainly agree that Farrakhan is an incoherent inconsistant illogical mess of a man.
Let it begin. Imagine... the MSM trying to attack a voice of reason.
As Christians I have to wonder if we should really be ridiculing Senator Obama and even, heaven forbid, Mr. Farrakhan.
Obama claims to be born-again and has done a lot of good works as evidence of his faith. But he is pro-choice. Does that mean his confession of Christ is not valid? If it is valid then are we not guilty of speaking evil of a brother in the Lord, and by implication, part of the body of Christ, on the basis that we disagree politically?
Also, does not scripture command us to love our enemies and pray for them? Are we praying for Senator Obama? This may be especially imperative since he likely will be the next president of the united states.
I haven't received a vision from God but a friend in the Mccain campaign told me their internal polling in several states that he must win shows him slipping out of reach of Obama. He said John could even lose some southern states that haven't gone democrat in 44 years. Depressing.
Ironman,
I don't think anyone here is ridiculing Obama so much as the MSM. Although I do see some ridicule of his proposed policies, which on their face cannot be taken seriously (e.g. the "Wealthspread" parody)
You asked:
Obama claims to be born-again and has done a lot of good works as evidence of his faith. But he is pro-choice. Does that mean his confession of Christ is not valid?
Obama's confession of Christ is called into serious question because he holds unbiblical views and teaches them adamantly. His integrity and character are seriously lacking. I'm not going to cite sources, because if you have checked into this blog and followed election coverage anywhere other than the MSM (which you apparently have) - you already know what I'm talking about.
One could just say "Jeremiah Wright" and end there.
God says very clearly in his Word that human life begins at conception. So how can any born again believer as fully-informed as Obama fight for the "choice" to kill human life in the womb?
The man has a worldview that opposes God's design for humanity. Just listen to him share his view of BORN babies:
"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Couple of things ironman. The presidential race is a dead heat. No one can say it's more likely that Obama will be the next President anymore than McCain will likely be the next President. We just don't know. Gallup's poll of 49 to 47 Obama to McCain likely voters is an indication. The poll was just released today. A lot of people are unsure of Obama and when you're unsure about someone you tend to vote for someone you have a little more confidence in.
With regards to Obama's Christianity, a lot has been written about that.
Finally, on the humor. Dan, I think it would be a good idea for you to include a permanent link on your blog of the position of harsh humor and sarcasm. I know Phil wrote a good explanation about it. It seems a lot of people are going to bring it up ad infinitum.
Joe the Plumber doesn't have a plumbing license?
Yeah, I know he claims he doesn't need a plumbers license.
But still, how in the world can Joe have a valid opinion on how policies might influence his livelihood if he hasn't got a plumbers license (that he doesn't need)? Surely, his opinion is not only invalid (and therefore wrong), but is stupid to boot.
I wonder if those NYT and AP reporters have news reporting licenses.
Ahem, I believe Wikipedia can help us solve this problem...
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Exactly.
"What?!! My tax policy is a socialist fraud destructive of the economic genius of America?! Well... well... you don't have a proper plumbing license!"
Delve into Rules for Radicals and get a better sense of Obama and how a community organizer/community agitator operates with the mantra of change from the bottom up involving others unto power.
Post a Comment