Obama Spews Venom on Pennsylvanians

Obama: "Not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate . . ."

For those of you who have been vacationing in a distant land (or, alternatively, don't have access to FOX News), here are the comments Barack Obama made to a group of "wealthy donors" in Nancy Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments.

Since I am a Pennsylvanian and live in a small town (Ambridge, 15 miles west of Pittsburgh), I will have plenty to say about Obama's comments. In fact, Obama's San Francisco statements provide no insight in the lives -- and beliefs -- of people in Pennsylvania. There are surveys of beliefs and attitudes that are completely at variance with Obama's views -- the standard ones we hear regularly from liberal journalists and politicians.

I've been writing recently about Rep. Jason Altmire, congressman from PA's 4th congressional district (west and north of Pittsburgh). I'm very curious what Altmire has to say about Obama's negative comments about small-town Pennsylvanians. Actually, I assume Altmire, like most PA Democrats, hopes the whole thing blows over.

The national media is based most of its comments on Obama's statement on the word "bitter." In other words, they're saying that bitterness is the core of the San Francisco remarks.Actually, Obama is saying that Pennsylvanian's Christian faith and their belief in the Second Amendment is reflective of social and economic disorder. He's also saying that many Keystone Staters don't like people who are know like them (us, since I'm one).

In fact, Obama's views reflect his tendency to make broad, racially focused statements about large categories of people. For example, Obama refers to his very untypical grandmother as "a typical white person." Of Kansas farm boys during his grandfather's childhood, Obama says "they stank like pigs." Since he never smelled a single such farm boy, one wonders how he knows.

Frankly, one also wonders: what's wrong with this man? If he is a post-racial candidate, as he has claimed, then why does he see everything through the prism of race (or class)? This graduate of Columbia and Harvard reflects the elitism and vague anti-Americanism of those institutions. He's not someone who deserves to be a serious presidential candidate.

(More to come.)


"LargeBear" (Randy) of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo is performing a major public service: he is demonstrating, with facts and logic, that the standard Left-wing anti-military and anti-American views have no merit. For example, the notion that American soldiers like to kill civilians is the reverse of our country's military practices. The vast, vast majority of liberals never serve in the military and have no understanding of what makes soldiers tick. There's a recent book out by an economics professor at Syracuse that does more to explain liberals than anything else I've ever seen.

(It's the book that uses sophisticated surveys to arrive at the point that conservatives tend to be much happier (and better able to cope with life) than liberals. It also points out how liberals' faith in -- and dependence on -- government makes it extremely difficult for them to handle a free society.

The books author is Dr. Arthur Brooks, and its title is: "Gross National Happiness."Among other things, the book says (in the words of one reviewer): ". . . The American Left is now a coalition of groups that define themselves as the victims of social and economic forces, and in as much as its leaders encourage people to feel aggrieved, he [Brooks] thinks they make America a glummer place."

Reading Brooks's study is like having a 10,000 watt light bulb come on. It won't come as a big surprise to most members of the Black Conservatives Group (or other conservatives). One of the fascinating things about Dr. Brooks is that he's not especially conservative; he's a scholar who tells the truth as the evidence indicates.

For an economist, Brooks has a great sense of humor. For example, he talks about having a child who was a "biter," that is, one who bit other people, children and adults. Brooks says, "There are many things in a parent's life that bring great joy. For example, spending time away from [one's] children." He's being "parentally incorrect," but also accurate. :-)

John McCain and YOU

A photo surfaces of President Bill Clinton with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at the White House in 1998 at a breakfast meeting with religious leaders hours before the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal was made public.

Later today (Saturday, March 29), I'll be posting my comments for the weekend. I'll be pointing out what you can do to help ensure the election of John McCain. As someone who's active online, you can do a great deal. I hope you'll return to this site -- and, if you wish, leave your comments on what you're doing to assist John McCain. I invite you to read some of the columns I've alrady done (scroll down).

One thing you've not been hearing much about is the big lead Hillary Clinton has established in Pennsylvania polls. If Mrs. Clinton can get 60% or more of the vote in the primary, she could throw the Democratic race into chaos, because she would have clearly exposed Obama's weakness in state Democrats must win on November 2, 2008.

Note: One of my friends in the Black Conservatives Group (Yahoo) recently said that McCain should not be launching his campaign (at McCain Field) in Mississippi because of the state's said history during the Civil Rights Movement. Also, he said that Rev. Wright had become "a dead issue." I begged to differ, as follows, on both points:

John McCain is kicking off a tour based on HIS autobiography, not on the history of the Civil Rights movement. He is kicking it off at a field (McCain Field) named after a member of his family -- both his grandfather and his father were Navy admirals. McCain is focusing on his own distinguished military career, which contrasts with Barack and Hillary, whose families have no such careers.

On Rev. Wright: this is an issue that Obama hopes will go away but it won't. In addition to having no military career, Obama has almost no legislative career either. He's been a U.S. Senator for only three years, but half that time he's spent campaigning for President and has missed most of the votes in DC.

People are interested in Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-American, pro-terrorist comments because they're trying to figure out where Obama stands in relation to his friend, "uncle," and "spiritual advisor."

Where does Obama stand on the issues Wright has raised? How much influence on Obama's views (and on his wife's dislike of America) has Wright had? Wright, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama need to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what they believe and why they believe it.

In Obama's book Dreams From My Father he relies too much on racial stereotypes -- and he bases his views on very limited experience. He probably would not have won the Kansas Primary if his statements about that state (as loaded with white racists) had come out. (He based his opinions mainly on pictures of his grandparents and mother in Kansas.) Mostly white states that vote for a mixed-race candidate (Obama) are not exactly behaving in a racist fashion.

He even tells us how white farm boys smelled in Kansas ("stank like pigs") when he had rarely been within a thousand miles of such people.

Voters want to know exactly WHO Barack Obama is: what does he believe? what has he really accomplished (not much)? Why do he characterize himself as "post-racial" when he has felt comfortable for 20 years in an all-Black church that emphasizes nationalism rather than unity?

I realize he and Michelle don't want to answer any of those questions. But in that case, why on earth is he running for President of what his pastor calls "the KKK of America?"