Obama's Tuesday Morning "Kill" Decisions

"...reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world -- and some of his killers have killed Americans."

Lawless Presidency: Obama's secret kill list ~ from Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs

In a stunning act of hypocrisy and deception, the bombshell news story breaks this week that Obama "loves blowing the hell out of people.” The killer-in-chief excoriates America for GITMO that provides its enemy combatants with qurans, laptops, duck a la'orange and my oh my the inhumanity of it all. He flogged and beat us with his wet waterboarding noodle. He cried for Khalid Sheik Muhammad's nose -- despite the fact that the enhanced interrogations saved the lives of thousands in Los Angeles. Three mass murderers were waterboarded (along with scores of CIA and military folks) and Obama was shocked, shocked I tell ya ....

...the New York Times revealed how Barack Obama refers to drone killings as “an easy call” and how military officials have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the ease and enthusiasm exhibited by a president so willing to utilize drone technology – technology that related reports suggest is now being prepared for use within the United States:

What is it going to take for Americans to wake up to the nightmare in the White House?
And where is the enemedia's outrage? Millions of column inches on GITMO and the war on terror, but they are OK with a murdering president?

"The Secret Kill List" Town Hall Judge Andrew NapolitanoThe leader of the government regularly sits down with his senior generals and spies and advisers and reviews a list of the people they want him to authorize their agents to kill. They do this every Tuesday morning when the leader is in town. The leader once condemned any practice even close to this, but now relishes the killing because he has convinced himself that it is a sane and sterile way to keep his country safe and himself in power. The leader, who is running for re-election, even invited his campaign manager to join the group that decides whom to kill.
This is not from a work of fiction, and it is not describing a series of events in the Kremlin or Beijing or Pyongyang. It is a fair summary of a 6,000-word investigative report in The New York Times earlier this week about the White House of Barack Obama. Two Times journalists, Jo Becker and Scott Shane, painstakingly and chillingly reported that the former lecturer in constitutional law and liberal senator who railed against torture and Gitmo now weekly reviews a secret kill list, personally decides who should be killed and then dispatches killers all over the world -- and some of his killers have killed Americans.
We have known for some time that President Obama is waging a private war. By that I mean he is using the CIA on his own -- and not the military after congressional authorization -- to fire drones at thousands of persons in foreign lands, usually while they are riding in a car or a truck. He has done this both with the consent and over the objection of the governments of the countries in which he has killed. He doesn't want to talk about this, but he doesn't deny it. How chilling is it that David Axelrod -- the president's campaign manager -- has periodically seen the secret kill list? Might this be to keep the killings politically correct?
Can the president legally do this? In a word: No.
The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked, or when an attack is so imminent and certain that delay would cost innocent American lives, or in pursuit of a congressional declaration of war. Under federal law, he can only order killing using civilians when a person has been sentenced lawfully to death by a federal court and the jury verdict and the death sentence have been upheld on appeal. If he uses the military to kill, federal law requires public reports of its use to Congress and congressional approval after 180 days.
The U.S. has not declared war since World War II. If the president knows that an attack on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue convincingly that a guy in a truck in a desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat to the U.S. so imminent and certain that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no circumstances may he use civilian agents for non-judicial killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force to protect themselves, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel, wherever they go on the planet.
Since 9/11, the United States government has set up national security systems that function not under the Constitution, not under the Geneva Conventions, not under the rule of law, not under the rules of war, not under federal law, but under a new secret system crafted by the Bush administration and personally directed by Obama, the same Obama who condemned these rules as senator and then extended them as president. In the name of fighting demons in pick-up trucks and wars that Congress has never declared, the government shreds our rights, taps our cellphones, reads our emails, kills innocents abroad, strip searches 87-year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs and 3-year-old babies in their mothers' arms, and offers secrecy when the law requires accountability.
Obama has argued that his careful consideration of each person he orders killed and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. The Constitution provides for no such thing. He has also argued that the use of drones to do his killing is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect. And he has argued that these killings are consistent with our values. What is he talking about? The essence of our values is the rule of law, not the rule of presidents.

Mayor Bloomberg: As for me, you can pry this Coca-Cola from my cold, dead hand!

Source American Thinker  (picture at bottom added by Storm'n Norm'n)

Bloomberg's Coked-Out Nanny State

by Benjamin Domenech

If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way, soon you'll have to buy your Coca-Cola from a guy in an alley.
The self-appointed chief of the food police has proposed a citywide ban on the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened beverages larger than 16 ounces, including soda, coffee, energy drinks, and iced tea. New York's restaurants, theaters, and street vendors would have to abide by the ban, which also would extend to sports arenas, ballparks, and even fast food franchises.
In the press conference announcing the move, Bloomberg rejected the idea that this would annoy people or store owners.
"Your argument, I guess, could be that it's a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce," Bloomberg said. "I don't think you can make the case that we're taking things away."
There are a few carve-outs. You can still get a large fruit juice, even though many juices are full of sugar more than sodas are. You can still get large milkshakes, even though they're more fattening. And you can still order a cappuccino or latte with sugary syrup added, in a win for Big Milk's lobbyists. But who knows how long Bloomberg will grant access to hazelnut or vanilla? And no, you can't get a large coffee with that same sweetener, for some reason. Maybe the mayor has a thing for latte-sipping.
Of course, there's no evidence whatsoever that restricting access to larger sodas and sugary drinks will result in any significant downturn in obesity. Instead, this functions simply as a regressive tax. In his announcement, Bloomberg suggested that store owners could just charge more for smaller drinks if sales dropped, which they almost certainly will. But research has shown time and again that such price hikes don't reduce obesity.
Maybe this is an example of a politician believing his own advertising. When Bloomberg made an unsuccessful push to tax soft drinks in 2010, a taxpayer-funded health department ad campaign came under fire for exaggerating the effects of drinking sugary sodas. The lurid ads claimed that drinking a can of soda a day "can make you 10 pounds fatter a year." There's no real-world example to support that claim, and the New York Times obtained internal e-mails from the city's health commissioner that showed that staffers and the chief nutritionist in Bloomberg's own health department had denounced the ads internally as unscientific. But the administration spent taxpayer dollars to run them anyway.
After entering the New York City political scene, Bloomberg once was viewed as a possible independent candidate for the presidency, with his enormous wealth and supposedly moderate appeal. He since has revealed himself to be the worst kind of boring nanny-stater, bent on restricting the freedom of people and businesses to buy and sell what they wish.
New York City's slide toward big government is a foregone conclusion -- this is just the latest Bloomberg crackdown, following beat-downs of alcohol sales, trans fats, and even table salt. The real question is whether the rest of the country will recognize the danger of this kind of nanny-statism if it comes calling in their own neighborhood. The American people have to decide whether there is any limit to what the government should be able to tell you to do.
As for me, you can pry this Coca-Cola from my cold, dead hands.

Mayor Bloomberg is a donut man... “One donut is not going to hurt you...” but oh those 16oz drinks!

The following from CBS News
While Defending Proposed Ban On Super-Sized Sugary Drinks, Bloomberg Celebrates National Donut Day

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Super-sized sugary drinks bad, donuts good.
That seems to be the message being sent by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as he continues to defend his proposal to ban large, sugar laden drinks while celebrating National Donut Day on Friday.
The event featured a signed Proclamation Letter by the mayor honoring the 75th annual National Donut Day at Madison Square Park where the largest box of Entenmann’s Donuts ever created was unveiled.
The proposed ban puts a 16-ounce limit on sugary drinks sold at city restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts, including bottles and fountain drinks. On Friday, Bloomberg was challenged about celebrating National Donut Day days after revealing his soda proposal.

 “One donut is not going to hurt you, in moderation, most things are OK,” Bloomberg said Friday while appearing on The Today Show. “That’s what we’re trying to do with soft drinks, is get you to drink in moderation. So instead of getting the big 32-ounce, get two 16-ounce drinks if you want. But history shows, all the tests show, that you’ll probably only drink one.”

 

Continues here http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/06/01/while-defending-proposed-ban-on-super-sized-sugary-drinks-bloomberg-celebrates-national-donut-day/

¿Puede leer español? (If not, that's just tough!)

Dems To Require All Election-Related Business to be Conducted 100% in Spanish ~ from The Lid  Yid With The Lid
Those progressive Democrats are really getting desperate. Perhaps a reaction to the rising unemployment rate they have introduced a bill requiring all voter registration forms, in fact all department of elections business be conducted in Spanish. According to this special report by Newsbusted Anchor Jodi Miller--We're not talking about offering forms and conducting business in two languages....but 100% Spanish, no English allowed.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi pointed out this is part of President Obama's "fairness" and "redistribution of voting power" policy and she looks forward to the United States becoming a country where every ethic group has the power of swaying an election.

Other news items covered in the latest installment of Newsbusted the twice-weekly faux news feature from Newsbusters.org include; the aspects of the economy that Obama can handle without any help, Florida Citizens' bad reaction to the President's same-sex-marriage statement, the Mainstream Media's coverage of the poll reporting 50% of the country is no pro-life, and much, much, more.

So make sure to watch the video below. You don't want to happen to you what happened to the guy who forgot to press play last week, Mayor Bloomberg came to his house and wouldn't let him eat his ice cream birthday cake.
So remember to press play now..you will enjoy the video below, and if you cannot see it please click here

Bilderberg 2012: Make believe cops are everywhere keeping the reporters away from the 'make-believe' meeting!

Bilderberg 2012...
For those who do not believe that the Bilderbergers exist why are there so many police (see video below) keeping the reporters at bay?   I guess the police are fictitious...

"There's many reasons why people want to go to the Bilderberg meetings, there are many advantages at a personal level, but then I suppose there's the supreme professional advantage of being recognized as a person who has the capability and has achieved a position in life where you can influence thinking on world affairs.   ...but the greatest anxiety over acceptance, is amongst those who are invited once, but not asked again." ~ from CNBC News

Listen to the list of attendees in the video below (some examples are Senator John F. Kerry, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and including representatives from the Dow Chemical Company)
Lucifer Reigns Supreme At Bilderberg. (partial posting from The Excavator)

"Once it was the "revolt of the masses" that was held to threaten social order and the civilizing traditions of Western culture. In our time, however, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses. This remarkable turn of events confounds our expectations about the course of history and calls long-established assumptions into question.
When José Ortega y Gasset published The Revolt of The Masses, first translated into English in 1932, he could not have foreseen a time when it would be more appropriate to speak of a revolt of elites. Writing in the era of the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of fascism, in the aftermath of a cataclysmic war that had torn Europe apart, Ortega attributed the crisis of Western culture to the "political domination of the masses." Today it is the elites, however - those who control the international flow of money and information, preside over philanthropic foundations and institutions of higher learning, manage the instruments of cultural production and thus set the terms of public debate - that have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West." - Christopher Lasch, "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy." 1996. Pg. 25-26.

Hardcore activists and new media journalists from around the world journeyed to Chantilly, Virginia on Thursday, May 31st, site of the 2012 Bilderberg conference, one of the most highly secret political gatherings in the world.

The Bilderberg Group, as a symbolic nucleus of the Western power elite, no longer operates under a thick shell of cosmic secrecy, press censorship, and public ignorance. The awakening of the Western world coupled with the meteoric rise of the alternative media has brought the Bilderberg Legend to an end.

In previous years, the ruling Bilderberg cabal was shielded from the bright lights of publicity, which added to its legend. But the global spread of the Occupy movement and the increasing public awareness of the powerful group's existence has made the 2012 meeting an unusually public affair for the notoriously camera shy Bilderberg attendees. The exception is Henry Kissinger, who entered the hotel on Thursday in a car with untinted windows, perhaps as a way to demonstrate his fearless nature to the heroic activists protesting outside the gates.

How much would you pay for the universe?

Sign the petition...

http://www.change.org/petitions/double-nasa-s-budget-to-1-of-the-us-budget#

"I just serverd as best I could."

Storm'n Norm'n

Republic of Vietnam

Oct 1970 - Oct 1971

A visit to the Pennsylvania fortress of “The World’s most Dangerous Islamist”

A visit to the Pennsylvania fortress of “The World’s most Dangerous Islamist”

Poland: Doing the job Americans refuse to do! (While the rest of the world sucks up to the insults from Obama.)

"...a simple expression of regret* " my butt!  Obama knows exactly what he is doing.  His words are carefully chosen to exemplify his anti-white, anti Jewish, anti-Catholic, and anti-American in the hope of radicalizing more more fringe groups to his way of thinking...to fundamentally change America. 
*And that was from a White House spokesman...Obama will never admit he's wrong; it's the Alinsky in him!   ~ Norman E. Hooben

"But then again, we all know how Obama and his shadow cabinet feel about Catholics."

The following from: CFP Canadian Free Press
The Courage of the Poles Transcends Obama ‘Misspeaks’

Leave it to the courageous, plucky Poles.
While the rest of the world, including mighty Britain, (returned Churchill bust) sucked up the insults from Obama, grousing to themselves, but not standing up to him, Poland has come right out to demand a sincere apology from knockoff President Barack Obama.
“Poland’s prime minister said Wednesday that remarks by President Barack Obama erroneously identifying a Nazi death camp as Polish had hurt all Poles and he expected more from the US than “regret”. (AFP, May 30, 2012)
“I am convinced that our American friends can today allow themselves a stronger reaction than a simple expression of regret from the White House spokesman—a reaction more inclined to eliminate once and for all these kinds of errors, Donald Tusk told reporters in Warsaw.
“Obama on Tuesday mistakenly called a Nazi facility used to process Jews for execution as a “Polish death camp.” The White House later said the president “misspoke” and expressed “regret”.
But this is not just another Obama ‘misspeak’ like his referral twice in one week to his two non-existent (as far as we know) sons.
This is the outrage of prescribing to the Poles, ownership of the horror of a Nazi camp that processed human beings as slabs of meat in calling it a “Polish” death camp.
Poles have a proven track record in exchanging their collective ‘regret’ for daring deeds inspired by the raw kind of courage that made history.
During World War II, throughout the German occupation of Poland, countless Poles risked their own lives—and the lives of their loved ones—to rescue Jews from the Nazis. Indeed grouped by nationality, Poles represent the biggest number of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. To date, 6,266 Poles have been awarded the title of Righteous among the Nations by the State of Israel—more than any other nation.
And if young people world wide are no longer taught the stories of the singular courage of the Poles, you don’t have to go back 70 odd years to World War 11.
You only have to go back to the Easter before last, to April 10, 2010 when a Tupolev Tu-154-M aircraft of the Polish Air Force crashed near the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all 96 people on board, including Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, former president Ryszard Kaczorowski, the chief of the Polish General Staff, and other senior Polish military officers, the president of the National Bank of Poland, Poland’s deputy foreign minister, Polish government officials, 15 members of the Polish parliament, senior members of the Polish clergy, and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre. They were en route from Warsaw to attend an event marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet-union inspired massacre.
In other words almost the entire Polish administration.
What did Obama do regarding Poland six months earlier? “Sad to remember today that the last time Poland was in the news was on September 17, 2009—the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland when Obama abandoned Poland’s missile defence system in Europe.”
What did Poland do after the Smolensk air crash? Poles bore a tragedy of an almost unimaginable scale, dried their tears and went on to ensure the security and economy of their country.
In fact, the president who now holds office, the one who is now calling out Obama for his insult, Donald Tusk replaced President Lech Kaczynski.
Unlike Obama and his insufferable socialism-seeking czars, the Poles have made the world a better place.
In the fight against the evil of Communism, it was Polish-born Pope John Paul II whom the Kremlin recognized as Public Enemy Number 1.
But then again, we all know how Obama and his shadow cabinet feel about Catholics.

The Dumbing Down Of Mitt Romney

The things that makes America look stupid...talk about dumbing down this, birther issue has got to be one of the dumbest things that ever dragged on and on, and on and on, and on and on...ho hum...
Absolutely all of the circumstantial evidence, 100% of the actual evidence, and 100 % of Obama's spending millions of dollars to hide the evidence all point to his big fat lie.  Obama was not born in Hawaii. Period!  ...and no one can prove otherwise!  Instead of wasting all this energy over was he or wasn't he, we should have already put the guy in the slammer for his deliberate sham.  But no, we have not a single person in a position of authority to cuff him and throw away the key.  America, you get what you deserve!  A frigging liar and deceiver...wake the hell up...you too Romney!  ~ Norman E. Hooben

The state of Hawaii recently re-affirmed that Obama was born there. Re-affirmed?  What a joke!  Instead of re-affirming lets see some real proof!  Let me re-affirm that Obama is a sham!  Norman E. Hooben

The following cross-posted from the Boston Herald

Trump overshadows Romney with ‘birther’ talk
By Associated Press | Wednesday, May 30, 2012 | http://www.bostonherald.com 

LAS VEGAS — Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign collided with Donald Trump’s "birther" rhetoric on Tuesday as the reality television star hosted a fundraiser for the Republican while claiming again that President Barack Obama is foreign-born.
The debunked conspiracy theory among conservative activists dubbed "birthers" charges that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to serve in the White House. Romney has said he believes Obama was born in America, but he has not condemned Trump’s comments.
Democrats contend it’s the latest example of Romney’s reluctance to confront the more extreme elements in his party.
"A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate," Trump told CNN of Obama’s birth certificate, just hours before he was set to host Romney’s finance event at the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.
Such allegations have been repeatedly proven false. The state of Hawaii recently re-affirmed that Obama was born there.
Trump’s comments, repeated in several media interviews Tuesday, overshadowed Romney’s visit to Nevada, one of a handful of swing states expected to decide the presidential contest in November. Trump also upstaged news from Texas that Romney had collected enough delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination.
Romney did not address the issue directly at separate events in Colorado and Nevada, but on Monday night he told reporters aboard his campaign plane that Trump is entitled to his opinion. Even as Trump-related criticism from Democrats and Republicans intensified in recent days, Romney showed no sign of distancing himself from the polarizing figure.
"I don’t agree with all the people who support me. And my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in," Romney said. "But I need to get 50.1 percent or more. And I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."
Trump remains popular among the conservative base and boasts ties to deep-pocketed donors. The Las Vegas event was expected to raise $2 million, but Romney’s ties to Trump extend beyond that single fundraiser. He has recorded automated phone calls for Romney, hosted a fundraiser for his wife, Ann, in New York, and pressed the candidate’s case as a television surrogate.
When Romney’s campaign plan arrived at the Las Vegas airport Tuesday, it parked within sight of Trump’s plane — the businessman’s name emblazoned on the side in large gold letters.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, once a rival for the GOP nomination and now a Romney supporter, suggested that the Trump issue will not derail Romney’s campaign.
"Gov. Romney’s not distracted. The Republican Party’s not distracted," said Gingrich, who attended the Trump fundraiser. "We believe that this is an American-born job-killing president. Other people may believe that he was born somewhere else and still kills jobs."
The Obama campaign released a video Tuesday criticizing what it considers Romney’s unwillingness to stand up to Trump and the more extreme elements in his party. There have been other examples in recent weeks that underscore Romney’s delicate push to win over skeptical conservatives while appealing to moderates and independents who generally deliver general election victories.
"Mitt Romney’s continued embrace of Donald Trump and refusal to condemn his disgraceful conspiracy theories demonstrates his complete lack of moral leadership," Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, said in a statement. "If Mitt Romney lacks the backbone to stand up to a charlatan like Donald Trump because he’s so concerned about lining his campaign’s pockets, what does that say about the kind of president he would be?"
While Trump asserts that the matter of Obama’s birth is a "good issue" for Romney, conservative commentator George Will questioned the "cost benefit" of Romney appearing with Trump.
"The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious, it seems to me," Will said Sunday. "Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics. ... Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?"
Trump revived the false claims about Obama’s birthplace late last week, citing a story about a literary agency that mistakenly listed that Obama was born in Kenya.
While Romney briefly addressed the issue Monday, senior aide Eric Fehrnstrom declined to condemn Trump’s remarks in a recent interview.
"I can’t speak for Donald Trump ... but I can tell you that Mitt Romney accepts that President Obama was born in the United States," Fehrnstrom said. "He doesn’t view the place of his birth as an issue in this campaign."

Obama's "Black Value System"

"...Obama's church bookstore:  I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific."

Source: American Thinker
Who Cares About Wright the Second Time Around?
By Karin McQuillan

 

When the videos of Obama's angry pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, hit voters' TV screens in March of 2008, Obama's favorable ratings plummeted. The number of Democrats saying he would be their nominee fell 20%. In a Rasmussen poll, a strong 56% of likely voters thought Obama shared some of Wright's views. Soon after, we were told the Wright story was over, that it was racist, and never to mention it again.

Democrats and mainstream media then and now insist that Obama's church is off-limits, while simultaneously attacking Mormonism. "If Mormons are such responsible people, why are voters turned off?" asks the New York Times, while TIME magazine piously intones, "Associating Obama with Wright's radical views raises the specter of racial stereotyping ... knowingly discounting his stated positions and making assumptions that may be influenced by his race."
It is less clear why Republicans continue to cave in to the Democrat pressure to shut up. The polling data at the time showed that Obama's closeness to the odious Rev. Wright went over very badly indeed with more than half of independents, precisely those voters essential to Romney's re-election.
Obama won in 2008 with 52% of independent voters. We will never know how many of those votes Obama would have lost if more voters had seen the Wright videos. Independents are not news junkies. Indeed, they are notorious for not paying attention to the news until just before the election. By the fall, there was a complete news blackout about Obama's black liberation theology church. McCain refused to run campaign ads to inform voters who missed the original story.
Outside conservative media, there was no in-depth reporting to provide details about Obama's openly Marxist church. Obama wrote in Dreams that he chose the church because of its political gospel, not because he was seeking religion. Yet most voters to this day do not know that Obama's church explains the world through a lens of white greed, teaches that America is fundamentally unfair, and promotes income redistribution. In 2012, the story of Obama's church would have a greater impact on the election, since these are -- no big surprise -- Obama's central campaign themes. It turns out that Wright was relevant. It would have been nice to know that before electing a son of this church to the presidency.
How much were voters affected by the Wright story in 2008, even with the paltry coverage it received? When the story broke in March, according to Pew, only 31% of Americans heard about Wright's sermons -- fewer had seen the videos. There was hardly any news coverage until three months later, when Obama's speech repudiating Wright was covered by the mainstream media. Even then, less than half the citizens polled saw the videos of Wright damning America. Immediately after the speech, Republicans ceded an unearned victory to Obama and dropped the story.
The videos were powerful. Among Americans polled, 52% of independents and 43% of Democrats reported themselves offended. Thirty-five percent of Americans polled said their opinion of candidate Barack Obama grew less favorable.
In May of 2008, Obama recognized that his loyalty to Wright was a threat to his chances for election. In a well-covered story, Obama at last repudiated his pastor. Rasmussen's polling showed that only 40% of likely voters saw the repudiation as genuine. That week, McCain broke his tie with Obama and took a lead in the polls.
Yet then and now, Republican "experts" tell us that talking about Obama's black liberation church will damage Republicans more than Obama. What is their evidence? To say that voters care more about the economy is true. To say that Romney himself should stay positive and focus on the economy makes sense. But none of us lives by bread alone.
When voters are questioned about issues, the economy dominates. Yet voters also choose a president based on his perceived leadership qualities and character. A recent Real Clear Politics article by David Kuhn is entitled "Presidential Campaigns Always Concern Character." He writes:

In springtime 2007, the Gallup organization asked Americans to delineate the most important quality they sought in a presidential candidate. One-third of the public said honest and straightforward. Leadership ranked second. Tied for third: integrity and the ability to govern. Gallup went on to ask what qualities were "essential" in a presidential candidate. The top three: strong and decisive leader (78 percent), good moral character (68 percent) and an effective manager (63 percent).

Obama won because voters liked what they saw. They didn't see the videos of Reverend Wright damning America and being cheered by Obama's fellow congregants the Sunday after 9/11. Progressives who share Obama's apology worldview don't care. They agree with Rev. Wright that 9/11 was America's fault because we protect Israel and because we are an evil imperialist power.
But most of us remember our feelings the week of 9/11 vividly. We will never forget the images of the World Trade Towers, the national sorrow and grief, our anger at the terrorists and our gratitude to Giuliani and Bush for their leadership at that moment.
Liberal secularists who never set foot in a church don't get it. Most Americans attend church regularly, and they do get it. They've heard their minister, priest, or rabbi say things that they don't agree with -- that's normal. But to stay in a church where the pastor led the congregation to cheer 9/11? Few Americans would remain in such a congregation. Obama did. In 2008, the Democrat mainstream media argued that Obama was a centrist and surely did not share these offensive progressive views.
In 2012, the excuses would be a harder case to make, given Obama's apology tours abroad, his repudiation of America's moral stature on the world stage, his bowing to the hate-exporting Saudi princes, his handing over the Middle East to the jihadi Muslim Brothers. In 2012, we can see that indeed, Trinity was Obama's true church.
Blaming America as racist and imperialist is only half the agenda of Obama's church. The other half is their vision for the future. Voters still have not heard Obama asked uncomfortable questions by the press about why he chose to attend for two decades -- almost his whole adult life -- a black liberation theology church whose congregants are asked to sign on to a value statement that explicitly condemns "middleclassness." They have not heard descriptions of the church he sat in:

Among some of the Black Nationalist signs hanging in this church are a list of admonishments to black solidarity, called the "Black Value System," and a sort of moral code calling for the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness."

How comfortable would the average voter be that their president cherished a preacher who talked of white greed as a credo, was openly Marxist, and lionized the racist anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan? Would they feel comfortable that Obama's church bookstore carries as many political books as religious ones, "books glorifying violence and black supremacy racism"? Kyle-Anne Shiver reported on her visit to Obama's church in an article in American Thinker, but no mainstream reporters picked up on the story:

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale: Christianity.
Not so in Obama's church bookstore.
I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.
And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.
Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

The public never heard Obama asked a single awkward question about why his chosen mentor and advisor, the Rev. Wright, went with Farrakhan to Libya to fawn over Moammar Gaddafi, the monster who had bombed Pan Am 103. They never heard any interviewer ask Obama how he could feel close to such a pastor.
According to the Pew Forum, 50% of the campaign stories that covered religion in the 2008 election were about Romney (as primary candidate) being a Mormon. Only one half of one percent were about presidential candidate Obama's black liberation theology.
One half of one percent. And then the journalists and the pundits and the campaign advisors tell us the public doesn't care about Obama's church. The public never got a chance to show whether they care or not. They never got a chance to learn in any detail about Obama's religion of resentment and envy, until it was too late.
Voters liked Obama in 2008 because he promised us he'd be a leader on race, a black president who would put hate and resentment and the past scars behind, and recognize that white America is no longer racist. He promised us that his character was bigger and better than that of those loser black politicians who stoke racial resentment and push payback agendas. Obama's core appeal as a candidate -- then and now -- is based on his being the opposite of his chosen mentor and cherished advisor, the angry Rev. Wright. No wonder that learning about Wright and how Obama cherished him was devastating to Obama's appeal. The one week the videos were aired, his approval ratings dropped 20%.
Tell me again why the New York Times can run stories such as "There Is a Dark Side to Mormonism" on Romney's faith, but we mustn't talk at all about Obama's chosen creed of black liberation theology.
It is now four years since the Wright videos surfaced. It is no longer a hypothetical whether or not Obama meant it when he said the Marxist Rev. Wright was his mentor and guide. Voters can easily see the connection between Obama's politics of envy and resentment and his church of 20 years. Obama's record and his current campaign show that he is a loyal son of Wright's church.
It is all too easy to see what a suave Ivy School version of black liberation theology looks like in the White House. It looks like a ruined middle class; a massive entitlement government; and a lot of attacks on rich, successful white men. In Rush's brilliant formulation, Obama is running against capitalism. Let's make sure every voter in swing states sees those Wright videos connected to Obama's campaign talking points, so that can make up their own minds if Obama ever left Wright's church. It is hard to trust Obama or feel he is that likable after you see the connection. That is why Obama's church matters.