web analytics


By ATWadmin On January 30th, 2007

As readers will know, I am hoping that either Rudi Guiliani or Newt Gingrich may become the next President of the United States since I think, on balance, they have pretty solid views. I am also hoping that the Democrats do not win the White House, and IN PARTICULAR, Hillary Clinton is kept well away from the levers of Presidential power. I know that she has some competition for getting the nomination in the form of young Barack Obama, whom the MSM appears to have a collective orgasm over!

Now then, I happened to come across this scurrilous story, revealing that Obama’s father was a drunk, a bigot and a polygamist. So WHAT? It’s not right to blame the sins of the father on the child, and I fail to see why this sort of muck is raked up. I have no sense of support for anything Obama says POLITICALLY, but I do support his right to say it without having his father’s life raked up in front of him.

Why one could think that stories like this are a gift for Hillary….mmmmm…surely not…..

69 Responses to “OBAMA POISON…”

  1. David – I’ve always considered you a friend of America, but if you are wishing Newt Gingrich upon us I’d have to reconsider.

    The Obama story probably serves Obama the best as it draws the sting out of anyone hitting him with this at the last minute. Rudy is also astute enough to have some source remind Americans of his own father’s criminal history. Hilary is too smart a politician to do anything but deplore that article. And I think she would be sincere.

  2. Mahons,

    It’s gutter journalism, though as you say, he may turn it to advantage. But it has nothing to do with matters of substance.

  3. The fact that his dad was a Muslim is probably much more damaging for Obama’s chances than that he was a polygamist.

  4. David: I agree.

  5. I agree too. If we can’t agree on gay adoption, at least we can agree on this.

    Being mischievous, here’s a question. An orphan by the name of United States is crying out to be adopted by loving parents to guide the child through turbulent times There are 2 choices

    1. A married Heterosexual couple Hilary and Obama

    2. The ‘civil partnershiped’ gay couple Rudi and Newt.

    Who should get the kid ?

  6. Colm: To paraphrase another famous orphan (Oliver) "Please Sir, may I have some more (to choose from)".

  7. Ok then , there’s the Lesbian couple…. Jane and Cindy!

  8. Barack stands no chance against the Clinton machine. She will flay him until there is nothing left. There is a litter of bodies and destroyed people surrounding the Clintons – anyone who got in their way.

  9. So the White House had Clyde, now it’s gonna get Bonnie !

  10. Monica -including Bush the Elder and Robert Dole? Seriously, good point about the Clinton machine. They also know how to take a few hits and keep going, which I think Obama does not.

    I think Obama makes it harder for Clinton, but she’ll eventually beat him. He’s got to keep to the high road to maintain his halo.

  11. Actually the attack dogs of Fox were snapping at Obama last week, with a smear that he was half islamic (he’s been a christian since birth) and that his name was a bit like, well Osama Bin Laden.

    Trust Fox to raise the tone! Not that they’re a bunch of right-wing republicans or anything – "Fair and Balanced" as always!

  12. Peter,

    I heard some comedians on Channel 4 make jokes about Obama/Osama also – hardly the domain of the right, more the right-on!! 🙂

  13. "Obama/Osama"

    It’s lucky he’s got Hussein as middle name to fall back on.

  14. Ross: I thought I imagined that. Good recall.

  15. Anyway

    It’s Obama for me. A contest between him and Giulliani would be a genuine political debate, free of a lot of political (and other) baggage from the 1990s. The same could not be said for a contest between Hillary and Gingrich, or Hillary and McCain. But unfortunately Hillary v McCain is the most likely contest.

  16. I want Condi !

  17. David

    I agree with you on the scurrilous story. The fact that Obama is a Democrat ought to provide enough to shoot at on its own.

    Regarding the election, I feel that conservatives in the US are in a similar position to those of us here. Whether it’s to Clinton, Obama or another pinko, defeat puts an anti-American commie into the White House, but could give the Republicans the impetus to become Republicans again, which is much more important in the long term than the next election.

    Domestically, the best that can be said about GWB is that at least he hasn’t been as bad a left wing President as Carter. Bush may be known as a Republican, but his record is one of big taxes and big spending.

    Giuliani, as impressive as he was in the aftermath of 9/11, is a gun fearing wussie who is hostile to the 2nd Amendment and has no place in the White House. An outright liberal.

    Gingrich isn’t so bad though.

  18. Pete: We decline to live in a one party state (whose the communist?). We’d love it if the Republicans became Republicans again, they used to make an effort to be statesman, now they just want pork.

  19. Mahons

    I can’t see where I advocated a one party state. I prefer no party states myself. And of course the Republicans have morphed into pork junkies. Such is the way of democracy and too many of them are Republican in name only.

    Being constructive, I’d vote for PJ O’Rourke.

  20. Pete – I knew you had to have a good side. PJ O’Rourke would get my vote as well. Sadly, he is far too intelligent to run.

    Your comment that any Democrat would be a commie pinko was the type offered by those who only want Republicans in office. Hence the one party snipe.

  21. PETE

    There’s an apocryphal story about Edgar Hoover that he was so paranoid about ‘commies’ and ‘reds’ under every bed that he wouldn’t even take a left turn in his car for fear of being infected with ‘leftyism’.

    You sound a bit like that with your Hyperbolic witterings about Hillary and Obama being ‘anti-American Commies’.

  22. Pete,

    "I prefer no party states myself."

    David: Am I allowed to say this is stupid?

  23. No but your allowed to shake you head and laugh at it Frank

  24. Frank: Pete has not yet ascended to the level of ATW regular who gets the benefit of Davance Intervention. Fire away.

  25. Frank O’Dwyer

    Fire away. Please tell me why it is stupid to regard the existence of formal political parties as a hindrance and danger to liberty and good governence.

  26. PETE

    Are there any examples of non-party governments ( an individual with unrestrained authority perhaps) that have advanced freedoms which you can use in defence of your theory.

  27. Pete,

    Because you have no alternative, at least no alternative that isn’t like "wouldn’t it be much funner if we all grew wings?".

  28. Colm

    Let me explain what I mean. Political parties have no constitutional basis in Great Britain and there is no constitutional reason why they ought to exist. That they do exist is easy to see why – it allows like minded people to market themselves and combine resources for campaigning. Being a conservative, I have no problem with this aspect and fully support their right to free association.

    However, the ONLY duty of your MP is to represent you in Parliament. Becasue your MP will usually be a member of a formal political party, they invariably are forced to debate and vote in line with their party whip, another innovation with no constitutional basis. For the sake of argument, let’s say that you and your (Labour) MP support the right of Catholic adoption agencies to place children only with married heterosexual couples (yes, that nugget again.) The Labour Party line happens to be that there are to be no exemptions in the Bill before Parliament for any faiths. The whips tell your MP that if he doesn’t speak and vote in favour of the party line he will be passed over for a ministerial position.

    So, he toes the party line. This is the party system, this is a common occurrence and this is why it is bad for liberty and good governance. Your MP and mine are duty bound to represent you and I in Parliament but because of the existence of formal parties they invariably represent themselves to their party and their party to Parliament and to us. Their constitutional duty has long been negated.

  29. Newt’s about the only one with the balls and the intelligence to go up against the Hildebeast and survive.

    McCain is a pussy – he’s a RINO anyway.

  30. Oh. Another interesting development is Tancredo. It looks like he’s in but we don’t know yet if he has the testicular fortitude to withstand the heat. I hope so. He’s from my old hometown – he’s very strong about border issues as well, which is something the republican base has been feeling betrayed about by Bush.

    Things are heating up. Pop some popcorn and watch the fur fly!

  31. Pete,

    "there is no constitutional reason why [political parties] ought to exist. That they do exist is easy to see why"

    So there is no constitutional reason, just an obvious reason?

    And your better proposal is what exactly?

  32. I personally think Obama will go a long way (maybe to the top), because he is articulate and black. Two great credentials in this world.

  33. Pete Moore posted:

    "Whether it’s to Clinton, Obama or another pinko, defeat puts an anti-American commie into the White House.."

    LOL! The genuine voice of Fox News.

  34. >>>Being a conservative<<<



    btw, Barak Obama has been the victim of Fox abuse for months. On several occasions they "mistook" his name for Osama on overlays or tickers. Then the accused him of going to a madrassa, which amazingly turned out to be utter bollocks. he went to an international school in the philipines, which was predominantly attented by muslims.
    and ofcourse the constant "do we really want a heussein in the whitehouse!".

    Go Fox.

    Keep an eye on MediaMatters.org they follow this issue very cllosely.

  35. I suspect that there is a bucket load of unpleasent truth about Hell-ary which will be kept in dry powder store and not wasted on the Primaries. See the book Primary Colours.

    Remember with Hillary, there always so much less than meets the eye.

  36. Monica – John McCain is an American hero. You can disagree with him 100% politically, but you can’t take that away from him just because he doesn’t follow the radical right wing political agenda. Show some moral decency and stop giving Philadelphia a bad name.

  37. NRG – on the contrary, the Hillary stuff is all out and has been for years. She’s actually benefitting from the fact that people are tired of those stories (true ones and untrue ones).

  38. Mahons

    Don’t you geddit? The rght cannot accept that military heroes can emerge from outside their own ranks. Anyone to the left of them must be a de-facto traitor, whatever their military record.

    Look how the supporters of the draft-dodging Dubya beat up Kerry in the last election.

  39. Peter – Sadly I do. And McCain is from the right on nearly every issue. But his position on two bedrock redmeat conservative issues (campaign finance reform and immigration) causes the Monicas of the blog world to hyperventilate.

  40. Here is my opinion on the Presidential election so far


  41. oh and Mahons McCains position on campaign finance reform is a direct violation of our constitution Thats why he is a traitor….

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  42. Hey, Troll, good to see ya.

    To quote myself from my comment on your blog;

    "The only saving grace there is Hillary will beat [McCain]."

    Can I quote you on that?
    Alan McDonald | Homepage | 01.28.07 – 11:41 am | #

  43. yes Alan you can….

  44. >>>Here is my opinion on the Presidential election so far<<<

    only 700+ days to go. i dont know if i can put up with it.

    btw, this campaign looks set to be the first billion dollar job. can our american partners confirm this?

  45. Confirmed.


    Your American Partner

  46. Troll:
    Thank you for posting your opinion on the election thus far because without it it would be difficult for a random reader to understand the depths of where you are coming from.

  47. Troll

    If you passionately support the US Constitution then you must support how it works. If McCains Finance reform bill is a breach of the constitution then the Supreme court will throw it out and it can’t be implemented . If the Supreme court rule that it isn’t a breach then there is no problem surely .

  48. Ah, but Colm. Sure’n that Supreme Court of ours can take some mighty strange 5-4 decisions, don’t ya know. Just ask Al Gore.

  49. Mahons

  50. Colm: Don’t get him started on the Courts!

    Peter: I know. I don’t think a parody writer of a right wing blog could be aas funny as Troll’s actual blog.

  51. thanks alan. put simply, thats insane.


    "The Muslim Nazis are coming a lot of them are already here. Waiting. There is no doubt about it. Blood is going to flow in combat in our streets for the first time in over 200 years the enemy will be attacking us on our busses, in our malls, nowhere will be safe and Hillary and the socialists will be running the show. Isn’t that sobering."



    keep it up. im sure theres a job for you at Minitrue somewhere.

  52. Colm

    "If you passionately support the US Constitution then you must support how it works. If McCains Finance reform bill is a breach of the constitution then the Supreme court will throw it out and it can’t be implemented . If the Supreme court rule that it isn’t a breach then there is no problem surely "

    The Supreme court also stated that slavery was constitutional. In the very few parts of McCain Feingold that have come before the court so far the court stated as part of their decision that since the houses of congress have felt that it was constitutional they would differ to their judgement. Even though when passing the law Feingold and several other members of congress stated that they believed that the court would strike several positions from the bill as unconstitutional So did the president when he signed it. So all 3 branches of our government relied on the other to correct McCains insanity and they have all failed so far, No part of the bill has yet to reach the court with Roberts as chief justice so there is still hope.

    The brilliant body that you are holding in such high regard has a history of violating the constitution with such items as slavery, segragation and denying woman individual rights.

    The constitution is the law NOT the courts, but I wouldn’t expect a foreigner to understand that.

    I would also recomend a good book on the courts


  53. Mahons,

    Oh – dangit! I forgot! Silly Olde Me. It’s the blonde showing through, isn’t it?! McCain’s a genuine article, got beat up in Vietnam, frigging *H*E*R*O*! He’s untouchable. He can do no wrong – I cannot speak against him.

    Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa…forever and ever, Amen.

  54. In a nutshell Troll you are saying that the Constitution is only what YOU interpret it to mean.

    The Constitution is a statement of principles and protocols whose application in the governance of the United States is to be administered and interpreted by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial bodies that are the structural manifestations of your nation. As a US citizen I would expect you to know that.

  55. >>for the first time in over 200 years the enemy will be attacking us on our busses, in our malls<<

    Who was it attacking the first Americans in their busses and malls back then – the Indians, the English?

  56. Colm

    The US Constitution was established by the people to be superior to the government. On its simplest level it is a statement of what government may not do and the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are subordinate to it.

    "Congress shall make no law …" is plain English which requires no interpretation. Whilst McCain is physically a brave man, he has shown himself to be unfit for the White House in clearly transgressing the Constitution.

  57. PETE

    So why bother having a Supreme Court then ?

  58. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13302538/the_low_post_the_scum_also_rises/1

    nice peice about the whole affair.

    *note: i was wrong about the "madrassa" being overseas, according to this article it was inside the US. must have my wires crossed there sorry.

  59. *second note: it was overseas, in indonesia. not philipines. my bad. need coffee.

  60. Monica: You are of course free to speak out against hi and any policy he advocates. I won’t be voting for him either (I think). But calling him a traitor is rubbish.
    Being blonde is the least of your offenses.

    Pete: The mere authoring of a law that is subsequently found to be unconstitutional would thereby disqualify many Presidents, including FDR.

    Colm: Consider the source. You’ve got a better understanding than my Philadelphia countrymen (and woman).

  61. Daytripper,

    That was a great piece on FOX lies that you linked to, especially:

    >>I get the feeling that as a society we have decided to give a collective pass to serial media swindlers like Sean Hannity simply because we never expect them to actually document the "facts" that come spewing in mass volumes out of their zoster-covered mouths every day. We actually expect them to pull most of their material out of their asses, and are mostly content to address the problem by pompously correcting their errata post-factum in whiny media-crit outlets like…well, like this one.<<

  62. Mahons

    I’m sure Troll won’t take it lying down!

  63. Colm: In the words of his hero "Bring it On".

  64. >>>That was a great piece on FOX lies that you linked to, especially<<<

    thats the very quote that struck me. funny how the so called "liberal" media is continually dragged over the coals for innaccuracies, yet highly partisan media on the right is given a by ball, merely because its what weve come to expect.

    mediamatters.org is an invaluable resource when looking at Fox etcs deliberate lies.

  65. although the closing statement is also excellent.

    >>>[T]he ugly truth: Until one of those monsters goes down in a fireball of punitive litigation, we are all fucked. And it’s not going to happen anytime soon.<<<

  66. Daytripper,

    As Mahons can tell you, libel law is pretty much nonexistent here in the uSA if the plaintiff is a public figure.

  67. >>So why bother having a Supreme Court then ?<<

    Even the Supreme Court is ultimately at the will of the people, in that we can amend the Constitution which the Court must interpit. But the bar is set quite high for amending the Constitution, and rightly so.

  68. >>So why bother having a Supreme Court then ?<<

    Colm has a better grasp on the constitution (according to Mahons – who, of course, knows better!) and he asks a crazy question like that??!!



  69. Monica

    I was addressing the point made by Troll and reiterated by Pete Moore that the Constitution does not need interpreting which is of course absolute nonsense. That is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. To provide the ultimate test to all legislation against the words of the constitution. Which by necessity involves interpreting the meaning and intentions of the various statutes and amendments and deciding if any passed legislation falls foul of the constitution. I wasn’t saying that the Supreme Court has the power to change or amend the constitution I know it doesn’t.