About Me

Name: Andy Zarowny
Email: andy_mi_44@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Socialism and the Price of Oil

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Saturday, May 31, 2008 10:09:57 PM
There are 3 basic reasons
why gasoline is so expen-
sive. All are attributed to
government policies, not
free-market forces. In fact, it
will be market forces that
will actually drive the price
of oil and it's products down!
Why?  Because govern-
ments may have bitten off
more than they can chew, or
regulate.

Let us begin with production.
Here, in the United States,
only 2% of the continental
shelf is open for drilling.  We
know that there are large
quantities of oil in Alaska's
north shelf, particularly in
ANWR, the Arctic National
Wildlife Reserve.  There is
already drilling along the
north shelf and thus far has
proved to be ecologically
safe, even beneficial.  Many
species stay close to the
pipelines as they are a
source of heat.  Populations
of polar bears, caribou and
others have actually in-
creased over the years.  If
the government would open
up additional territory for
drilling, be it in ANWR or
off the coasts of the lower
48 states, domestic produc-
tion would increase.  During
Hurricane Katrina, over 1000
off-shore rigs were exposed
to the worst of Nature, and
not one leaked oil.

Another major cause of the
high price of fuel is again a
problem caused by the US
government.  Using corn to
produce ethanol is costly,
on more than one level.
First, growing, harvesting
and processing the corn
to make the ethanol uses
more oil products than it
saves by adding 15% of
ethanol to gasoline.  Thus,
ethanol not only makes the
gasoline more expensive,
it also has resulted in an
increase in the cost of food
since less corn is available
for feed and in human food.

Another problem with etha-
nol is that because less oil
is being refined for gasoline,
there is less cheap hydro-
gen available on the market.
Hydrogen is a by-product of
gasoline refinement.  It is also
 a crucial additive to
making low-sulfur diesel
fuel oil.  To make up for the
difference, more crude oil
must be processed to
produce diesel.  This makes
diesel more expensive than
gasoline to use.  Something
the Chinese now regret as
they had built a large num-
ber of power plants to pro-
duce electricity from diesel.

For Item #3, we now turn to
International Socialism.
Many nations, such as India,
Malaysia, Russia, Saudi
Arabia and countless others,
all provide government sup-
plements to keep the cost
of gasoline cheap to their
citizens.  Nearly 20% of
India's national budget is
used for this purpose, though
they try to hide the amount
by issuing bonds to pay for
the program.  Malaysia
spends about 7% of their
GNP to keep gas cheap, and
Indonesia, around 3% of
their GNP.

But with the price of crude
hitting record highs, even
these countries have had to
rethink their strategy.  China
had kept the price of gasoline
at the artificial rate of fifty
cents per liter for many years
in order to promote a domes-
tic automobile industry. It
gives the citizens a sense of
progress and prosperity to
own and drive cars.  But
even the Chinese are now
feeling the pinch, and were
forced to increase the price
of gasoline to 79 cents per
liter.  In Indonesia, a major
producer of oil, their govern-
ment has been forced to re-
duce subsidies for gasoline
which likewise more than
doubled the price from
2000 rupiah per liter to
4500 rupiah, about 44 cents
U.S..  Protests and even
riots have occurred in Jakarta
over the increase.

Over the past few days, the
spot price of a barrel of oil
has begun to drop.  With
Americans driving less, and
now consumers in countries
where their governments
were subsidizing their use
of gasoline, supplies will
begin to creep upwards and
the price will decline.  Also,
China is rethinking their
energy solutions and will
eventually replace their
diesel plants with nuclear
and coal power plants.  Of
course, there is still the
American government to
contend with, as well as
global environmental laws.
Continuing to restrict new
drilling sites, and using
corn-based ethanol, will
keep oil more expensive
than necessary.  Without
government interference,
the price of oil should be
closer to $65 per barrel,
if not even lower.  Adding
the devaluation of the US
dollar into the picture, and
oil will still probably hover
between $90 and $100 a
barrel for some time to
come.  Future legislation
and regulation would drive
it up more.  So be careful
in your choices this coming
November.  You can either
vote in politicians who will
get government out of the
way of oil production, or
set yourself up for more
and higher prices in the
future.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Problems With Pastors

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Friday, May 30, 2008 4:20:26 PM
Senator Barack Obama has
another pastor problem. 
This time, his church, Trinity
United Church of Christ in
Chicago, invited a guest to
speak last Sunday,  
Father Michael Pfleger of
the Catholic parish, St.
Sabina. During a long and
lively sermon, Pfleger
made references to
Senator Hillary Clinton, all
quite derogatory.

His comments went from
anti-American to racial,
nearly calling Clinton a
white supremist.  The
animated sermon, of
course, was video taped
and now plays on You-
Tube.  Just when Obama
thought he had his last
controversy with his pas-
tor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright
behind him, this pops up.

Father Pfleger is a pal of
Wright.  He is also friendly
with Louis Farrakhan,
Jesse Jackson, Cornel
West and Joseph Lowery.
Pfleger, a Jesuit, is a full
practitioner of liberation
theology.  He has been
very active in Chicago's
political scene since the
1990s.  His parishioners
call him the "blue-eyed
black soul".  

In 1990, Pfleger led a pro-
test against the Jerry
Springer Show, as well as
against billboards selling
tobacco and alcohol pro-
ducts.  This even included
him climbing on some bill-
boards and damaging
them.  He was acquitted
by a jury from charges.
Pfleger later led a pro-
test against the Howard
Stern radio show over
it's use of a billboard
and a slogan, a reword-
ing of a quote from Martin
Luther King.

Father Pfleger even chal-
lenged the Catholic
Church in Chicago when
St. Sabina was not per-
mitted to join a Catholic
athletic league.  He
charged the diocese with
racial discrimination.
This was just one of sev-
eral disputes he had with
Cardinal Francis George
of Chicago.  In 2003,
Pfleger invited Al Sharpton
to speak at his church,
despite Sharpton's view
on abortion rights. The
Cardinal later rebuked
Pfleger when he and
Jesse Jackson staged a
protest at a neighbor-
hood gun store.  The
good father was quoted
about finding the owner
of the store and "snuff
you out."  Cardinal George
said that Pfleger's re-
marks "betray the civil
order and is morally out-
rageous."

Pfleger joined the Obama
campaign and served on a
committee for Catholics.
In March 28, 2008, he had
invited Wright to speak at
St. Sabina and described
Wright as, "one of the
great biblical scholars of
our country".  He went on
to defend Wright after
clips of earlier sermons
began to appear in the
media.  After his com-
ments on Sunday, the
good father apologized for
his remarks and resigned
from Obama's campaign.

So, once again, we have
another example of the
radical associations of
Barack Obama.  Who is
next to be exposed?
In other blogs, I have
also mentioned one of
Obama's fund-raisers,
Jodie Evans, the co-
founder of Code Pink.
She also belongs to
the Rainforest Network
which funds domestic
eco-terror groups like
Earth Liberation Front
and their sister group,
Animal Liberation Front.
In 2004, during the height
of fighting in Fullujah,
Evans managed to get
through military road-
blocks, thanks to Henry
Waxman, and deliver to
the al Sadr militia some
$600,000 in cash and
supplies.  This, while they
were actively fighting U.S.
Marines!

Wright, Pfleger, Evans
and former Weatherman
terrorist, Bill Ayers, are
all part of Obama's world.
When one reads his auto-
biography, "Dreams From
My Father", we see that
Barack Obama was raised
in a family with many left-
leaning tendencies.  His
maternal grandfather was
close friends with a known
Soviet agent and Commu-
nist Party official in Hawaii.
We read that what
attracted Obama to
Wright's church was their
Black Family Values prin-
ciples, especially #8 con-
cerning avoiding middle-
classness.  

Obama writes that when
reading Malcom X, he
understood a passage
about how Malcom X
wanted to "remove the
white blood from my
body."  Even Obama's
paternal grandfather in
Kenya told him how he
was unhappy that his
son, Barack's father,
polluted the Obama
bloodline with the blood
of a white woman.

When we add up all of
these personal associa-
tions, along with Obama's
policy positions which are
all very leftist, such as
having the IRS determine
our taxes for us instead
of people filing on their
own, or the 'cap & trade'
scheme of carbon credits
for industry and consu-
mers, the picture is very
grave and very socialis-
tic.  His wife thinks that
America is a mean nation.
He thinks that hard work-
ing people of Middle
America cling to guns and
religion from their bitter-
ness.  Obama's whole
view of America is very
disturbing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Bush-Bashing

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Thursday, May 29, 2008 3:57:55 PM
    Hillary Clinton had a
holiday this week from
the MSM.  They were
focused on going after
President George Bush,
even though he is not a
candidate.  His former
press secretary, Scott
McClellan, has come out
with a tell-all book.  He
writes about the phony
excuses that Bush used
for invading Iraq as well
as resurrecting the whole
Valerie Plame-CIA story.

On the first point, it should
be noted, for historical ac-
curacy, that the bill our
Congress voted on to auth-
orize Bush to invade Iraq
listed a total of 23 reasons.
The WMD issue was only
one of these.  It should also
be noted that nearly every
major intelligence agency
also thought that Saddam
had WMDs.  Saddam, him-
self, told his captors he de-
liberately promoted the lie
to keep his enemies, name-
ly Iran, believing he did in
fact have them.

As for the second point, Scott
again accuses 'Scooter' Libby
and Karl Rove of being the two
sources for the leaking to Bob
Nowak that Valerie Plame was
a CIA analyst.  After years of
investigation, dozens of hear-
ings and panels and court trials,
the facts are that it real source
of the leak was former Assist-
ant Secretary of State, Richard
Armitage.  Libby's conviction
was only for alleged perjury,
which was more a case of just
being confused or forgetful.

The book is published by a
company which has printed
other Bush-bashing books.
Left-wing money-bags, George
Soros, is connected with this
publisher.  The MSM, especial-
ly the gang at NBC/MSNBC,
are having multiple orgasms
over McClellan's book.  This,
despite one of his premises
that the MSM failed to do
their job in stopping Bush!
Likewise, McCullen did no-
thing to enlighten the Amer-
ican people, until there was
a nice check attached to it.

In the big scheme of things,
the book and the controversy
stirred up by it are irrelevant.
Nothing new was learned and
only old, worn-out inaccura-
cies were regurgitated.  While
this nonsense goes on, real
issues continue to fester.

The economy continues to
struggle along under the pres-
sures of high fuel costs and
disarray in the financial mar-
kets.  All of the current major
candidates are promising us
damaging tax increases and
legislative suicide programs,
such as the 'cap & trade'
scheme for carbon emmis-
sions.  Congress' answer to
our energy crisis is to nation-
alize the oil industry!

On top of all of that, we still
have troops in the field in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as
operating in dozens of other
nations around the world. The
war on terror goes on.  Our
borders are wide open, in the
meanwhile.  Illegal immigrants
stream over annually.  The
ports are also wide open, not
only to terrorists, but to the
imports from the world over.
All tariff free.  Congress has
refused to pass trade agree-
ments that would remove
tariffs from American products
shipped abroad.  

There seems to be no end to
the foolishness.  No hope for
the sort of leadership who will
put the nation back on the right
track towards prosperity for all.
No vision of what a brighter
future may be like.  Instead,
all we get are more rhetoric
and regulation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Media Rakes Clinton Again!

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Friday, May 23, 2008 11:19:12 PM
    During an interview with a
South Dakota newspaper, Sen-
ator Hillary Clinton made a
reference to the RFK assassin-
ation.  Her response was in con-
text to a question about why she
is still in the race.  Her answer
was to give examples of other
years when the nominee was not
chosen until June.

    Only a complete idiot would
even suggest that she was hop-
ing for Senator Barack Obama
to be a victim of such.  However,
that is precisely the tone of the
storyline that the commentators
at MSNBC took.  They used it
as another excuse to bully Sen-
ator Clinton out of her campaign.

    I am sure that the left-wing
blogosphere, such as The Daily
KOS and Huffington Post, are
likewise playing up this angle.
For months, they have been busy
doing all they can to derail the
Clinton campaign.  With her now
close to securing a majority of
the popular vote, and with the po-
tential seating of the Michigan
and Florida delegations close to
being resolved, the Anti-Hillary
crowd is running scared.

    They know that they backed a
loser for November in Barack
Obama.  His glide to the White
House was derailed after a series
of setbacks, beginning with the
comments of his pastor, Jere-
miah Wright, and comments
Obama had made at a fund-
raiser in San Francisco, berat-
ing church-going and gun-own-
ing whites in Pennsylvania as
bitter.  Further gaffes from his
wife, and his clumsy handling
of security and energy issues are
just making things worse for his
chances to defeat Senator John
McCain.

    They know that the electoral
college map is against them
come November.  They are
scared that Hillary just might be
able to convince enough super
delegates to not commit until the
August convention in Denver.  
They are scared that Obama will
say something else before then.  
They are scared that another of
his past associates will embroil
him in scandal.  They are very,
VERY scared of what may
transpire after the Rezko trial is
completed.

    But they have made their
choice and must now lay with it,
no matter how many fleas come
in the bargain. And Obama is a
dog with many fleas.  So little
of his background as been exa-
mined.  His involvement in the
corruption of the Illinois Combine,
which the Rezko trial is just the
latest of a series stemming from
arrests which began in 2004, has
yet to be fully vetted. Just in the
little I have read from the series
of articles by Evelyn Pringle of
opednews.com seems to point
a long finger at Obama.  Many of
the players from the Combine
had associations with Obama,
benefitted from him while a state
legislator, and contributed to his
campaign.

    I do not believe that Senator
Hillary Clinton meant anything
by her statement that was mali-
cious.  There is no doubt in my
mind that had some of the fleas
of Obama been exposed before
Iowa he would have been written
off long ago as were Biden and
the rest.  Edwards would probab-
ly had remained in the race till
now to challenge Clinton.  But the
far-left wing of the Democrat
party wrote him off and went with
the unknown.  As the saying
goes, "Look Before You Leap".

    They listened to Obama's
promise of hope and change.
They bought in to it, hook, line
and sinker.  This week, Obama
gave us a glimpse into what we
can expect in the way of change
from him.  Less gasoline that
costs more.  Less food that will
cost more.  A lower standard of
living is in our future and we must
get used to that.  The world is
demanding that and Obama will
deliver.  The only hope he offers
is that by sacrificing America on
the alter of nations, the rest of the
world will be satisfied and leave us
alone.  That is the Obama
Doctrine.  

    Thank you, far-left wing
Democrats for your wisdom!  And
thank you MSNBC for supporting
them.  Maybe four years from now,
after Obama has taxed the econo-
my into a depression, gasoline is
$10 a gallon, as is a box of corn
flakes, maybe then we'll forgive
you, too!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congress Says No To Energy

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Friday, May 23, 2008 12:03:49 AM
    While you are pumping that
$4 a gallon gasoline in your car
this weekend, here's a nugget
for you to consider.  Our fear-
less leaders in Congress, Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reid, removed
from the budget a $200 million
dollar project to build a demon-
stration fusion reactor.  The
reactor was a new design de-
veloped by Professor Robert
Bussard.  An earlier test version
built by the U.S. Navy proved
very promising in 2005.  The
cancelled project would have
built a 500 megawatt reactor. 
If successful, fusion power
would reduce the cost of elec-
tricity by some 90%.

    While we seem to have plenty
of money to build bridges leading
nowhere, our Congress removed
a total of about $345 million dol-
lars from President Bush's
budget for basic physics and fu-
sion research. I suppose if the
test reactor were built in West
Virginia and named after Sena-
tor Robert Byrd, it may have had
some support.  Instead, our oh-
so-smart Congress has the solu-
tion to our energy needs, sue
OPEC!  This would be laughable
if not so tragic for the millions of
Americans struggling to fill their
gas tanks.

    Adding to this lunacy,  Senator
Barack Obama is now talking on
his campaign trail about how we
need to get used to paying more
and doing with less.  Less gas,
less food, less everything.  Oh,
I forgot, MORE taxes!  Obama's
solution is to put a hefty
'carbon' tax on us.  His 'cap &
trade' will be putting some $150
billion dollars worth of taxes
and penalties on the American
economy.  That is the same
amount as the Bush stimulus
package.

    In 1973, we got our first taste
of an energy crisis when the
Arab nations decided to penalize
America for supporting Israel. 
As a result, President Nixon be-
gan ERDA, the Energy Research
and Development Agency.  It's
goal was to spur R&D in energy
matters just as NASA did for
spaceflight. ERDA funded numer-
ous projects including cheaper
solar-photo-voltaic panels,
hi-tech wind mills, tidal power
and fusion.  Some real progress
had just begun when the Carter
administration created the Energy
Department and folded ERDA into
it.  As a result, most of it's
projects were abandoned.

    For years, people have been
urging an increase use in ethanol
to subplant gasoline.  This, de-
spite every study showing how
corn-based ethanol uses more
gasoline and diesel to produce
than it saves.  The effect of
ethanol on our food supply is
now very obvious.  Chalk up
another smart move by the
Congress! Obama and Clinton
both want to re-open NAFTA.
They say it is unfair to Ameri-
cans.  But, thanks to NAFTA,
Canada and Mexico MUST sell
us their surplus oil at a
discount.  If not for NAFTA, we
would be paying $6 a gallon for
gas this weekend.

    The only rational solution for
the immediate future is to drill for
more oil domestically.  Just say-
ing that we would do so would
impact the futures market and
bring down the price of oil.  Once
new oil was being pumped, the
price would drop further.  The
long-term solution is to  gradu-
ally switch over to become a
hydrogen-based economy.  Only
then, would we have true energy
independence and not face a de-
cline in our standards of living. 
Unlike Obama's view of the
future, where we must learn to
live on less, MY view is we need
MORE!  More of everything!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Which Metric Wins?

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:47:04 AM
    Senator Hillary Clinton had an-
other big win last night, beating
Barack Obama by more than
250,000 votes in Kentucky.  De-
spite losing in Oregon by some
90,000 votes, Clinton again con-
tinues roll up a majority of the
popular vote versus Obama se-
curing a majority of delegates.
This brings us to the basic pro-
blem facing the Democrats this
November.  Which metric wins?

    As far as the nomination pro-
cess, the number of delegates is
the only standard that counts at
the convention.  But when looking
at the 'Big Picture', the November
general election, the game
changes radically, and not in
Obama's favor.  The Democrats
should be the favorite to win the
White House, but Clinton's cam-
paign and the exit polling data
continue to show that Obama will
have many problems.  Key states
and demographic groups are
against him.

    The question on the minds of
super-delegates and party-in-
siders is can Obama defeat
Senator John McCain in the
fall?  An objective look at the
electoral college maps says
"NO".  The case for awarding
Clinton the nomination is a strong
one, since she is proving that she
can attract voters in the crucial
swing states, such as Pennsyl-
vania and Florida.  If Obama is
the nominee, the odds are he will
lose those states, and probably
Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Michigan and others.

    The Obama Camp tries to point
out how he won in the Western
states, like Utah and Nevada, but
those were caucus states.  A much
lower percentage of voters parti-
cipated in caucuses as opposed to
those in the states that held
primary elections.  For example,
in Iowa, where Obama began his
winning ways, only about 4.8% of
the overall registered voters sup-
ported him.  Compare that to last
night in Kentucky, where Clinton
received more than 25% of their
registered votes.

    Come November, the objective
is to win the majority of the regi-
stered, popular vote in each state
in order to be awarded it's elec-
toral college value.  It's winner-
take-all and goes to whom ever
wins with one more popular vote.
The current tracking polls show
that McCain defeats Obama by
significant numbers when adding
up the electoral college votes.  It
is questionable that Obama can
even win usually Democratic
states like New York and Cali-
fornia.  In what should have
been an easy year for the Demo-
crats, the end result may be a
nightmare, with Obama finishing
with fewer electoral college votes
than George McGovern.

    Obama was very popular earlier
in the campaign, but that was
largely based on the fact that the
news media did not vet him before
Iowa. The Clinton campaign stum-
bled as well due to internal issues
and gaffes. But clearly, since the
Reverend Wright story made the
national spotlight, key demogra-
phic groups of voters have recon-
sidered Obama's judgment.  His
'Bitter' statements during a fund
raiser in San Francisco only
pushed his negatives upward. 
The evidence of these facts are
the results from the last few
primaries.  Obama now seems
to only be able to do well in
states with large voting blocks
of African-Americans and with
those who are more liberal.

    Despite all the pundits and rhe-
toric, the reality is that a nominee
will not be chosen until this August
when the Democrats hold their na-
tional convention.  Neither the
pledged delegates, nor the super-
delegates whom are currently
committed to either candidate
are bound to vote for either of
them.  Calls for Hillary to quit
are very premature.  While she
may suspend her campaign after
June 3rd's primaries in Montana
and South Dakota, there is no
reason why she should not stay
in the fight till Denver.  Anything
can happen between now and
then, and probably will.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Versus Slave Descendants

Posted by Andy Zarowny on Monday, May 19, 2008 4:00:40 PM
California Representative, Diane Watson, a Democrat,
has an issue against Senator Barack Obama. It seems
that he opposes descendants of slaves getting their
just due! While black voters were casting their
ballots in North Carolina and Indiana, the Cherokee
Nation was in Federal courts attempting to strip
the descendants of their slaves (Yes, Indians had
slaves, too!) from their fare share of money from
casinos.

Watson had put forth a bill, H.R. 2824, which would
suspend U.S. relations with the Cherokee Nation until
all rights of the Freedmen are restored. The Black
Caucus supported the bill and sent a letter to Senator
Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader from Nevada,
opposing pending housing legislation unless it includes
a provision to prevent the Cherokee Nation from obtaining
any benefits or funds so long as the Freedmen are excluded
from the Cherokee Nation. Obama opposes H.R. 2824 and
also opposed the letter from the Black Caucus.

The Cherokee Nation practiced slavery, and even fought
on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
In 1866, a new treaty between the U.S. and the Cherokees
specifically states, in Article IX, that the Cherokee
ex-slaves, known as the Freedmen, will have "all the
rights" of Cherokees. The same year, the Cherokee Nation
amended it's own constitution giving the Freedmen full
citizenship, including land allotments. The 13th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution ended the practice of slavery
and and likewise forced the Cherokee Nation to grant
full citizenship rights to their former slaves.

Why are the Cherokees fighting this now in the courts???
Simple, they are attempting to racially limit those who
claim citizenship to the Cherokee Nation. What is at
stake here is MONEY! Under the law, Cherokees, and other
Indian Nations, may engage is businesses outside U.S.
laws, such as the operation of casinos and such, since
they are considered sovereign nations in their own right.
The income earned from casinos, as well as the sale of
tax and duty free items, such as cigarettes, must be shared
equally amongst it's citizens.

So, by eliminating the Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation,
the remainder will get a larger share of the profits.
Barack Obama supports the position of the Cherokee Nation,
and further argues that it is a matter of tribal sovereignty
and therefore should be dealt with by the courts, not the
U.S. Congress. Representative Watson argues that the issue
of the Freedmen falls under treaty provisions. and therefore
within the realm of the Congress to take action. In 2002,
the Seminole Nation also attempted to terminate the rights
and citizenship of their Freedmen. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs ended their efforts by halting all Federal funding
to the Seminoles and suspending their casino gaming authority.

This is one more case of the hypocrisy of Barack Obama. I
have to wonder just how much money the Cherokees are giving
him to sell out the Freedmen, most of whom are of African
descent. Obama has no problem throwing his own grandmother
under the bus as a typical-white-person-closet-racist when
she felt threatened by an aggressive pan-handler who just
happened to be African-American. He defended his own pastor,
Jeremiah Wright, in Philadelphia, after the initial wave of
Wright's lunacies became public. Now, Obama opposes the
rights of African-Cherokees. He has thrown these descendants
of Cherokee-owned slaves under the bus for political advantage.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »