Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Terror for Obama by Valkyrie1981 Terror for Obama by Valkyrie1981
Here’s a quick run-down of some of Barack Obama’s questionable and disturbing associations:

* Rabidly anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. The Obamas were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home for years.

* Terrorist sympathizer Ali Abunimah, who runs the viciously anti-Israel web site Electronic Intifada.

* Unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

* Reverend Jeremiah Wright. What more needs to be said?

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Samantha Power — fired after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.”

* Anti-Israel foreign policy adviser Robert Malley — fired when it was revealed he has been holding talks with Hamas.

* Hatem El-Hady, former official of the Hamas-linked charity Kindhearts, closed by the Justice Department. El-Hady’s web page suddenly vanished from the Obama campaign site with no explanation, after being exposed.

* Tony Rezko — a Chicago fixer currently in a whole lot of legal trouble.

There are more, I know; this is just off the top of my head.

I have never witnessed a presidential election in which a major candidate had this many skeletons in his closet.
Add a Comment:
Tubal Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012
Aerodeth Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2010
Ever since Bush left office... I felt America's testicles leave with it.

It hurt. A LOT.
Vypor Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2010
Ow, lol.

That was total win right there.
And I thought I was the only one who sees Obama as trying to beat around the bush when it comes to standing up for what is right.

Nooo, political talks will ALWAYS solve the problem, right?
toby74 Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2009
This website is art, not politics. On that note, I like most of your stuff in your gallery, so let's agree to disagree.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2009   Digital Artist
Political Art is still Art.... and we can agree on the First Amendment
EpicDayDream Featured By Owner May 22, 2009
Bush did Hamas more favors than Obama could ever hope too. I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but just remember that in the end, Bush and Obama and every other president will serve the same interest, and the same apparatus, and it was Bush's 'overt' clumsiness that triggered a massive awakening and organizing against America. Obama by contrast will put a nice smily face on it again, and will the masses back to sleep. And that is not in the interest of any anti-american organization such as Hamas. What a fucking stupid statement you make.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2009   Digital Artist
Bush wouldn't stand in the way of Israel and their defense, Obama will.... That is a big differnce
toby74 Featured By Owner Sep 21, 2009
Little known fact, the IDF (Israel Defense Force) has been murdering Palastinians and harvesting their organs. I supported Isreal until I read about that.
hollow-welt Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2009   Artisan Crafter
dude, thats been debunked a million times, you gotta read more, not just one side
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Sep 27, 2009   Digital Artist

Free Speech is wonderful... even when crazy idiots like you talk.... I read that there is a bridge to the moon that was built by space Dragons made of Pizza, since I read about it.... It must be true.
ShinigamiBattousai Featured By Owner Mar 27, 2009
[Saw this and instantly had to :+fav: it. :heart:]

[Judging by the skeletons in his closet and his associations, Barack Obama himself is a threat to national security and for the safety of this entire country (from a military standpoint), should be eliminated. Him, and his entire cabinet and administration. My being Jewish, and Israel being the land of my ancestors probably doesn't do much to help me get on Furer Obama's side, but oh well. :XD:]

[This is totally going in my journal, if that's alright. :D]
OutlawedWest Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2009
i don't really think you have any idea what you're talking about
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2009   Digital Artist
Hamas supported Obama, that's a simple fact. Now if Hamas could have a bumper sticker to show that support wouldn't they have it say Hamas for Obama?

All and all this is old news the Socialist is elected kind of pointless to discuss pre-election stuff
OutlawedWest Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2009
you make me a tiny bit sad >:
but for the most part i just like laughing at you.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2009   Digital Artist
and a trillion dollar spending bill doesn't make him a Socialist how?
OutlawedWest Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2009
I suppose president bush was a socialist for having a stimulus bill as well, hm?
james119 Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2008  Professional Digital Artist
You are apparently very idiosyncratic about what you classify as a skeleton in the closet -- or you just haven't been paying attention -- or you've only been voting for eight years and are still wet behind the ears.
RedClassPride Featured By Owner Oct 30, 2008  Hobbyist Interface Designer
Free the world from the american claw. Obama is good person inside the country, he can make change inside the US but he want only to countide that bush started outside the US, he will stile make children die of american bullots in Kabul and still make young american lost in afghanistan.

A other world is possible but not with any superpower who will controlled it.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2008   Digital Artist
Yeah and the children lived free and happy under the Taliban? Children don't get killed in Afghanistan, in fact Civilian deaths are lower than they ever were in Iraq and the only one killing the kids are the Islamic Terrorist...

Obama is a Socialist,and a danger not only to the United States but the world. America is not a Super power that is Cold War Talk we are known as a Hyper power know and that star is fading no matter who is in the White House... We are going to a world where it will be Regional power... US in the Americas, England in Europe, Iraq or the UAE in the middle East... China in Asia...

You can live in dreamland where we all run around an sing songs together or realize that this is the real world, and that we will never be on world, unless someone takes it over and rules it with a iron fist.

Your Geo-Political skills are poor at best and maybe your should read more before jumping into the deep end of the pool.
RedClassPride Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2008  Hobbyist Interface Designer
In Afghanistan this days a lot of american troops are working togther Talbin group who are working with US.Problem is that this Talibans are gangster. And like history have tell us before is it not the first time US have worked with murders and rapist. But of coruse this is what american called for "justice",The dont realy care if children get killed of this talibans, i mean this talibans is "good" and not bad guy, so fucking hypocrisy .

Serious i dont no so much about Obama, i know that he are a pro isreal type, that he want to still have the american should be a world police in the world. And like a world citizen i think that is fucked up. Obama is not a socialist. Socialist have nothing to do with democrats becuase the democrats are at the begin rigt wing supporters.
But i must bee scared for you that this "socialist" are wining the election?
Anyway i personally think that US is not a democraty.First at all the have not a democraty state. The second is that 2 leaders that you can choice and speciall to right wing leader is not realy sounds democraty for my ears.

Dreamland? Who are living in a Dreamland and think that Obama should lose the elaction? Who are living in a Dreamland and think that US should still be a Empire at 20 years? I mean serious wake up, People over the world are rising agianst US. Southamerica,Iraq,Europe,Neapal and munch more. Welcom to the reality show me friend.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 31, 2008   Digital Artist
Obama is not pro-Israel, he has shown now signs of being Pro-Israel, and judging off of his friends, all of which are anti-Semitic I would say Obama has little to no care for Israel.

Obama by definition is a Socialist, anyone who strives for Socialized Medicine, wishes to Redistribute Wealth from one class to another who did not earn it. Someone who was a member of the New Party (A socialist Group) A man whose mentors were members of the US Communist Party and a man who preached Black Liberation Theology (A Marxist slanted Ideal) Is indeed a Socialist.

The United States is no Empire, not since the 1910 has the United States taken or held any Territory. Iraq is on of the United States Strongest Allies, I for one have met many Iraqi they are peaceful people who are happy they have a country for the people and by the people. Nepal? Riiiight.... Europe.... Some of the US's strongest allies are Europe, we are adding new friends each day, like Georgia Ukrainian, and the rest of the Eastern Block.

Brazil and Colombia have had growing and strong relationship with the United States, something that grows each day as the Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez build in power.

Reading blogs, does not make you a smart man, it makes you a very misinformed man... I said BOOKS.

Nice try but you failed
RedClassPride Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2008  Hobbyist Interface Designer
I want to belive you but i know that you have total wrong, Obama have show lot of signs to be a supporter isreal massmurder poltics , check this out [link]

Again that is not true socialism, well i can not say that i am against that Obama used the polticis but is not at any formed a socialism reformers, first at all are the Democraty party a right wing part , and yes the democraty party have lot of differents kinds of people and idelogy but nobody have realy speak about a big differents for the poore because the are only copy the repulican partys politics. And that is why i see USA like a Dictatour nation becuase people thier can only vote for 2 partys who are realy the same. We have not the troubles in Europe.

Anyway who have say that socialism is bad? Labour Party in UK,SocialDemocraty in Sweden and other Countrys in Europe have been formed by socialist idees. In Sweden for exempel we have free heltceare, Free School and lot of free thinks who can make US to a safe nation. But this day we become more to the captialism idees and our country are fall down with lof of unemployed,illness and depressed. We turn to a typical american state.

That is a joke, What are you saying about USA interference in Chile,Vietnam,Iran,El Salvdor,Nicuragua,Cuba,Afganistan,Iraq,Palestine,Serbia,Laos,Camobodia,Korea,Japan,Neapal,Pakistan, for something? It that not called for imperialism? I sure hell called that for imperialism.

I have meet to muny Iraq familys but from different from you the doesnt support the illegal invansion on Iraq. Muny was happy yesterday when Obama was won election.The want pease and the hell sure that america is not bring them pease.

Yes for sure are lot of countries in East Block supporting Nato only becuase the simpel reasing that Soviet Union was used them like slaves. But this is funny, in Soutmamerica know people are scared for USA and whant to joined a allians with Bolivia,Venezuala and Cuba. The different from the east block and the southamerica is that southamerica is not join a other imperialist pact like the east block are doing. The are joined a allians of pease.

Hugo Chavez is a dictator? Not he is not, Hugo Chavez is prehaps the most smartest men on southamerica and have make reformers who i personally called for socialism reformers, he have bring the power to the poore and nationalize the Oil Company who was exploitation the money from the venezuela people. And of course he have a very aggressive tone against USA but i dont blame him.

Man i dont try do prove nothing, i just telling you want a simpel earth citizen believe in. I respect want you believe in but that doesnt mean that i respect that i am for you.

I am not reading blocs, i reading books becuase i personally like it more to study with facts not with lies.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2008   Digital Artist
I don't tolerate Racism, so lets keep you Anti-Semitic ramblings down.

But you have no facts, if you go back in to my entries I present many facts... you just rambble on on how Israel is Evil the US is evil like you been hanging out with Osama Bin Laden.

As for socialism...

The disarray, destruction and decay are the logical legacy of the application of the collectivist ideal. This ideal included three ideas: the theory of a planned economy, the belief in collective or group rights, and the notion of socialized or state-provided social services.

1. The Planned Economy. The primary goal of most socialists has been the desire to replace private property and a market economy with state ownership and a centrally planned economy. Capitalism, it was claimed, besides being an inherently unjust system, was economically inefficient and wasteful. Wise and intelligent men, serving the common good, could more rationally plan what goods and services should be produced, where and how they should be produced, and to whom and in what amounts they should be distributed than if these matters continued to be left to the decentralized decisions of profit-motivated private individuals.

Earlier in this century, the Austrian economists demonstrated that socialist planning would fail. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek showed clearly and irrefutably that when private property was nationalized and market competition eliminated, economic irrationality would result. In a market economy, the way people convey information to each other about the products they wish to demand — and the value they place on the various resources that can be used in alternative ways to make those goods — is through the price system. But with the elimination of private property, people are no longer able legally to buy and sell; and with no free-market buying and selling, there can be no competitively formed market prices. And without market prices, the most well-intentioned planners are clueless about what goods people actually want or what are the least-cost methods of producing what the consuming public actually desires.

The arguments of the Austrian economists against socialism have been proven correct in every country in which central planning has been instituted. Whether it has been in Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Poland, or Mongolia, wherever the planning model has been imposed and has supplanted the market economy, economic disaster has occurred. The types and varieties of goods and services produced by the state have borne no relationship to the types and varieties of goods and services actually demanded by "the masses" in these people's republics. Store shelves have been empty of the things people wanted; and they have been stocked with what no one desired. Resources and labor have been misallocated and wasted. And the customers, who are "always right" under capitalism, have been reduced to a life of long lines at state-retail stores and to a daily hunting for the essentials of everyday life in these socialist paradises.

The only avenues for everyday survival and subsistence in the centrally planned societies have been bribery of the bureaucrats who have controlled access to the meager supply of goods ad the shadowy world of illegal black-market transactions.

2. Collective or Group Rights. For the advocate of socialism, the idea of individual rights has been a bourgeois prejudice and deception. For socialists, human relationships in society are defined and determined by class relationships and antagonisms. The idea of individual liberty has been considered a smoke screen to blind those who are exploited and oppressed from understanding the "true" nature of the social order. It was for this reason that Martyn Latsis, a senior officer in the newly founded Soviet secret police, said in 1918 that, in judging the guilt or innocence of an accused, "the first questions that you ought to put are: To what class does he belongs What is its origin? What is his education or profession? And it is these questions that ought to determine the fate of the accused."

An extension of this view in the Soviet Union was the idea that rights and privileges did not reside with individuals but were determined for the individual on the basis of his national or ethnic origin. In each Soviet subject's internal passport has been a line specifying his nationality, e.g., Russian, Ukrainian, Latvian, Uzbeki, Tartar, Jewish, etc. And this collectivist categorization determined the individual's life opportunities in terms of access to education, employment, residence, language usage and political advancement within the Party structure and the bureaucracy. One's personal fate has been determined by the accident of one's parentage and place of birth, as well as one's ideological "political correctness."

The legacy of this national and ethnic collectivism can be seen in the civil wars that now plague the territory of the former U.S.S.R. Having lost (or never had a chance to acquire) any conception of individual rights, the various nationalities fight over their group rights to land, statehood and resource control. In Estonia and Latvia, large Russian minorities are denied political and economic rights. In Moldova, the Moldavian majority has been fighting the Russian and Ukrainian minorities. In Georgia, it is the Georgian majority fighting the Ossetian and Abkhazian minorities. In the north Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia, it is the Ossetians fighting the Ingushians and the Russians clashing with the Ossetians, Ingushians and the Chechens. Elsewhere in Russia, the Tartar and Yakut minorities demand separate statehood to have nationalist control of the oil and diamonds that are on their respective territories. And the years-old war between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues over the disputed region of Nagarno-Karabakh.

3. Nationalized Social Services. Since the socialist conception of capitalist society was that production for profit by those who privately owned the means of production always meant that the real or true needs of the people would never be fully satisfied, the socialist plan called for the state to provide medical care, guarantee all levels of education, provide employment for all, and assure every one a decent place to live. But with nationalization of these social services came politicization and economic inefficiency. Once it became the state that was responsible to supply and distribute these services and opportunities, it became the state which determined who had access to diem, in what quality and quantity and according to what criteria. For all levels of education, acceptance into the schools of lower and higher learning has depended upon a family's political connections and whether one's national or ethnic group had already had its quota for entry filled for that type of school. Housing has been allocated on the basis of one's Party status and the importance that the state assigned to the particular profession to which one happened to belong. Medical care and hospitalization have been equivalently allocated and provided on the basis of Party position and professional standing, as well as personal connections and bribery. And there have been "special stores" for the purchase of food and clothing on the same basis.

At the same time, since it was the central plan that determined the production and distribution of these services, rather than market-oriented profit, those who have provided them in the bureaucracy were merely concerned with fulfilling the assigned targets of the plan. Medicines of the most simple kind, which anyone in the West takes for granted and which can be bought in any quantity in any pharmacy in the West, are practically nonexistent in Russia. With no private owners to be concerned with the maintenance of industrial, agricultural and residential facilities and buildings, the entire industrial, housing and infrastructure is in a state of advanced decay.

Socialism's failure in the former Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries stands as a clear and unquestionable warning as to which path any rational and sane people should never follow again. Government planning brought poverty and ruin. The idea of collectivist class and ethnic group-rights produced tens of millions of deaths and a legacy of civil war and conflict. And nationalized social services generated social decay and political privilege and corruption.

Unfortunately, America is not absorbing the lessons that should be learned from the socialist experience and, instead, is following the same path of destruction.

In the early 1920s, Ludwig von Mises pointed out that "socialism is the watchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter, 'The Epoch of Socialism."'

Since the Soviet experience in Russia was only beginning, Mises could still say in 1922, "As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism."

During the last seventy years, the socialists had their chance to institute their ideal in many countries around the world. And in every case the result has been disastrous. Socialism in practice has produced tyranny, mass murder, poverty, corruption and cultural destruction. The rejection of socialism by the people of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union must be considered the ultimate indictment of the ideology that declared itself to be the liberator of mankind.

The socialist ideal contained three ideas at its core: economic central planning; the belief in collective or group rights; and the case for nationalized social services. The application of these three ideas in socialist countries resulted in economic chaos, social conflict and ethnic warfare, and the collapse of all basic services considered essential and desirable for normal and healthy life.

Yet here in America, at the very time that the end of socialism is heralded as the vindication of the American way of life — a way of life grounded in individual liberty, economic freedom and voluntary association — the American government, with the support of a sizable portion of the populace, continues down the road to socialism. The American people seem oblivious to the lessons to be learned from the socialist experience in other lands. And the ideas leading us further along our road to socialism are the same ones that lead other peoples to the dead-end of state control, economic stagnation, group conflict and societal decay.

1. The Planned Economy. Under the headings of industrial policy, high-tech subsidization, infrastructure modernization and worker retraining for "high-wage" jobs, the American government hag assigned itself the task of planning and directing the economic destiny of over 250 million people. If fully implemented, these policies will succeed in making practically all economic decision-making subservient to the central planners and social engineers in Washington. The methods applied will not be as crude or as brutal as the system of direct commands used in the old Soviet Union, but its end result will be no less comprehensive.

What gets produced, who produces it, where it gets produced, and what technologies and labor skills are used will no longer be determined solely by businessmen and entrepreneurs guided by the need to maximize profits by satisfying consumer demand. No, the private businessman, the entrepreneur, the investor will now have a governmental "partner." Through various financial subsidies and tax incentives, this partner will induce and stimulate those in the private sector to expand their investment and production activities in the directions that the government has decided are economically and socially desirable. The state will decide, even more than already, what kinds of communication and transportation networks America "needs." Presuming to know what skills and talents the American people should acquire to earn a good living in the future, the benevolent bureaucrats of Washington will create incentives for Americans to invest in certain types of technical and professional expertise.

And what is most disturbing, large numbers of Americans are waiting with great enthusiasm for this renewed era of activist government. Some in the private sector are waiting with great enthusiasm because they see higher profit margins, improved investment opportunities and subsidized job training through an expanded governmental largess. But far worse is the enthusiasm of those who believe that government should direct the private actions of the citizenry and who believe that government has the wisdom to do so. And far more dangerous is that these policies are propounded while their proponents assure the American people that they actually are advocating a market economy and rejecting the notion of governmental planning.

2. Collective or Group Rights. In the name of a false social and economic equality, the American government has embarked on a road that leads to a caste society, in which individuals will increasingly be categorized and judged on the basis of their social background, their gender and ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. Are you eligible for a particular job? Should you be admitted into an institution of higher learning, as either professor or student? Will you have the opportunity to compete for a contract in the marketplace? Should you receive a certain proportion of the business in a particular sector of the economy? Have you hired the right people — and the right number of different types of people — in your enterprise? Have you committed a hate-crime by uttering some words or articulating some ideas that are considered offensive to some ethnic, social or sexual group? These and other questions like them are what affirmative-action programs, multiculturism, and political correctness are all about.

The long struggle for human liberty, in which rights are conceived only in terms of individuals, is threatened with reversal in America. The individual will increasingly find himself submerged within the confines of how others classify him for political purposes. People will find, just as in the old Soviet Union, that their opportunities in life will be determined and controlled by the class, gender, race or sexual groups to which they happen to belong. The path to economic improvement will be transferred from the arena of peaceful competition and voluntary exchange in the marketplace to the halls of political power in the state capitals and in Washington, D.C. It will be in the halls of political power that collective groups will fight their wars for economic and social privileges at the expense of others, with individuals finding they have no identity or destiny other than in terms of how their group has fared in this struggle for governmental influence, redistribution of wealth, and control.

3. Nationalization of Social Services. The extent to which the socialist idea has triumphed in the 20th century is seen most clearly in the very notion that there are certain goods and services that should be viewed as "social." The provision of medical care, housing accommodations, legal services, retirement plans and the like are no different than the provision of any of the other things people want and desire, and for which they pay a price in the market. It would be just as easy to argue that shoes, clothing, food, entertainment, reading material and marital partners are "socially necessary" commodities that every human being needs — and, therefore, that the state should be assigned the task of providing them. It is indicative of the extent to which the socialist idea has penetrated the American psyche that practically no one along the political spectrum in America is willing or courageous enough to question directly and uncompromisingly the idea that the state should provide any such "social services" and to make the positive case that the supplying of such "services" should be completely left up the private sector.

In his 1920 book, The Return to Laissez Faire, the English classical liberal Sir Ernest Benn argued that "a citizenship which is actuated by Individualism will wash its hands of that 'citizenship by proxy' which is variously called social reform, Socialism and Communism. All these shibboleths mean paying somebody else with other people's money to do your own duty — a very different thing."

By every individual doing his own duty, Benn meant that a free citizen in a free country takes on the responsibility to plan and care for his own life. He associates with his fellow free men on the basis of mutual, voluntary agreement and never expects others to bare the consequences or the costs of his own actions through use of the power of the state.

But, alas, Americans have lost the knowledge and the desire for this type of free citizenship. As in 1922, when Ludwig von Mises penned his monumental work, Socialism, "The socialist idea dominates the modern spirit ... it expresses the thoughts and the feelings of all." Its domination is, indeed, so complete that Americans now increasingly crave what they say they oppose. And, as a result, they will likely get even more of what they say they do not want.

This is a good read I always liked...
The-Conquerors Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Woah, I just have to give you a clap for how much you owned this fool with facts. ~ C
dragonsthatservegod Featured By Owner Oct 26, 2008
Is it reasonable to say that the evidence mounting here from your objectors is pointing to pride without intellect?? I have yet to see a credible counter-argument...instead of name-calling and poor sense of humor. At least, one emerges victorious in this bloodbath of conservative vs liberal...and that is the person who carries the arsenal of fact-based arguments, and not hollow arguments to retain stability for one's passion for their party.

Belated intrusion into the arena....but time is growing short and some sense needs to be made out of this battle. Though, the hollow liberal minds on here seem to be reinforced from reasoning or accountability.


Can't say I didn't try
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2008   Digital Artist
Well worded, but hypocritical seeing how you show ZERO facts just well placed words an no evidence, I show evidence and reasoning.

your lack of facts contradicts the argument that the Liberal (AKA Marxist Ideals) Have somehow transcended when even the Candidate running on Marxist-lite ideals only uses words and zero facts.

Example one but just an Example Obama states repeatedly that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut... 1 problem 95% of Americans do not pay taxes. In fact 40% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.

You and sing a good song but it is empty and without meaning.
dragonsthatservegod Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2008

Blogging on one of my local media websites...I found out that no matter how many facts you throw out...liberals will drag up facts from some biased site that fits their argument.

Instead, I go for the red meat, the moral issues. Though, Foreign Policy is mixed in as well.

I guess I go by the it don't waste it. Crowded with good sounding lies, reasoning has a hard time getting through. It is not until the individual is back-stabbed by their ideologies does change really come about.
dragonsthatservegod Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2008
I get my facts from the stupidity of others. In other doesn't take much to see the idiocy of the liberal ideals.


I am working in support of conservatism....minus the facts

Why waste time on facts when the liberals will reject them???? I call em out as they go on destructive ideologies.
kilr013 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2008
Valkyrie1981 are very small minded. Are you afraid of change? or is it that you are afraid of a black man being your president? Either way, it is people like you that help keep our nation from ever gaining our respect back from the world. I am guessing that you are a white and from middle america.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2008   Digital Artist
? So I am a racist now... I used proper political Arguments and you pull the Race Card. I enjoy change but there is Good Change and Bad Change, and change to a socialistic nation is a VERY bad one. Electing a man just left of Lenin isn't my idea of good change.

Race has nothing to do with the political problems of Obama. He is a Marxist, that is one of many problems I have with him. He is change he is very bad change that will hurt us. If we are in such bad standing in the world, why are we still the number 1 nation that people migrate to? If we are "SO" horrible why do people come here in the millions seeking our way of life.

What other citizens in other Countries Opinion is, is the last thing on my mind. I will not elect a man just because some people think one way. It is their opinion. I base my argument over hard facts. And the facts are simple, Obama is a Left-wing Socialist.

Socialism equals misery, and I will not elect a man willing to spread that misery around. You childish actions and stance on issues are pathetic, ignorant of facts and reality.

The Obama/Biden ticket's entire campaign theme is based on "the last eight years." Maybe we should really look at "the last two years," or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

* Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
* Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
* A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
* The S&;P 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-911 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
* Every year of Bush's Presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became President .

If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq. The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats. Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Here is how they handled Iraq once in office: Harry Reid told us that the Iraq war was "lost" and the surge was not "accomplishing anything." Senator Obama introduced legislation that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) .

Were they right?

Barack Obama now admits that "the surge succeeded." So much for that change. And as the surge succeeded, Congress's approval ratings plummeted. The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006.

The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you're looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans. Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame? No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway. Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons? Probably not, and it wouldn't be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating. Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, "torture" prisoners? No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case.

What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions. Here is what Barney Frank said:

These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

You can also see on YouTube how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

But now we know what happened. Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt. Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year. Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions. He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million.

On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 .

The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions' debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie's and Fannie's sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.

And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor:

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong. Dead wrong. One hundred eighty degrees out wrong.

On the other hand, who supported the surge? George W. Bush and John McCain.

Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? George W. Bush and John McCain.

In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way. The result? Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way - Barney Frank did. The result? The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression.

Let's vote for change. Let's undo what we did in 2006.

This is what a real political argument looks like... read it and try to learn from it, or get out of the water.
ChrisSalamence Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008
It's true Hamas is for Obama I heard that on Savage Nation. I'd choose McCain but he is moderate/left wing and not a true right wing conservative. Looking into third party...
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008   Digital Artist
Third Party... You might as well throw away your vote... You got to choices pick one
nurunuru Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2008  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Obama is a-gonna DEEESTROOOOOY McCain and his developmentally disabled lapdog Palin.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 15, 2008   Digital Artist
I didn't know children are aloud to vote... Grow up or get out of the conversation.

Your "Comments" are pathetic and shows how hateful your kind really are... So go away your annoying.
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2008   Interface Designer
If you took 5 minutes to fact-check your claims with a reliable source ( for example) you would find out that your claims are false. But, of course, you won't do that, because admitting that you are wrong and going outside of your comfort zone by expanding your mind is just too scary.

And by the way, it is incredibly offensive the way you flippantly throw around accusations of terrorism. Do you realise how serious that kind of talk is?
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2008   Interface Designer
Do any of you who claim that Obama is a danger to America and the world, that he is a terrorist or associates with terrorists, do any of you live in REALITY where we have things like FACTS?

Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 11, 2008   Digital Artist
Hamas endorsed Obama that is a fact...

He is a Socialist
He was in a church of a hate mongrel for 20 years...
He is no Messiah... and what scares me the most is that people call him that.

He is like everyone else in the election... I no good dirty politician, he will say what ever it takes to be elected. He is a threat because to much power is bad no matter which party it comes from.

Government must be balanced, not one party should control it all, because Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So stop trying to defend your false god and read or watch TV... Obama was endorsed if he or you like it or not by Hamas


Don't defend the indefensible
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008   Interface Designer
Oh and I almost forgot, no one thinks Obama is god. Certainly not me, since I don't believe in god and I can plainly see that Obama actually exists.

I feel bad for you, actually, that you are so cynical. Best wishes.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008   Digital Artist
He is just called the Messiah for kicks I guess?

He is a near megalomaniac... I Read his books, 2 autobiographies... They showed a man who is in love with himself and has a lot of Marxist friends.
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2008   Interface Designer
I think you're projecting.

I feel bad for you.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2008   Digital Artist
You have Zero facts and I just provided a fraction of my sources.... If I'm projecting than your no better than believing a Delusion... Wait you're doing that already.

Show me facts, Evidence?
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2008   Interface Designer
Zero facts?

That's just laughable!

The burden of proof is on you. Try figuring out the difference between COMMENTARY and news, then get back to me.

Also, research the difference between the following words: your, you're
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 22, 2008   Digital Artist
I presented my case you with information for data sites and news sites.

You just run around crying Racist... The burden of proof is on you my friend, you made the claim.

You claimed Hamas never supported Obama, I proved you wrong.
You call me a Racist with no supporting facts.
You claim I show no facts when I present over 10 sites like the Washington Post ABC News.
You now claim that this is not good enough now magically in your world everything is now "Commentary" Some are however even in the court of Law the opinion of an Expert is allowed as evidence.

And now you want to nitpick of my slight Grammar Mistakes deflecting the issue at hand. This entire conversation began with you calling me a Racist. I've shown facts and evidence that my opinion of Senator Obama is based on the content of his Character not the color of his Skin... to turn a phrase.

After reading both his books and the books against him, looking at his voting record and the opinion of his own Vice Presidential Candidate, Obama is...

1. A Socialist in thoughts and Ideals
2. Not fit to be Commander and Chief
3. A possible Danger to our Economic and National Security in a time of a on going war against Radical Islamic Fascism

If he is elected he is elected, I made my vote and as a Democracy if he wins he wins. He will be my President for better or for worse. In the end its 4 years of my life, a small part of it. But as a free nation I can voice my opinion, and use what evidence I can to do so.

you also have a right to voice your opinion but you only do so to insult me not provide anything behind it. You can call me a Racist all you want, but the only one hating is you. You are making a judgment with out facts or evidence, doing so makes you the bigot not me.
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008   Interface Designer
First of all, WND is a conservative partisan news source. So take what they say about the Dems with a grain of salt.

Second, Hamas endorsing Obama has about as much weight as the KKK endorsing McCain.
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Oct 17, 2008   Digital Artist
But the KKK didn't endorse McCain.... and Hamas did endorse Obama...those are the facts that you denied but now find is no big deal.

What's so odd about Barack Obama is his extreme sense of self-confidence, matched with his extreme lack of experience. It seems as if Obama is utterly convinced he can do no wrong, and that Destiny is on his side. "Do you ever have any doubts?" asked a TV interviewer early on. "Never!" said the O with his big, trademark smile.

That's not rational. Anybody who harbors no doubts about doing the toughest job in the world, the job that makes you a scapegoat for all the ills your enemies can dig up, and one which visibly ages all its occupants -- anybody without doubts about that isn't thinking like an adult. Instead, he is starring in his own, child-like fantasy world.

That is what Men of Destiny do. Lenin had it, Napoleon had it, and George S. Patton had it . Probably Ahmadinejad has it, too. They have no humility, and they feel justified in sacrificing others for the higher good they are convinced they know. A contemporary journalist wrote of Patton

"Gen. George S. Patton believed he was the greatest soldier who ever lived. He made himself believe he would never falter through doubt. This absolute faith in himself as a strategist and master of daring infected his entire army, until the men of the second American corps in Africa, and later the third army in France, believed they could not be defeated under his leadership."

George S. Patton had a lifetime of training and experience behind him when he assumed command of his Army divisions in North Africa and Europe. Barack Obama has no executive experience at all, except for the failed Annenberg education project, which was a payoff to radicalize the Chicago schools and utterly failed to improve children's test scores. That's 160 million dollars down the sewer of educational faddism and political corruption. But it launched Obama's campaign (with the crucial help of Bill Ayers, who got him the job). It's interesting that Obama still believes in the fad idea of a "black based curriculum," in which jazz music would be used to teach kids in the inner cities.

In contrast with Obama, George Patton was constantly ridden by his chain of command to keep him in line: Generals Ike Eisenhower, George C. Marshall and Omar Bradley constantly battled to keep George from acting out. As president, Obama would have no such constraints.

If you remember the George C. Scott movie Patton, any time those background trumpets would sound, General Patton was having a Man of Destiny moment. Patton sincerely thought he was a reincarnation of the famous generals of history: He had a true Napoleon Complex, which gave him that more-than-human sense of confidence.

Obama appears to have a similar fantasy-driven sense of Destiny. Obama's use of the word "Audacity" is very similar to Patton's demand that his soldiers show audacity -- "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace," as French revolutionary Georges Danton famously said. In actual war, General Patton's audacity sometimes resulted in futile suicide missions for his men; but much of the time, it was that audacity that kept the enemy off balance and losing. It makes sense for a tank general, where mobility and risk taking can lead to fabulous victories.

But Obama also believes in that kind of risk-taking, which is why his Berlin Speech began with "Citizens of the World!" He is extremely reluctant to accept that he is wrong, or to accept any criticism at all. That's why, after wasting 160 million dollars on an "education" project that had no results, he still believes in a "black curriculum." Barack Obama is an overconfident rookie, a "hot-dogger" in Air Force slang, who is overconfident and therefore likely to make mistakes.

Revolutionary personalities are often convinced they are Men of Destiny. A UCLA professor of political science, Victor Wolfenstein, has done in-depth studies of Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Mahatma Gandhi. Wolfenstein concluded that they all had something in common besides that more-than-human sense of Destiny. According to Wolfenstein, Revolutionary Personalities have close relationships with early life mentors -- substitute fathers -- who give them a sense of personal significance. They use their mentors to shift their identities to a more grandiose one, through the god-like father substitute, who validates that sense of specialness that little kids tend to have --- because there is something profoundly irrational about that more-than-human sense of destiny.

Well, we know about Obama's father figures. CP-USA propagandist Frank Davis was his father-mentor during his teenage years in Hawaii. It is a good guess that Bill Ayers was his father figure in Hyde Park, along with Jeremiah Wright and Emil Jones (the power-broker president of the Illinois Senate from the Chicago South Side). These are all ideologically and politically corrupt mentors. They all believe that the end justifies the means, as the ACORN organizer manual even states out loud:

"This is a mass organization directed at political power where might makes right."

William Ayers has the same sense of absolute certainty in his beliefs: That's why he was able to set bombs that killed his girlfriend in the Sixties -- along with a policeman and others --- and express no regret even forty years later. At the end of his life, mass-murderer Pol Pot, caught and convicted, expressed no remorse whatsoever for the two million Cambodians he had murdered.

People with Napoleon Complexes can be dangerous.

George W. Bush is different. Bush agonizes over the cost of war. He prays on his knees every day, and even non-believers must recognize that he has a profound sense of humility and personal limitations in making more-than-human decisions that he knows will result in death and injury for good and courageous soldiers. He cries when they come back wounded or dead. But he still keeps the ability to make decisions that have to be made. That is an adult reaction to those immense burdens. Bush is not Napoleonic; he is Trumanesque. Napoleon would never have retired back to Kansas City to live modestly, the way Truman did. He was too much in love with his own glorious destiny.

McCain is more like Bush. He used to be a hot-dogger back in Naval Air. But he's had some tough experiences since that time, and he's grown up. He's made his mistakes, and knows it.

The trouble is this huge gap between Obama's inner convictions and his actual abilities and understanding. That's what is troubling about Barack Hussein O'Bonaparte --- it's not at all obvious that he can do anything well. But he believes he can do anything, and his devotees pick up that sense of more-than-human Destiny.

Reasonable people don't risk their country just to alleviate their racial guilt. If Americans do it, they will end up with more guilt, and a frighteningly irrational administration.
soozey-gwillim Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2008   Interface Designer
Wow. that's a lot of bullshit.
Please post links to RELIABLE (conservative op-ed articles are NOT reliable) sources supporting your claims.
WaltLindsay Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2008
Valkyrie1981 Featured By Owner Sep 29, 2008   Digital Artist
Prove to me that Hamas does not support Obama
WaltLindsay Featured By Owner Sep 29, 2008
Oh, and just where did you pull your "proof" from? This is laughable. How can people expect to take you seriously when you get facts from Wikipedia? Seriously. Get your extremist agenda out of here. This is an art site.
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
May 14, 2008
Image Size
106 KB


26 (who?)