Obama: More Gray than Black or White


by Antenna Wilde

Ever since Obama’s speech on 3/18/08, one segment keeps ringing in my brain:

“I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents.”

Wow… even Eskimo? This guy is good; he’s genetically associated himself with every person on the planet—in just one sentence. I’m sure that nailed down the Siamese-twin and hermaphrodite vote as well. All he has to do is get those aliens from Area 54 registered, and he’s a shoe-in. I’d like to suggest the perfect running mate: Tiger Woods.

I’m kind of jealous, that’s all. I mean, I’m only English, Dutch, French and Scot (my Dad claims we’re Swedish too, but I think he just had a great vacation there). Maybe with the help of genetic engineering, I could infuse the rest of the races into my biological code—and throw in a dolphin, leopard and chimpanzee for posterity.

Obama, Clinton and McCain’s genealogies are here. Pretty weird, though interestingly enough, Obama has the most links to former presidents.

Now, if only we can get him to speak dolphin…

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Advertisements

Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton Suffer Under “Black Advantage”


Obama Has FDR Charm

by Antenna Wilde

Geraldine Ferraro said, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not!”

Perhaps she’s right; maybe a woman couldn’t possibly be running for president without some special, privileged assistance. And perhaps Ferraro isn’t a racist, just a realist. She was the first one to point out, remember, that she would never have been the 1984 VP nominee if she weren’t female. Because Ferraro knew; being a female VP nominee was a big advantage in 1984, just as being a black man running for president was in 1988, when she was quoted in the Washington Post, “If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

As it was true Jackson had the “black advantage,” we must remember that Obama is only half black, so there’s still hope for the Clinton camp. I mean, it would be much worse if he were, say… half black with three nipples and a club foot. Then even Cynthia McKinney would have to worry.

But Ferraro also knows that, although being a woman was a big advantage in 1984, in 2008 things are quite the contrary. On Super Tuesday she went into the polling booth in tears, speaking of Hillary, “It was tears [because] this woman has put herself out, and it is painful to watch how she’s being beaten up. And it’s only because she’s a woman. It was just a whole sense of the history, of her campaign, of my campaign. I’m not going to be around to see another woman run. I’m really not.”

Things were so much better in 1984. And that is why there is only one conclusion to draw from this whole “Obama ahead of Hillary” thing, which is that black men have more advantages than white women. How else would Obama have made it into the Senate while Ferraro herself failed to… twice? You see it’s not only because of sexism, but sexism AND racism. As Ferraro stated, “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

How’s that? Well, that’s stupid. Racism doesn’t work in directions, it works like this; “Ferraro, you’re a racist.” Direction works like this, “Ferraro, go home and bury your head in a pillow.” Notice the difference? In any case, Clinton supporters need to look at the bright side—I mean, things could be worse. Obama may be black, and his middle name may be Hussein, and his parents may have come from a poor village in Kenya, but at least he’s not in a wheelchair. That would REALLY put Hillary at a disadvantage. Just look at FDR: when he ran for the presidency in 1932, his handicap was his greatest asset. Voters weren’t overly concerned with issues—same as today—but were more interested in electing someone with a disability.

Incumbent President Herbert Hoover failed to alert the public to this fact during the 1932 race and, unfortunately for the GOP, FDR won by a landslide 472 to 59. And it was indeed the handicap which enabled him to become our only President to serve more than two terms (four total). People may claim he did great things; creating the New Deal, the SEC FDIC and Social Security system to name a few, but these achievements were more likely the result of having a handicap.

And even though FDR led the country and the Allies to ultimate victory against Nazi Germany, and the economy at home reached full employment (which included providing new opportunities to women and African Americans) his success would not have been possible without the wheelchair. In fact, I would argue that the REAL reason Obama is in the position he is today, is BECAUSE of that blasted wheelchair.

Yes, Ferraro was right, and that is why we must fight vehemently against the “black man” including all ethnic, racial and religious minorities, the poor, the mentally AND physically handicapped, the lost, confused, estranged and any other “advantaged” people who pose a threat to the REAL dejected and prejudged faction of our society: rich, white, former First Ladies.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Obama: REAL Change?


As the race for the White House heats up, I write another cliche opener.

As these jaded fingers tap away at my weary keyboard, I wonder if Obama’s really got a chance at this thing. Look at what’s at stake; a mighty chunk of control over the most powerful corporation in the world—the U.S. government. And now that he’s a real threat, Billary has joined forces with the GOP to knife this guy into oblivion. Obama offers hope and change, or, a hope FOR change. Because that’s what we’re really doing, hoping things will change.

Now you may say, “But people are out there in the streets, fighting the good fight… fighting for change and not just hoping.” This is true, but look at Ron Paul. By all accounts, he had what it took to be a leading candidate (Yes, he’s a bit goofy, but barring that…) he raised the most $ of any Republican candidate; had a grass roots following based on populist views like nationalism, ending the war and cutting government into bite-sized morsels, and he supported the Constitution. Shocking. The media ignored him—of course—because it was in Daddy Warbuck’s best interest.

But then why does Obama get the coverage? He’s a well spoken figure of change with an interesting life story? Sure, there’s a story, but would he have been given the CHANCE to be a story if he wasn’t willing to play ball in the first place? What I like about him IS his inexperience. Because he’s that less likely to have turned to the Dark Side already. I know we all want something to believe in, but I don’t think Pfizer, Johnson& Johnson or General Electric are too worried. Or are they?

There’s two possibilities I see here, 1: Obama is full of it, nothing of real significance will change. 2: He’s serious about change, which means a) Diebold, Skull and Bones and the powers that be will “fix” election day and put McCain in there (if he’s still walking by then). b) he’ll be assassinated before he has a chance. c) he’ll be assassinated after he gets into office. d) Big Brother is monitoring this blog.

Let’s be honest, we can’t REALLY have change, that would be revolution… real revolution with mayhem in the streets: a full-blown police state (not just the regular wiretapping and email monitoring for insider profits). No friends, I mean “release the hounds” kind of police state, because if you think the military industrial complex is going to forget about 630 billion dollars a year, or that Disney won’t mind paying a fair tax rate on 31 billion dollars a year, or Goldman Sachs on their 90 billion a year; just take a vacation and don’t come back.

I’m for profit, but when a Washington insider like Goldman Sachs has a net income increase of 84% in a single quarter, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050921/ai_n15361131) I’m reminded of what my Grandpa used to say, “Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.” And yeah, Goldman Sachs gives $ to Obama, Clinton and McCain. Somebody tell me it’s different… please?

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Politicians are Corporate Bitches…and Monsanto is the Anti-Christ


Politicians are Corporate Bitchesnasa_funding.jpg
…and Monsanto is the Anti-Christ

by Antenna Wilde

It has become increasing clear that very few—if any—mainstream news outlets are objective. The same could be said for any news outlet I suppose, everyone has a bias to a degree, but the whole POINT of journalism is to remain indifferent. The New York Times should not be endorsing anyone, simply reporting the facts as they arise. Same goes for the rest of ’em….

That is why the web is increasingly becoming the most important source of independent, unbiased news and information. Let’s hope “The Man” doesn’t gobble up every PING, search engine and re-direction there is (which, by the way, is happening with Fox “News” on WordPress). Otherwise, what seems unbiased will slowly become a mainstream FEED, which equals: JUST PLAIN CENSORED.

Take the case of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two Fox reporters in Tampa who, in 1997, were fired for refusing to revise a story regarding recombinant bovine growth hormone produced by Monsanto, a multi-billion dollar company that brought you such favorites as Agent Orange, “Terminator “seeds, and an ongoing series of heinous genetically altered chemical DUMPING right in your back yard.

Fox news bowed to pressure from Monsanto and fired the reporters who refused to alter the facts of the story. The reporters sued Fox—and won—but the decision was reversed on appeal. Why? According to Columbia Journalism Review, “Fox successfully appealed against judgment on the grounds that its First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press protected it from such litigation, and that the FCC’s policy against distortion of news was not a sufficiently significant rule for its breach to invoke the whistleblower law.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_200011/ai_n8908851

Which means, oddly enough, that Fox didn’t argue it HADN’T distorted the facts, rather, it’s argument was that The First Amendment gives them the RIGHT to present a “distortion of the news.” And they call it “Fair and Balanced.”

What is even scarier is the fact that a giant corporation like Fox won’t even mess with Monsanto who, one could argue, poses the biggest threat to the survival of the human race. Their genetically modified foods are unknowingly consumed daily by Americans (banned in every other first world country, by the way) have been shown to cause liver and kidney toxification in rats (then released for human consumption after a 90 day “test” period) and are cross-pollinating organic foods every time the wind blows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Perhaps the most transparent indication that Monsanto is run by the Anti-Christ is, after this accidental pollination occurs, they sue the affected farmers for “patent infringement”. Hillarious! Of course this is all kept quiet by our Politicians (who receive PAC money and LOBBYING money from Monsanto) and the Media pundits who, as one can imagine, keep their mouths shut by stuffing them with ORGANIC FOOD.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Hillary Clinton’s Affair with Barack Obama


Entertaining his Notion
Entertaining his Notion

Hillary says, “Bill owes me one.”
by Antenna Wilde

In a stunning twist of events, Hillary Clinton was caught “goosing” Barack Obama at a recent event. Sources close to Clinton say that he was turned on about her presidential campaign, but deny there has been any hanky panky. When asked about the goosing at a press gathering, the President-elect joked, “I think we’re finally getting along.” A comment which apparently irritated his wife Michelle, who, according to a Fox News reporter, “Made a comment in regards to ‘bitch-slapping’ the former First Lady.”

In an attempt to prevent Hillary from stealing the spotlight, former President Clinton officially invited Mrs. Obama to share a cigar. “They’re Cuban,” he winked. A barrage of criticism flooded the blogosphere, forcing a number of servers to temporarily shut down, and prompting Senator Mitch McConnell to make a statement, “This is exactly the kind of behavior (cough) the American people were offended by during Bill’s Presidency, (yawn) do we have to suffer through four years of this?” The senator then fell asleep in his chair.

Many pundits are speculating whether or not Hillary will actually sleep with Obama, while insiders are reporting bickering over who should actually be on top. “Obviously there’s a big difference between the two,” said Obama “and the American people have made it clear which position I’m in.” Hillary replied that she was willing to entertain his notion, and suggested they try some “role playing … to see what course of action to take.”

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});