Liars? Hyper-biased garbage?

First of all, that I may not see eye to eye with the "Obanaloonies" does not make me a "liar" nor does it invalidate the facts...even if they don't suit your pro-Obama leftist agenda!

Secondly, you have to be kidding! "Hyper-biased"? Tell me what has been more openly "hyper-biased" than the months-long, unrelenting, 24/7,"slobbering love affair" - to again quote Bernie, of the servile, fawning, adulating Mainstream Media over Obama; which in no small measure was responsible for getting this obscure (no pun about his skin color intended), no-body, first-time Senator, from the notably corrupt "Chicago Political Machinery", who was neighbor, buddy, colleague, and disciple to such great Chicagoans as hate-monger Islamist Louis Farrakhan, convicted Syrian pro-Palestinian "Slum Lord" Tony Rezko, unrepentant "hate-America" domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife, and "Liberation Theology" Black Power race-monger Rev. Wright, elected to the highest Office in the land! And you have the gall to talk about "hyper-bias"?!?!

The Mainstrean Media has been so brazenly and blatantly "In The Tank" for Obama all during the elections, that even such outfits as Saturday Night Live - well known for its rabid "Conservativism," and non other than Jay Leno, on the "Tonight Show " - assuredly the most rabid right-wing fanatic out there, have been compelled to make fun of, ridicule, and mock the Media's sick fawning obsession with Obama! SNL made a skit - now withdrawn from YouTube by the Obamaphiles, mocking the servile deference of an adoring, slobbering, smitten, Jorge Ramos, of Univision, and of his Obama-lapping colleagues during the debates. Leno made a joke about how after his victory, Obama went to celebrate at his headquarters: MSNBC. In both cases what strikes as humorous is how accurately both spoofs reflect the disturbing reality!

What in the heights of the openly and unashamedly biased, could possibly top Chris Matthews' "I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg ..." upon hearing an Obama speech - perhaps expressing some instinctive-due-to-excessive-inbreeding (just as those white women "swooning" at his rallies?), subliminal, latent homosexual, attraction for the "husky" candidate on Chris' part? Or watching the likes of Tom Brokaw, George Stephanopolous, and other of their MSM ilk, getting all emotional, teary-eyed, gushy, and sobbing during the Inauguration, all because - to bluntly reduce it to its lowest common denominator - America had elected a "ni**er" to the White House! Actually, perhaps we should call it the "Black House" now, "White House" sounds so "racist"! Talk about the "journalistic integrity, professionalism, and impartiality" of the Media - the "Watchdogs" of our democracy! Ha!

I would like to remind our friend InCogNi, that last I checked, I was still an American and as far as I know Obama and his lackeys in Congress have not yet stripped me of my American Citizenship (even as Castro has those Cubans who fled his hellish "Proletariat Paradise" of their Cuban Citizenship - all but people without a country!) for opposing him and his socialist agenda. That this is my land, and I do not have to move to Iran or elsewhere just to get out of the way of the "Obama Revolution"... this, notwithstanding that it was the "The Anointed One" who has on several times offered to meet with that terrorist enabler madman Ahmadinejad and other tyrants and terrorists around the world without any "pre-conditions," who the other day directed his first media interview, as president, at the Muslim world, and who in said interview apologized and grovelled in obeisance at such as Ahmadinejad.

Also, during the elections, the Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians made it abundantly clear they all hoped that Obama would be the one who got elected, hoping that he, quote: "would change American policy in the Middle East," ie. translation: stop supporting Israel and leave it to its fate... in the hands of its ravenous Muslim neighbors. The Iranians chant "Death to America" (like Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, and Rev. Wright?), not death to Obama.

Now InCogNi, rather than asking those of us Americans who are proud to be Americans, and love and defend our Republic and our country, to "move to Iran" as you did, wouldn't it be more appropriate that it be Obama and his "Obamaloonies," the ones who should move to Iran, Venezuela, or Cuba? After all, why stay in Ameirca, a country - and all it stands for - you all hate so much?

As to President Davis, as I previously stated, not only do I give "respect" where respect is due, but I say shame on you! Even as with General Robert E. Lee and his fellow Virginians, Davis was torn between his allegiance to the Union - which with Lincoln no longer represented him and his fellow Mississippians - and his loyalty to his friends, his neighbors, and his State! Both chose well. There is no Union without the Confederation of States. There are no States without the Representation of Counties and Parishes. There are no Local Governments - Counties and Parishes, without the consent and involvement of friends and neighbors! Besides, it doesn't behoove you to call Davis "that traitor" given that none other than that Paragon of Liberal inefficiency and banality, Jimmy Carter, Absolved Davis of any charges of treason, and reinstated to him his American Citizenship.

However, If you want examples of treason, just look at Abraham Lincoln. A man who in his ambition divided this nation and trampled upon the very principles of liberty upon which the first Thirteen Colonies became Confederated into one Republic! A man who was the most hated president of his time on both sides of the Dixie line. A man whose greatness is due to his having been highly "Lionized" - a common practice for men of note during the 19th century, and the fact, again, that victors write the History Books!

On Townhall.com, columnist Walter E. Williams - who incidentally happens to be black, in his piece of January 21st, 2009, exposes Lincoln's hypocrisy and political manipulations. Mr. Williams remarks about Mr. Lincoln and Obama's "Lincolncentric Theatrics," quote:

"President Obama was sworn into office placing his hand on Abraham Lincoln's Bible. That is the last Bible I would use to be sworn into office. You say, 'Why? Didn't Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation free your ancestors?' It all depends where they were living. Let's examine the document's text to see why."

"President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, which reads, 'That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free The key phrase is 'in rebellion against the United States' because slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion."

"The Proclamation is specific about the states where slaves were freed, to wit: "Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. ' "

"Slaves in the excepted Louisiana parishes were not freed because those parishes were not in rebellion. Neither were slaves in West Virginia. By the way, West Virginia's June 1863 admission as a state, formerly a part of Virginia, was a clear violation of the Constitution's Article IV, Section 3, that reads in part 'but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.' But what the heck, Lincoln had much of the Constitution under siege by then."

"The hypocrisy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. His Secretary of State William Seward said, 'We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.' The New York World wrote, 'He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.' The London Spectator mocked, 'The principle (of the Proclamation) is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.' Lincoln admitted in a letter to his Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase that his proclamation had no legal justification. Lincoln's motivation for proclamation was the war was going badly for the Union and there was the possibility that England and other European powers, who had recently abolished slavery, might give the Confederacy economic and political aid, but would not do so if the war was seen as a war against slavery. An excellent reference for this period is 'The Real Lincoln' by Loyola College of Maryland's economics Professor Thomas DiLorenzo."

"President Obama can be forgiven for celebrating the hypocrisy of Abraham Lincoln because the victors of wars write their history and glorify the winners. The recognition that slavery is a despicable institution does not require hero worship of a president who made the largest contribution to the unraveling of our Constitution. After all when it is settled by brute force that states cannot secede, as they thought they had the right to in 1787, then the federal government can ride roughshod over states and their people's right -- in a word make meaningless the Ninth and Tenth Amendments."

So, it seems that Lincoln was at best lukewarm about the issue of slavery and at worst indifferent, and that his Civil War, his suspension of Constitutional rights during said war, and most of his actions during that war, were impelled rather by political expediency and in order to retain political power, rather than by any lofty anti-slavery ideals, as we have been wrongly taught in school!

On "The New York Review Of Books," volume 55, number 7, of May 1st, 2008, Gary Wills in his piece titled: "Two Speeches On Race" makes some striking parallels between the unqualified, opportunistic, Lincoln, and the equally unqualified, and opportunistic Obama, quote:

"Two men, two speeches. The men, both lawyers, both from Illinois, were seeking the presidency, despite what seemed their crippling connection with extremists. Each was young by modern standards for a president. Abraham Lincoln had turned fifty-one just five days before delivering his speech. Barack Obama was forty-six when he gave his. Their political experience was mainly provincial, in the Illinois legislature for both of them, and they had received little exposure at the national levelyears in the House of Representatives for Lincoln, four years in the Senate for Obama. Yet each was seeking his party's nomination against a New York senator of longer standing and greater prior reputationagainst Senator William Seward, Obama against Senator Hillary Clinton. They were both known for having opposed an initially popular waragainst President Polk's Mexican War, raised on the basis of a fictitious provocation; Obama against President Bush's Iraq War, launched on false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and had made an alliance with Osama bin Laden."

"Neither man fit the conventions of a statesman in his era. Lincoln, thin, gangling, and unkempt, was considered a backwoods rube, born in the frontier conditions of Kentucky, estranged from his father, limited to a catch-as-catch-can education. He was better known as a prairie raconteur than as a legal theorist or prose stylist. Obama, of mixed race and foreign upbringing, had barely known his father, and looked suspiciously 'different.' "

"The most damaging charge against each was an alleged connection with unpatriotic and potentially violent radicals. Lincoln's Republican Party was accused of supporting abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, who burned the Constitution, or John Brown, who took arms against United States troops, or those who rejected the Supreme Court because of its Dred Scott decision. Obama was suspected of Muslim associations and of following the teachings of an inflammatory preacher who damned the United States..."

One can almost say that "Birds of a feather, stick together", or at least resemble each other in behavioral patterns a lot...regardless of the color of their plumage!

To this I would like to add, that none other than the General in charge of Lincoln's armies at the outset of the Civil War, General George McClellan, thought of Lincoln as, quote: "crude, ignorant, and uncouth" and had such open contempt for Lincoln that, at their scheduled meetings he would deliberately keep Lincoln waiting. He often openly referred to his "Commander-in-Chief" as, quote: "The original gorrilla." One can only wonder in the light of the similarities between Lincoln and Obama, and in view of Obama's election, if McClellan was waning prophetic!

As for other examples of treason, you have to look no further than another "lionized" dead president, Icon of the Liberals, John F. Kennedy, who betrayed the Cuban Patriots he had committed to battle at the Bay of Pigs, at the last minute abandoning them to their fate without the air support they expected, and or the supplies they needed... to be massacred by an unopposed Castro air force, and or have to surrender after weeks of having run out ammo, food, water, and medical supplies in the malaria infested swamps!

Or how about John Kerry, who because of his unfetterd left-leaning political ambition, not only turned his back on his own men, but went on to falsely accuse them before Congress of "raping, cutting off ears, cutting off heads, cutting off limbs, randomly shooting at civilians, and razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan...." And to think this "Elitist" traitor not only has sat in the Senate for decades, but even had the audacity of running for the presidency! If there is one thing that the "lionizing" of Kennedy, the candidacy of Kerry, and the election of Obama prove, is that to those "hate-America" liberals, Secularists, and radicals, who unfortunately now rule our nation, the more traitorous the candidate, the more they want him to lead our nation...into perdition, I say! No wonder Obama got elected!

Obviously to InCogNi recognizing the merits and virtues of such a great man as Jefferson Davis, is tantamount to "belonging to his time, not ours" and that, in his opinion, makes anyone who does "just as un-American as he was." Undoubtedly, to InCogNi the America of "The Greatest Generation" and all it stood for, must also similarly be as hateful, and "un-American."

The America of that "Greatest Generation," that unlike their "Baby Boomer" radical offsprings, born with "silver spoons" in their mouths, endured the privations of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, who defeated the Imperial Japanese "Hubris" and aggression, who liberated Europe from the Nazis and helped rebuild it; the America of the 1950's, of the Dad working while Mom could stay at home and raise her children and cook, and bake, and be a Mom and a Housewife; the America of the Dad who could afford on his blue-collar salary to buy a home, and a new car, and to send his kids to college (where their minds were insidiously poisoned by commie intellectuals and they became the godless, hedonisitc, leftist, rabid liberals they are today!); the America of all the Christmas presents and the Lionel train under the Christmas tree; the America of Andy Griffith, Don Knotts, and Mayberry. What a hateful America! Right?

But what else can be expected of InCogNi and his liberal ilk, after 40 years of being bombarded with leftist, secularist, propaganda in schools and universities; of being influenced by all the hedonism, gratuitous sex, violence, and open anti-Americanism in Hollywood movies; of being conditioned by politically expedient TV programming stressing "Affirmative Action" to the absurd point that there was a time when there was not one new sitcom on TV that was not exclusively about blacks - whether "Moving on up to the East side," being "Dynomite," or just plain "Princes of Bel Air"...if not of the "Projects"!

What else can you expect after our youth is daily being poisoned with Rap music and the "Glamourizing" of all that is reprehensible in the "Hood" and black culture, the "Gangsta" lifestyle, the drugs, the violence, and the degradation of black women "Biaches," to the point that none other than black comedian Chapelle had to spoof it in one of his skits!

Chapelle mocks the absurd fascination of middle class white kids with the degrading "Gangsta Rap" lifestyle and all that is black, to the point they wear "Gangsta" styled clothing as the latest fashion, listen to Rap music, and try to talk "Jive" and in "Ebonic" slang in emulation. In the skit, a blind man (played by Chapelle) calls some white kids who were listening to loud Rap music in their car the "N" word, to which the fascinated kids, after looking at each other in surprise surmised "Cool" in exuberance!

But then, what else can be expected when for 40 years white kids have been imbued with "White Guilt," and blackness has been placed on such a pedestal, that even white females feel compelled to mate with anyone other than one of their own race? I remember how one of my daughter's High School white female classmates told her back then, she would not "date a boy unless he was black". Isn't that reverse racism? Eerily reminiscent of Obama's mother, isn't it?

What else can you expect when all morality, all values, and all self-respect and pride in one's own ancestry, has been turned upside down by the Secularist Progressives and their vision of, to quote an infamous New York Councilman: "The Browning of America"?

This is the way, InCogNi, that the left, not America, "has gotten rid" of our "ilk," as you so joyously express. This unfortunately is the "reality" you refer to, and that the "few" of us "that remain will have to deal with..." Except, that even though I know you don't think much of us - just uncouth clodhoppers that "cling in our ignorance and frustration to our guns and Bibles," who inhabit that big "Red" expanse of nothing between California and the East Coast - yet, we are not few, but half of this nation!

As to the absurd emphatic assertion that Obama has "NEVER" played the race card, it is simply laughable!

Oh, please! Even such an "anti-feminist," "racist," "staunch Conservative" as Geraldine Ferraro - let me laugh here - could not help but remark that if it wasn't because of his color, Obama would not have gotten to where he is now!

These elections have been about nothing but race, and the preying of the Obama team upon the stigma of "White Guilt" of all the conditioned, emasculated, white voters, who voted for Obama! In their self-loathing conditioning, and in their trauma, they voted for Obama in order to prove to themselves, and to others, that they are not "racists"! And that, my friend, is no reason to elect anyone, regardless of color, to Commander-in-Chief, in one of the most perilous moments in our nation's history, but that we should have elected the most experienced and best man for the job! I rest my case!

As for me, dear InCogNi, in the same way that black persons should be proud of their proud African Heritage, or an Amerindian should be rightfully proud of the achievements of their Aztec, Maya, Inca, or other Native American ancestors, or a Chinese person be proud of their Millenarian culture, I am proud of my Spanish, Visigoth, ancestry, and of being "White" - yes, amazingly as it may seem, and in spite of the little squares in government forms that categorize "Hispanics" as being different from "Whites," there is such a thing as "Whites" who are Hispanic, Virginia. Hispanic is a culture and a Heritage, not a race, and there are White European Hispanics, Amerindian Hispanics, Black Hispanics, Chinese and Filipino Hispanics, and every other race and conceivable shade of skin color in between, who are "Hispanics."

Althor