Brad Pitt’s Brother Comes to Mom’s Defense over Her Comments About Obama & Gay Marriage

Brad Pitt’s mother came under fire last week for writing a controversial op-ed about politics, and now her son is coming to her defense.

But not the one you think. The actor’s younger brother, Doug, addressed the issue on the “Today” show on Monday.

“They are different,” Pitt said, noting that Brad and his mom don’t always see eye-to-eye on politics.

In her letter to the Springfield News-Leader, Jane Pitt wrote, “Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

Her very famous son, meanwhile, is a vocal supporter of President Barack Obama and gay marriage.

“You know, I think moms and dads and kids agree to disagree all over the world. So why would our family be any different?” Doug said. “…There can be healthy discussion when people disagree with you and I think there should be. You know, the bad thing is when it turns to venom and negativity, and we don’t have that in our family. It’s open discussion. We can learn from each other and, if anything, it solidifies your point. Or maybe you learn something.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/07/brad-pitts-brother-defends-his-mom-128334.html

From JAMES: When this story appeared last week, on one of the sites in the comments, it noted that there was another article that headlined “Brad Pitt’s Mother Writes Gay Hate Letter…..”. What concerns me is the notion that simply because someone does not espouse the ideology of marriage equality, they are automatically a “gay hater” or “homophobic”. That is as idiotic a point of view as saying that one is racist simply for disagreeing with Barack Obama. I perused the website of the NoH8 Campaign, which was originally formed to combat California’s Prop 8. IMHO, this group that wants to bring about change is actually promulgating hate… hate for those who have a different point of view.

If we want the “hate” to stop, then stop promulgating the idea that the opposing view comes from a place of hate!

From Klein’s “The Amateur”: Obama Confidante (and frequent Golf Buddy) Allegedly Tried to Bribe Jeremiah Wright for 2008 Silence

On an appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Monday, “The Amateur” author Edward Klein revealed the name of a  close ally of President Barack Obama that his book alleges offered a  $150,000 bribe to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be quiet until after the 2008  election.

“Well, what happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the video tapes  of the Rev. Wright ‘God damning America’ and slamming whites and slamming Jews  and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends — a guy  who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on  vacation with him,” Klein said. “His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is  the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member  of Obama’s very tight inner circle. And he sent an email to a member of the  Trinity United Church of Christ.”

Klein reminded listeners that Whitaker’s hospital is the same one that paid  first lady Michelle Obama $316,962 a year to handle community  affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center while her husband served in  the U.S. Senate.

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/book-reveals-obama-ally-who-bribed-jeremiah-wright-to-stay-quiet/#ixzz1uyCa8UE3

Rapper Common: “One King’s Dream He Was Able to Barack Us”

        The controversial rapper/poet whose lyrics glamourize cop killing and “burning Bush” was kept on the White House guest list for poetry reading this evening, although he was noticeably absent at a White House function earlier today.

FYI: Common has been a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church since he was 8  years old. Need we say more.

A Stranger In Our Midst

A Stranger in Our Midst

 

By Robert Weissberg

 

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I — and undoubtedly millions of others — have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term “being opposed” lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like “worried” or “anxious” apply. I was more worried about America’s future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it’s not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

 

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama’s birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.

 

The term I settled on is “alien rule” — based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits — that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders’ efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.

 

This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama’s odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright’s anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background — an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.

 

None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn’t fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the “outsider?” quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush’s privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.

 

The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn’t “get” America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What “native” would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a “green jobs czar”? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama’s weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from “racist” Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, “Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault,” and the day would have been saved.

 

And then there’s the “we are sorry, we’ll never be arrogant again” rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama’s Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn’t notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there’s Obama’s bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don’t bow.

 

But far worse is Obama’s tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.

 

Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy — it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.

 

Perhaps the clearest evidence for this “foreigner in our midst” mentality is the name given our resistance — tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as “the shot heard around the world” and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: “HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance.” What’s next?

 

 

Published in American Thinker, April 29, 2010

 

Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana. 

Colorado Community Names Itself “ObamaVille”

WELCOME to Obamaville !! Colorado’s Fastest Growing Community!!

 ‘Obamaville’ sign posted near homeless camp

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) – Someone has put a lot of thought into a welcome sign that may surprise you, it’s in front of a homeless camp off I-25 in Colorado Springs.

Its message, “Welcome to Obamaville, Colorado’s fastest growing community.” Despite repeated calls no one could answer the question, who put up the sign? 

To some homeless the sign’s message says enough. Mark Limonez, a homeless man living in “tent city”, says the sign doesn’t make him feel good about trying to get back on his feet. “Guys are trying to work but there’s not enough work out there, so they go pan handling or flag a sign” Limonez says, “I’ve never seen so many camps since I’ve been out in the streets – there’s no money.”

There are no logos on the front of the sign and no clues to where it comes from.

http://www.kjct8.com/Global/story.asp?S=11658051

Now that is “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In”, “Yes, we Can”!!

Movie Trailer for “FRAUD”

The Clintons Had Vince Foster, Obama has……………..

     Throughout the Clinton Administartion and even afterwards, President Clinton and Hillary Clinton were constatntly linked to the death, apparent suicide, of one of their longtime advisors, Vince Foster. Mr. Foster allegedly died of a gunshot wound, ruled as suicide.

     Now, years later, and a new Administration, and it seems that Obama is racking up a group of “similar” “disfunctional” colleagues and associates.

     Christopher Kelly, an aide to former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, allegedly died of an overdose of pain killers just after pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

      This week, Michael Scott, the President of the Chicago Board of Education, committed suicide. Mr. Scott was an integral member of the failed Chicago Olympics bid, and he had real estate holdings that were called into question during the Olympic planning process.

      And, of course, who can forget the choir director of Obama’s church, Trinity, who was murdered in December 2007, just before Obama’s campaign began to get traction.

      Is there a suicide epidemic among the Chicago political mob?

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2009/11/17/suicide-epidemic-hits-chicago-bureaucrats/

Felony committed in attempts to Harass and Intimidate Larry Sinclair

The following post cards were mailed to Larry Sinclair’s neighbors, the management where he resides, and the local police jurisdiction, using CrimeStoppers name and address. This constitutes harassment, and it shows the lengths that are being used to intimidate and discredit Larry Sinclair’s story, as well as to cause delays in the publication  of his book, entitled “Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder“.

For full story: http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-surrogates-send-postcards.html

 

 

Will the Obama Policies Destroy the United States:

     I have taken the liberty of pulling from the comments the following post. The author, Interested Bystander, can always provide the most valid points in a discussion, and I found his response to another commenter worth posting as its own thread:

Comment from another: “Oh, come now. Obama does not have in mind “wanting to destroy the country.”

Oh no? Look at with whom he has studied. Alinsky, Kahlidi, Ayers, Wright, Davis, and his own mother all have leanings that would bring about the destruction of one part or another of our country.

He wants to take over heath care. Hillary tried that back in the nineties, and when she couldn’t get it done in one fell swoop, decided to start with “children”. Obama has expanded this program (on the backs of smokers) to include children who live in households with income of up to 80 grand a year.

He has borrowed more money in the first 100 days, than ANY President has borrowed.

He has gone around the World apologizing for the “wrongs” that the US has done, but doesn’t actually name one “wrong” by name.

He tells an Islamic Country that we will “never” be at war with the Muslims. That kind of gives them carte blanch to do whatever they wants doesn’t it?

He is allowing the CIA to release documents that will do nothing but give the enemy of the US fodder to escalate their aggression on Americans, whether it is here or abroad.

He allows his Homeland Security Secretary to publish a report that not only calls out veterans, but also anti abortionists, and folks who like to go camping. This woman also claimed that the 9-11 terrorists came to the US through Canada, and that people coming to the US illegally, aren’t really coming across the border illegally.

He has accomplished his goal of increasing his “Civilian Army” from the current level of 75,000, to 250,000 at the cost of 6 BILLION dollars that he hasn’t paid for or at least I haven’t heard how he plans on paying these 6 BILLION dollars.

He allows his Advisor to go on TV and say that civil protest of his policies are “unhealthy” when as a “community organizer”, he welcomed the exact same thing for policies he didn’t agree with.

He allows his Secretary of Treasury to restructure companies, and fire CEO’s and then not allow the financial institutions to pay back the loans the Government gave them, or at least held meetings to discuss whether the payments would be allowed to be made.

He has ordered the census to be conducted by the White House when it is clear in the Constitution that this is supposed to be a “fair” accounting of the people in our country.

I fear his policies will work, and more and more people become reliant on the Government to fix all of the ills of our country. The more people become dependent on the Government, the more it is destroyed, and it is as simple as that. The Fore Fathers were clear that less Government is good, and more Government is bad, and since the 30’s, the Government has grown and grown under both Republican, and Democratic Administrations.

Our country is heading down a hill that, of course the people approve of, because it takes responsibility out of our hands, and gives it to the Government.

And he has done all of this in only 98 days.

That’s called, at least in my opinion, destroying our country.