The Founders wrote the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Barack Obama envisions a very different Constitution. In a recently unearthed 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court's decisions during the Civil Rights era and lamented that the court only granted black Americans the same rights as white Americans.
[nicely phrased, for its accuracy - exaggeration? Read > ]
READ MORE
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama's radicalism: Destroying the Constitution
Spreading wealth long time value of Obama
Barack Obama's statement to “Joe the Plumber” about redistributing wealth was not an off-the-cuff statement. Obama stood by it in a recent interview and has been reinforced by his own words in this 2001 audio of an interview he conducted with a Chicago Public Radio station, where he says that has been a tragedy that “redistribution of wealth” is not pursued by the Supreme Court...
[and with a Democratic congress, he'll appoint anyone he wants to the supreme court unopposed]
READ MORE
Obama Promoted Redistribution at a Socialist Group's Meeting in 1996; Media Could Easily Have Found
First it was Barack Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber. Then there was his 2001 interview at Chicago radio station. Today, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air highlights yet another in what is turning out to be a long line of links and other items proving that the Democratic candidate is a longtime socialist.
It comes from the March-April 1996 edition of New Ground, a publication of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (CDSA).
I'll cite the relevant verbiage after the jump. But what's more important, I will show just how easy it would have been for a journalist searching Google to find this item. The fact that either no one found this, or that those who might have found it obviously ignored it, shows just how lazy and/or negligent Old Media has been in vetting the Illinois senator's fitness to be president. [snip]
They say curiosity killed the cat. Perhaps, but in this case lack of curiously is killing Old Media.
READ MORE
Barack Obama : " I Chose My Friends Carefully... Marxist Professors and Structural Feminists"
.
Bill Sammon wrote about Obama's Affinity to Marxists today at Americans Election HQ:
Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.
But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," ... "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then
"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," ... "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."
Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."
READ MORE
Bill Ayers throws a racial Molotov cocktail
It's right on Amazon -- the new book by Weatherman bomb throwers Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who sponsored Barack Obama's political coming-out party in Chicago leftwing politics. And no, it's not something Ayers and Dohrn wrote when Obama was eight years old. It's a book that is timed to come out right after this election.
Here's the Amazon blurb:
Race Course Against White Supremacy
(Paperback)
by William C. Ayers (Author), Bernardine Dohrn (Author)
White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days-and that it is still very much with us-the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors' own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.
This book is a flaming Molotov cocktail, aiming to worsen race relations in America by convincing blacks and Leftist whites that you --- yes, you who are reading this --- must be a White Supremacist. It spurs black paranoia, which has a real enough basis in history. This is the most cruel and malignant bomb to throw into the most racially charged election in American history. Regardless of who wins, this book will do further damage to human relationships in America.
This is not Dr. King's dream. It may be Obama's dream, and it is certainly Bill Ayers' dream.
But it certainly tells us who Ayers and Dohrn are today, doesn't it?
READ MORE
Newsweek's Alter Insists: Only Racism Could Prevent President Obama
America’s either racist, or it will elect Obama. So writes Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, who focuses in his weekly column on imagining the ''horror'' scenario, titled ''Why McCain Won: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: how that scenario could (but likely won't) play out.'' Alter’s theory in a nutshell: If McCain wins, racism is the answer.
READ MORE
Watch What You Say
.
... Biden was so rattled by her questions that the Obama campaign canceled a scheduled interview between the station and Biden's wife Jill.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely at best, for the duration of the remaining days until the election,"the campaign fumed. Ask a question, get frozen out.
More importantly, this episode points to a very troubling pattern. Whenever confronted by difficult questions posed by people who haven't succumbed to the creepy Obama Hypnosis, the Obama Team’s reaction is to silence them. They did it to a Chicago radio station that dared to interview someone critical of Obama's past. They did it to Joe the Plumber, seeking to destroy him for daring to ask Obama a question about taxes. They are threatening to do it nationwide with the Fairness Doctrine.
You aren't allowed to raise Obama's middle name, Hussein. You aren't allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren't allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren't allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren't allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren't allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren't allowed to say he's lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.
If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced. If this is the chill that has set in already, just imagine what it will be like once they take the White House. Watch what you say.
Or else.
[Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Big Media Pull Out All Stops to Elect Obama
• By excluding abortion and same-sex marriage from national debate, Big Media obviously didn't want a repetition of Obama's embarrassing handling of these issues in the Saddleback dialogue.
• The issue of illegal aliens was censored out of the presidential debates and other coverage. The voters were kept oblivious to the fact that Obama favors giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens and John McCain does not.
• How many times have you heard that Obama will cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans? Have you even once heard Big Media tell us that's a big lie because 40 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes at all?
• Big Media have cloaked him with a security blanket that not only protects him from criticism, but viciously attacks anybody who tells the truth about Obama's life story in Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya or Chicago.
• Why don't Big Media dissect the revelations and biases in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," with the same journalistic curiosity they use about Sarah Palin's wardrobe?
• Media present Obama as some sort of intellectual, but why don't we hear about his failure to write anything meaningful for the Harvard Law Review when he was its affirmative-action president?
• Why don't we hear more about Obama's friendship with the communist Frank Marshall Davis, who was part of a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii?
• Why haven't Big Media assigned their investigative reporters to trace the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be illegally flowing to the Obama campaign from foreign sources?
• Why aren't we given details about Obama's financial relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer now in prison?
Pew Research confirms that 70 percent of Obama's media coverage has been positive and 60 percent of McCain's has been negative.
Memo to the American people: Will we let Big Media decide this election by censoring the news we have a right to know?
READ MORE
Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France, but according to a senior government source, Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."
Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy, who
told Obama that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, it would be "very problematic."
Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.
Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open." Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.
According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.
The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.
READ MORE
Obama and the “Nightmare Scenarios”
With the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, and with Iran threatening to deal the U.S. “a strong blow in the mouth,” what kind of message are Democrats sending Tehran by insisting on quickly withdrawing U.S. troops from the region? Having stood idly by while Iran progressed through step after step in their near-complete quest to obtain nuclear weapons, we now will be telling the mullahs that we will be splitting town when our ally finally opposes them. In today’s New York Sun, Eli Lake compiles some of the “nightmare scenarios” that may be unleashed...
READ MORE
Investors Flee From 'Change' Obama Hypes
Obama's proposed tax increases are adversely affecting our financial markets.
With the bottom 40% of income earners not paying any federal income taxes, such tax credits would not reduce any tax liability for these workers. Instead, since they're refundable, they would involve new checks from the federal government.
These are not tax cuts as Obama is promising. They are new government spending programs buried in the tax code and estimated to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Obama argues that while these workers do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. True, but his planned credits do not involve cuts in payroll taxes. They are refundable income tax credits designed to redistribute income and "spread the wealth."
Meantime, Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates.
He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. He's also contending for higher tariffs under his protectionist policies.
Finally, he would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar.
Obama argues disingenuously that his tax increases would only affect higher-income workers and "corporate fat cats." But it is precisely these top marginal tax rates that control incentives for savings, investment, entrepreneurship, business expansion, jobs and economic growth. While he wants to tax the rich, the burden will fall on the poor and the middle class.
In their new book, "The End of Prosperity," Art Laffer, Steve Moore and Peter Tanous argue that the threat of this tax tsunami is already destabilizing our financial markets and causing capital flight from America...
[Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
.
Teen shot over vandalized McCain sign, police say
A Warren Township, Ohio, man faces charges of felonious assault after authorities say he fired his rifle at two teens who were attempting to deface his McCain presidential campaign yard sign. (Snip) Rowles told police he was sitting on his porch Saturday when a tan SUV pulled up and a black youth jumped out and ran toward his house, screaming, "This is for Obama."
READ MORE
Campaign workers attacked
Two people were arrested Monday afternoon after an altercation led to five Republican campaign workers being sprayed with Mace at their headquarters in Galax. Galax Police Chief Rick Clark said officers were dispatched shortly before 1 p.m. to the Galax Republican headquarters on East Grayson Street when a caller reported someone had sprayed office workers with Mace.
READ MORE
Effigy of Palin Hanging by Noose
Ghosts, goblins, gargoyles . . . and Sarah Palin hanging by a noose? That's the latest imagery of the Republican vice presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain on display at a West Hollywood home that has been decorated for Halloween.
READ MORE
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
Vandals spray-painted the words “Republican means slavery” on the door of the York County GOP campaign headquarters overnight Friday. Party volunteers called police after discovering the message when they arrived at the office on Rock Hill’s Oakland Avenue. The vandals also stole about 45 candidate signs from the front yard and spray-painted over a banner that carried a picture of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
READ MORE
.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's birth certificate sealed by http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifHawaii governor
[HT:DT]
HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.
The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.
Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.
In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.
[DT says: More evidence on Obama birth cirtificate/birthplace. It's does't proove Obama was born in Kenya, but one has to ask the question--why doesn't Obama show his birth certificate and make fools of us all?]
[I says: How is it we tolerate being told by a candidate that any of his/her records {like university writings} are 'off limits' to us, their prospective employers?]
READ MORE
MRC/NB's Motley on FNC to Discuss the Media's Silence on Sen. Biden's Huge Gaffe
The Media Research Center's Director of Communications and NewsBusters.org Contributing Editor Seton Motley appeared on the Fox News Channel's Fox & Friends this morning to discuss the media's stone silence on Delaware Democratic Senator and Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's alarming comments on Sunday:
"... (M)ark my words, within the next, first six months of this administration if we win, you're gonna face a major international challenge, because they are going to want to test him...."Alaskan Republican Governor and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin later rightly pointed during an interview on CNN that were she to have said the exact same thing, the press would have "clobbered" her.
READ MORE
ABC's 'Nightline' Gleefully Investigates 'the Palin Problem'
At one point, the ABC journalist asserted, "The hockey mom, a woman dubbed the killa' from Wasilla, and then the blunda [sic] from the tundra, she just might be here to stay." After playing a clip of General Colin Powell claiming the Republican vice presidential nominee isn't qualified, Moran opined, "Ouch!"
Moran, who just last week asked Senator Joe Biden if Palin's rhetoric made him concerned about his safety, pronounced the candidate's downfall: "When McCain nominated her, she was just incandescent and it looked for a while like it was one of the most brilliant and daring political moves in recent times. Now, well, not so much."
[thanks to who?]
READ MORE
Gingrich: Media Attacks On Palin 'Like Watching Pravda'
[HT:BB]
Appearing on Fox News's "On the Record," Gingrich called recent press reports involving the Republican vice presidential candidate
"factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, totally biased, worthy of the Polish state news media attacking Lech Walesa back in the 1980s."Moments later, he put an exclamation point on his criticism:
"This is like watching Pravda. This is a one-sided, vicious, unending and dishonest campaign."What follows is a partial transcript (video embedded right):
READ MORE
Sarah Palin's a Brainiac
High toned and authoritative dismissals of Sarah Palin come from people who have never met or spoken with her. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had.
Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer”… Yup, Palin is that smart...
[Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Sarah Palin's Wardrobe Front-Page News at NY Times
[front page. doesn't anything embarrass those folks? {rhetorical}]
Troops: Election needs bigger military focus
Seven out of 10 career-oriented service members say military issues are not getting enough attention in the presidential campaign, and nearly 30 percent don’t believe their vote will matter, according to a Military Times poll of nearly 2,200 troops.
Navy Fire Controlman 1st Class Robert Benjamin Pryor of the Aegis Training and Readiness Center in Dahlgren, Va., said he would like to see more discussion of plans for troop levels and military funding.
READ MORE
[can't: got a wardrobe crisis to cover...]
.
Obama And Frank: A Farewell To Arms
In a revealing meeting with the editorial board of the Southcoast (Mass.) Standard-Times last week, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., called for a 25% cut in military spending, saying: "We don't need all these fancy new weapons."
Judging from his past comments, Obama seems to agree. Caucus for Priorities says its goal is to
"redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger, deficit reduction."
The irony here is that this call to disarm is coming from the party of Franklin Roosevelt, who called the United States the "arsenal of democracy." Obama is a far cry from Harry Truman or the Jack Kennedy who said that only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt will we be certain beyond doubt they will never be employed.
It's "fancy new weapons" that now provide a rudimentary amount of protection against ballistic missile attack both here and abroad. What olive branch does Obama suppose will protect against Iraq's Shahab missiles, once they're armed with nuclear warheads?
Unfortunately, people in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran will be defining our needs for us. And as our enemies turn out everything from ballistic missile submarines to anti-satellite weapons, we'd do well to remember that providing for national defense is in the U.S. Constitution - and that job training is not.
[Recommended > ]
READ MORE
[FLASHBACK: NNBrief June 19:
“I Will Slow Development of Future Combat Systems”
Among other things, Obama promises to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; [snip]
Most alarmingly, however, he literally promises to “slow development of future combat systems.”
Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.
READ MORE
Among other things, Obama promises to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; [snip]
Most alarmingly, however, he literally promises to “slow development of future combat systems.”
Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.
READ MORE
Russians prefer the more ''approachable'' Obama
...the preference is widely for Obama because he represents a clean slate and will be more open to new proposals, according to Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the Russian Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee and a senior figure in the dominant pro-Kremlin party...
[how surprising]
READ MORE
What Will Obama Say About Syria?
The news comes today — about five years late, I’d say — that U.S. forces raided a facility inside Syria involved in transferring foreign fighters into Iraq to kill Americans. The strike will likely have the desired effect, whether Bashar is in control of the border region or not (many suspect that even if interested, his regime is not strong enough to stop the cross-border traffic).
If Bashar can exert himself on the border problem, then he has now been given a firm reason to do so — to avoid future humiliations of his sovereignty. And if the situation is beyond his control, then those involved in jihadi smuggling will now understand that they no longer enjoy a safe haven in Syria. It boggles the mind to wonder why such raids weren’t conducted upon the first instance of hard evidence that Assad was aiding the insurgency, but never mind that.
What’s important right now is that both candidates go on record about the raid. Should there be repeat performances — as many as needed to impress Bashar that his days of meddling with impunity are over? Should Iran be targeted for similar strikes? Do you, Mr. Obama, view this news as an unacceptable expansion of the war that will never be countenanced in your administration, or do you believe it a vital component of a winning strategy in Iraq?
I think most people intuitively know how McCain would answer these questions.
[better: Bashar intuitively knows how McCain will answer]
READ MORE
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?
Do we really have to ask?
So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat? [snip]
"U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!
END AID TO ISRAEL!"
Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.
But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s wardrobe?
READ MORE
Bill Whittle Rips Media's Epic 'Fail' on Obama's 2001 WBEZ Interview
At National Review Online today, Bill Whittle does a tremendous job dissecting the content of Barack Obama's 2001 interview at Chicago public radio station WBEZ.
But he also has some insight into the source of the audio and some choice words for a media elite that has spent nearly two years failing to do even the most basic digging into the Democratic candidate's background and associations. [snip]
Whittle also expresses fear that the press, rather than dealing with the substance of the Obama interview, will go after the person who released the tape and that person's family. That fear, based on the press treatment of Joe the Plumber, is unfortunately justified.
I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. .....
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.
READ MORE
Photoshop Tilt! ABCNews Suggests Contest Between Smiley Obama, Snarling McCain
Lee Boggs found that ABCNews.com augmented a generic horse-race campaign story by Mark Mooney on Monday morning with this slanted "photo illustration" -- or is it some sort of movie poster, with obvious Good Guy vs. Snidely Whiplash overtones? Or just JFK vs. Nixon? Mooney's article suggested Ohio was up for grabs between Good and Evil: ...
[sophomoric]
Update: ABCNews.com has since changed out the McCain photo to show a grinning McCain.
READ MORE
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game - with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
[slow learner, but we'll take it. Note that, again {the trend is growing}, the source is one of established media's own]
READ MORE
The Department of Early Indoctrination
The authors of two recent children's picture books detailing the life Barack Obama have taken this classical Greek advice to heart, turning Hillary Clinton's classic mockery -- "Celestial choruses will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect" -- into the straight-faced official biography for the four to seven year-old set.
Here, for example, is how Jonah Winter, striking a tone in BARACK somewhere between Vladimir Lenin and action movie preview narrator, translates the presidential race for America's impressionable babes:[O]n the horizon, at the dawn of a new age, there appeared a man who would be the embodiment of King's dream -- a presidential candidate whose very being was a bridge that joined nations.
Not to be outdone, Nikki Grimes' Son of Promise, Child of Hope describes the early years of Barack, "his mama, white as whipped cream; his daddy, black as ink," thusly:He was there in Chicago because he cared about these people. They were his family. People in Kenya were his family. Indonesians were his family. And no matter where he was, the world was his home. And who he was could be summed up in one word: loveable.
Well, at least she doesn't say Messiah.
[not funny, in fact alarming - Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Charter Success in L.A.
This month the Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF), a charter school network in Los Angeles, announced plans to expand the number of public charter schools in the city's South Central section, which includes some of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in the country. Over the next four years, the number of ICEF charters will grow to 35 from 13. Eventually, the schools will enroll one in four students in the community, including more than half of the high school students.
The demand for more educational choice in predominantly minority South Los Angeles is pronounced. The waitlist for existing ICEF schools has at times exceeded 6,000 kids. And no wonder. Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren't constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools... [snip]
Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible...
READ MORE
Oliver Stone's W 'won't recoup'
If recent trends continue Hollywood may be looking for a government handout. A surge of liberal style patriotism has gripped the movers and shakers in Hollywood, they have produced movie after movie critical of the war in Iraq. Every one a box office dud.
(Snip) There's been tremendous interest by the public in the box office fate of Oliver Stone's W. for its second weekend in release. Well, it ran out of steam. QED International/Lionsgate's Bush biopic sank 58% to No. 7 with a $5.3M weekend.
READ MORE
Monday, October 27, 2008
Re: Sunday's Unsolicited Opinion
Wow.
Very surprised at the amount of feedback to yesterday's 'special' sending given how many of you receive your Briefs at work. Also gratified by its mostly (nobody bats 1000) appreciative tenor - thank you all.
Re: reposting it again today so 'everyone' gets it; unnecessary: yesterday's sending was to the full distribution. However it can be found HERE, and forwarded by cut-&-pasting or as always by sending a link-back with the little white envelope at the lower-left of the piece.
Thanks again
.
Meet the people who are going to put Obama in office
This is really incredible. It stunned Ben Smith over at Politico where I got these quotes. It floored a GOP consultant who conducted the focus group where the people were quoted.
And it is perhaps the single most depressing thing I've read this entire campaign season:
The GOP consultant emailed Smith about a focus group he just finished conducting. Evidently, he showed a hard hitting ad on Ayers to the group and this was the email he sent:
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.For the first time, I really feel scared about the future. These people are like the Germans in the election of 1933. They know what's coming but they don't care. Back then, all they cared about was that Hitler was going to give them a job and keep their lunch pails full. And stick it to the Jews. And restore Germany's "rightful place" in the world. They knew full well that Hitler would destroy the independent unions, crack down on dissent, and turn Germany from a very free country into a fascist dictatorship.
Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....
Part of this is McCain's fault. He bought into that populist crap about greedy Wall Street. Well, so as ye sow, so shall ye reap. And we're about to reap the whirlwind.
In this kind of atmosphere any kind of a government is possible. And I don't know if Obama can resist the kind of raw power these nincompoops are willing to give him. Who could?
You need a license to own a dog but any fool can vote.
READ MORE
Another Communist in Obama’s Orb
Meet Michael Klonsky, Obama's "social justice" education expert
With what little media oxygen there has been sucked out by the largely uninformative discussion of Ayers (and his wife and Weather Underground ally, Bernadine Dohrn) — in which the mantra “unrepentant terrorist” has been a pale substitute for the critical matter of the Ayers’s ideology that Obama plainly shares — much has been missed. Significantly, that includes another key Obama contact, Mike Klonsky.
Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.
To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi …
The issue is that Obama promoted and collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology...
READ MORE
Chgo Sun-Times: McCain 'Treats His Rival Like a Field N-----'
The Chicago Sun-Times treats us to Andrew Greeley's thoughtful analysis, "Palin, McCain stir up storm of ugly racism." Greeley begins:
"South Pacific" is a morality play for our time. Sarah Palin is the Ensign Nellie Forbush -- an All-American girl as racist, this time a racist with her eye on the White House. She can stir up crowds to shout "Kill him!" at the mention of the presidential candidate of the other party a couple of weeks before the national election.And later:
Playing the race card explicitly merely guarantees what I have thought from the beginning -- racism in this country precludes the possibility of a sepia-colored man becoming president. However, the last-ditch attack on him guarantees that McCain and Palin will be blamed as the candidates who were content to hear crowds calling for the death of Obama.Then Greeley completes his trip around the bend:
McCain increasingly acts like an angry, befuddled cancer survivor and treats his rival like a field n----- who is just barely human.Greeley writes a column of commentary. He's entitled to his own opinion - as twisted as it may be - but he's not entitled to his own facts.
Greeley contends the GOP is "playing the race card explicitly." But when did either McCain or Palin introduce race into the campaign? Liberals hate to acknowledge it, but Obama is the only candidate brining the subject up.
It was Obama who said: “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?'"
It was Obama who said: "So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know."
In attacking McCain and Palin for alleged racism, Greeley himself employs the most hurtful term in the racist lexicon, the n-word.
It's becoming more apparent as Election Day draws closer, that for Obamatons any iota of opposition to The One can only be explained by virulent racism. The derangement syndrome rages on.
READ MORE
The Real Threat of Censorship
Since losing power in 1994, the Left has been making ugly noises about what would happen when it regained power. The “fairness doctrine” has been bandied about, but that is not what should alarm us most. The rise of this Frankenstein is specifically directed at conservative talk radio. In other words, the Left does not believe or does not care about the Leftist unfairness of every other medium in our nation: NPR, PBS, television news, television entertainment, public schools, academia, and library systems.
How, in the world, can any honest and moral person think that rampant bias for the Left is fine not only in public radio but also in public television, but think that private radio is a threat to democracy? How can any honest and moral person think that bias for the Left in the news reporting and, more critically, in the entertainment within a highly subliminal and ubiquitous medium like television is fine, but think talk radio, which deals in the spoken word and not images, is more of a threat to democracy when it has an opinion expressed?
Serious advocates of government mandated fairness – a horrible idea, but horrible ideas can still have serious advocates – should make their case by first exploring and condemning all bias in all sources of information and opinion that rely upon direct or indirect government support. These advocates should condemn the thought control efforts on most college campuses, the ideological bigotry in taxpayer funded television and radio, and the fact that not only do nearly all television networks have the safe Leftist bias, but they deny the corporate wrongdoing of their nominal corporate rivals (if CNN and MSNBC are truly rivals, then why has CNN not savaged MSNBC for its blatant bias?)
The Left does not seriously advocate government mandated fairness. In fact, the Left strongly supports unfairness in every source of information and opinion we receive. It pushes journalism schools to turn out “advocates” instead of reporters; it applauds the most absurd and scurrilous films as “cutting edge;” it gives prizes and awards to the least open minded people.
Now, the Obama campaign has taken the next logical step. Obama troops openly seek to censor campaign ads critical of Obama by threatening private lawsuits and, much more dangerously, punitive actions by public prosecutors against anyone who, in their partisan opinion, does not tell the truth about Obama. The Left now seeks openly to shut up not only those voices who operate on the public airways, like talk radio, but it seeks to shut up any voices who challenge their positions.
It is impossible to overstate the danger of this sort of militancy. Even the pretense of freedom has been shoved aside. The notion of open discussion is in the garbage can. Only one opinion counts, and that is the opinion of the Leader – Barack Obama. We witnessed a bit of this within the Democrat Party earlier: When Republicans crossed over to vote for Obama, Democrats openly menaced this free exercise of a constitutional prerogative of expression. Opposing Obama has, almost, become a crime to some Leftists.
The Left has ended a long journey. When the radical Left consisted largely of Communist Party members, opinion and speech were utterly regulated. The Party Line not only governed what people actually wrote and said, but it was intended to also govern how party members thought. As an example, when Stalin and Hitler became allies in August 1939, the Far Left’s opposition to National Socialism vanished. Those who supported Churchill and Britain against Hitler became “warmongers” and efforts to support the military in America were opposed (the first Leftist opposition to ROTC on campuses was during this period, when training military officers at universities meant building up American military power to oppose Nazi Germany.) Only a few Communists resigned from the Party; most stayed and followed orders. Censorship was the modus operandi of the Far Left, and it seemed normal to Party members.
Academia has long been filled with very real censorship. Scientists who challenge the intellectual viability of evolution by natural selection are denied tenure, fired, or otherwise harassed. Pity the professor who questions the dogma of global warming. The ideologically scripted history of the Cold War is immune to the Venona decryptions, the revelations from Kremlin archives, or even confessions of Soviet spies decades after their crimes.
More frighteningly, speech codes and the very term “politically incorrect” have been formally adopted by college administrations as the proper way to speak, to write, and to think. Coercion, not persuasion, has become the preferred means of advancing Leftism. Why then should we be so surprised that partisans in political campaigns now find the Left menacing them for politically incorrect versions of truth?
What will prevent the Left from enforcing censorship on America? Scruples? The Left already lies without remorse. Justice? The Duke Lacrosse Team and Scooter Libby can tell you how little justice means to the Left when politics is at issue. Freedom? The ugly reality is that the Left does not believe in any kind of freedom - the socialism of Leftism always presupposed that economic “security” trumped economic freedom, but Leftism cannot and does not try to limit its hatred of freedom to only one sphere of life. All the Left does, really, is punish those who challenge it.
Now that Leftist lust for control, that will to enslave, that intention to crush any rival to Leftist power is dangerously brazen and critically close to becoming real. If that happens, if an Obama Administration led by a lockstep Leftist Congress could wield federal power to genuinely stifle the voice of oppression. An assumption that people who have shown no restraint at all in their pursuit of power would not take the last, bitter, necessary step toward the sort of control which the Left once exercised is an error.
Perhaps, for us, it may be the most tragic error in the history of our republic.
READ MORE
indoctrinate U on TV
The Documentary Channel will be showing "Indoctrinate U"
as part of its "Controversy in America" series.
Airtimes are:
Monday, October 27th : 09:00 PM - 10:30 PM
Tuesday, October 28th: Midnight - 01:30 AM
(Starts after midnight Monday)
Saturday, November 1st: 05:00 PM - 06:30 PM
Sunday, November 2nd: 02:00 AM - 03:30 AM
Tuesday, November 4th: 03:00 AM - 04:30 AM
(All times Eastern U.S.)
The Documentary Channel is available on satellite and many cable
systems nationwide. Check your provider for channel information.
The schedule is subject to change. For the most up-to-date list of
airtimes, visit:
http://tinyurl.com/indoctrinate-u-docu-chan
To find out more about "Indoctrinate U," go to:
http://indoctrinate-u.com/
.
Liberal Activist on California Prop 8: If Only Lots of Old Voters Died Before Election
If only elderly voters in California would die off in large enough numbers before November 4, then the final nail could be hammered in the coffin of California Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. That according to liberal activist Kristina Wilfore, the executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, "an advocacy organization that specializes in using ballot initiatives to further liberal causes." Her comments were buried deep inside Michael Lindenberger's October 21 item at Time.com:
Wilfore says she's prepared to take the long view in California"I am not going to be discouraged if we lose," she says. Victory will come over time in the courts, as demographics works its influence on the nation's voting patterns, she says, noting that young people support gay marriage far more than their parents and grandparents do. "A lot of people are going to have to die" before Election Day is an easy day for gay marriage, she says.
["victory will come over time in the courts" - here's the legitimate crisis we need rectify]
READ MORE
S&P slashes New York Times rating to junk
Standard & Poor's on Thursday slashed its ratings on the New York Times Co (NYT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) into junk territory and cited concerns about the newspaper publisher's revenue outlook, after it posted a third-quarter loss. Moody's Investors Service also said it may follow the move, adding the publisher faces risks in refinancing its debt.
READ MORE
Online Divorcee Jailed After Killing Virtual Hubby
TOKYO (AP) -- A 43-year-old Japanese woman whose sudden divorce in a virtual game world made her so angry that she killed her online husband's digital persona has been arrested on suspicion of hacking, police said Thursday. (Snip) The woman had not plotted any revenge in the real world, the official said.
READ MORE
Sunday, October 26, 2008
UNSOLICITED OPINION
'Editor's' note {well, real editors get paid - still:}
Received what can only be called a complaint re: the name-names politicalization of the NNBriefs of late, to which I penned an unpolished reply. As I imagine there are others with like sentiments I share it here:
[HT:NP {actually Ms. Nancy has a new/married last name I can't recall - my apologies}]
- excerpt -
re: the Brief, yes I admit its become very political - ironic, given that I used to pride myself on its 'apoliticality' (i.e., focusing on issue background facts only, also suppressed by the old media). However, as I've come to be truly concerned that an Obama administration, particularly with a Democrat controlled congress, would be highly detrimental to my nation and likely set the foundation for a country (especially in judicial nominations) for a country profoundly different for my children in terms of their liberty and security, I've decided to counter what I believe to be the intolerable bias of the media by focusing on the many, many aspects to Obama's candidacy they're simply suppressing. Articles we're unlikely to see in the MSM is the charter of the blog (left side-bar) - and in Obama's case the spin by omission and outright misinformation have reached such a degree that correcting for it consumes the entire blog. I frankly am not enjoying it anymore and look forward to resuming my background/issue factoids format after the election - hang in there (I am).
- end -
Addendum:
While I'm fond of reminding folks that we don't elect Tzars in this country and that our system is structured to provide a tempering balance through division of power, it doesn't make the populace immune to ideological demagoguery which, in concert with a sympathetic media, can dupe the electorate long enough to allow the implementation of government programs, laws, and influential 'institutions' that essentially jury-rig subsequent developments (see: our education system, which has now produced generations of young people who weren't taught the detrimental effects of socialism to national affluence and individual liberty, and the media; now so imbued with liberal thought its become literally incapable of even recognizing its own bias - with incalculable harm to our nation).
This isn't fighting the good fight re: conflicting policy options nor just another example of our sloppy, difficult, cherished democracy in action. They're about gerrymandering our system, a piece at a time, to ensure end results - albeit frequently not coming to full (and likely irreversible) fruition until our children have children.
Exaggerated? I hope so. But consider:
1) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact government run healthcare [aka; Single-Payer system or Nationalized Health Care] , making the populace reliant on the government - and so the political party that promotes it - for an essential service. Does anyone think such a program would diminish over time or, once the populace has acclimated to it, it stands any chance of being revoked? Comparatively, does anyone really believe that over time it won't evolve into just another mechanism for imposing social engineering/politically correct mandates upon the populace? (Really? you're not overweight - according to the government - are you?) [Programs]
2) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact 'The Fairness Doctrine', a law target at (and only at) radio that would make it logistically and financially impossible to continue the numerous opinion talk shows colloquially dubbed 'conservative radio'. For the record I am not, generally, a fan of these shows as they tend to be as extreme/sensational as their liberal counter parts {with the notable caveat of being profitable}. Nonetheless, intermixed with emotional opinion you'll hear facts {some admittedly dubious - some very well researched} that the MSM will never share with the populace. As such they serve as a The predominant dissemination mechanism for alternative (to the MSM) information/opinion (i.e., output - the internet is the input, as its not filtered for us by our media elites). It also represents a good example of 'sloppy, difficult' democracy in that it has plenty of junk citizens must exercise their own judgement to grade. Obama and company intend to literally silence this unregulated forum by, well, regulating it in ways know to everyone knowledgeable with the industry of for-profit radio will kill them. Think of the implications this loss of the only viable counter to the liberal MSM would have on future popular opinion and elections. Those promoting it have - that's their whole intention. [Laws]
3) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will support the implementation of EFCA: "Card Check" for union organizing. This will strip employees of their right to a secrete vote re: if they'd like to unionize, and is nothing more than a government mandate to instill intimidation by forcing employees who don't support unionization to decline face-to-face with 'organizers' - and so be known as dissenters. Anyone not seeing the horrendous extortion this represents is simply unfamiliar with the history and tactics of labor unions continuing to this day - it's in your interest to educate yourselves - starting with how union membership has skyrocketed wherever states have allowed this practice. In addition to the uncompetitiveness it forces on business in the short term (think Detroit), it institutionalizes methods guaranteed to consistently grow the ranks of those beholden to the government - meaning the party that supports it - for that portion of their livelihood gained through union extortion (and paid for by the rest of us). Think of the future ramifications to an ever growing (reversing the private sector trend of diminishing union membership) number of such beholden voters; monetary incentive trumps virtually all else: they'll be bought and paid for forever. [Institutions]
That's just three (of many) examples of Programs, Laws and Institutions having long term repercussions to our system of individual-based self government that Obama and company have said they'll enact...
But as disturbing as what's been said is the growing evidence of just how much is being denied Americans for consideration during this, the world's most important job application process, such as:
A) There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has ever been an ideologically unifying force in the past that he tells us (and the media let him get way with) he'd be in the future. Just the opposite, his record is one of extreme partisanship and inflexibility - so much so that nonpartisan analysis ranks him as the single most liberal Senator in the nation. Common sense should mutually exclude this fact from any claim to 'moderation' or 'unifying' intention - but alas, not in the current media climate which consistently attacks the source (in this case, the report) instead of investigating (not concluding - that's for us to decide, but 'merely' discussing at length) the validity of alternative contentions. (if only we had journalists that specialized in investigating - outside of 13 year old DUI's of candidate spouses, that is).
B) Then there's Obama's long list of past associations (see this map for a graphical representation of its scope, albeit obsolete as the list continues to grow). Here again the MSM runs constant interference by again and again saying that even discussing any such is somehow a 'smear campaign'. One instance, repeated ad nauseam might qualify as such - but once again we've the exact opposite of what the MSM claims: a long and growing (despite the MSM's best efforts) history of identified associations that are neither casual or fleeting but are repeatedly, consistently, with those having truly extreme social views and agendas as compared to those of the majority of Americans (which I'll remind the media again continues to be center-right). Who over the age of 30 doesn't recognize the legitimacy of taking such past consistency of association as an indicator of future conduct? And is it not more likely that Obama's associations have shaped his character, as it does the rest of us, than that such a number spanning decades somehow didn't effect him in any manner (and what would that suggest about his nature)? I find it insulting on its face to suggest - yet the MSM seems to have convinced a measurable segment of the population that they're inconsequential and not worth worrying about. I personally consider it infinitely more likely (that's politically-correct speech for; "adults know") that Obama's aforementioned uber-liberal ranking is the result of these past associations - and once that causation is recognized what does it say about his future pursuits?
C) Most disturbing of all is the extreme degree (although he's not alone) to which so much of Obama's past has literally been 'sealed' - i.e., barred the American voter. How is it possible that anyone, anywhere, considers anything off the table when it comes to vetting for the position of worlds most powerful person? Moreover, how is it possible - in this country - for that to be tolerated by a populace supposedly raised to understand (and defend) the responsibilities of the self-governed and by extension the criticality of wide ranging exploration and discourse? I find it baffling and alarming in the extreme that these two states could exist and not automatically exclude Obama from serious consideration - but that's what is is occurring. I find this to be a distasteful (and frightening) example that, with sufficient control of our communication mediums, reasonably savvy Americans can be duped into accepting nearly anything if there's no countering opinion to consider (not a dig at anyone's intelligence; we're busy - and in the absence of someone {anyone} making us aware of an alternative view we've rarely the time to develop it our selves and the herd mentality prevails). Imagine hiring for a position at your work where an applicants resume was full of popular buzz words and catch phrases re: his skill set but lacked any explicit prior accomplishments - and under the education section listed his college but noted that his GPA was 'personal/decline to state'. Would any of us hire such an applicant? So why would we when discussing the Presidency of the United States of America?
Again, these are but some few examples - if one were to avail themselves of what's available on the internet (and grade intelligently) - of why this election cycle in general and the candidacy of Barack Obama in particular has become alarming to me.
Last example: that his entire diatribe hasn't even addressed the potentially (which by definition makes it 'the') most immediately pressing issue of this election: national security in the context of the ongoing Global War On Terror, and the continuing convergence of suicide bombers with portable WMD intended to be used against us when they come to fruition. How is it that this horrific specter - known to be factual in intent if not capability as yet - isn't the headline topic of this election? Should we not be having an exhaustive national debate on the mechanics of asymmetrical war and its utter reliance on intelligence gathering to interdict attacks vs. the after-the-fact reprisal model of 'law enforcement' Obama and the Democrats somehow think will be sufficient to deter suicide bombers? I happen to believe the likelihood of such an attack actually occurring to be fairly remote - but considering the consequences, is it responsible to play the odds on this issue? I don't think so - but we're not really talking about that - why? A: Because that's an Obama 'weakness' - better to concentrate on the troubled economy as that's (erroneously) laid at the feet of Republicans in many voters' minds. What will any of us possible say to our children if this unthinkable scenario comes to pass because we chose not to take it seriously (enough) to assure its prevention due to political ideology?
Rhetorical, I pray - but we're afforded, nay; empowered with the responsibility - to directly influence the course of this nation. It's a great, great power - and responsibility.
For the record, I'm not a Republican nor a conservative nor even a person of faith {all of which often surprise those who learn them}. I'm just a working stiff who takes his citizenship seriously, all the more so as I'm also a father. Sure I've political beliefs of my own and they naturally (and rightly) steer my voting patterns. But when I 'reverse engineer' what I believe an Obama administration - again in conjunction with a Democrat controlled Congress - would mean potentially short term and almost certainly long term, I must agree with one mantra from 'the right' which simply rings true to my ears: Obama is simply 'too risky' to put in such a position of power. 'He's cool', and/or 'new' and/or 'historic' and/or 'change' don't meet the high standard demanded by the consequences of our choice.
I've reached this conclusion by dispassionately (and trust me; with McCain that's easy) stepping through the probabilities of cause and effect - and once again feel left with an inadequate 'lesser of evils' choice. But a lousy choices doesn't mean parity between them, and one is clearly more dangerous than the other when thought through.
That's what compelled me to share some examples of why I feel this election is wrong in many ways and why it's so important we the voters get it right regardless.
SAH
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Critical Stage in Iraq
Iran is waging an aggressive covert-action campaign to derail the agreement, U.S. officials say. The new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, highlighted Tehran's push last week when he said Iranian operatives had been seeking to bribe Iraqi members of parliament to reject the pact when it comes up for a vote.
The Iranians obviously want to limit U.S. influence in the new Iraq by defeating the status-of-forces agreement and in the process hand America a strategic defeat. But some top U.S. officials think the Iranians have a more fundamental goal in pushing U.S. forces out before the Iraqis are ready to take over -- namely, bringing a final, decisive resolution to the Iraq-Iran war that ended in a 1988 truce. "Now, 20 years later, they have an opportunity to win that war," the official argued. [snip]
A final complicating factor in the deadlock is the expectation among many Iraqi politicians that Barack Obama will be elected president on Nov. 4, and that they'll be able to get a better deal from him. If Obama does indeed win, he could make an early show of leadership by telling Baghdad not to expect any sweetheart concessions -- and make clear that he backs the agreement Crocker is working so hard to pin down...
READ MORE
Dangerously unfit to be president
I have followed American politics closely since I was a child in the 1940s. No election of my lifetime has left me as apprehensive as the current one. There are compelling reasons why Barack Obama is dangerously unfit to be president of the United States. [snip]
Obama appears blind to the dangers posed by rogue states and international terrorism. Most criticism of him has concentrated on his inexperience, which can be overcome with time. Unfortunately, his naivete, vacillation and aversion to logical analysis cannot.[snip]
Obama promises billions of dollars worth of new "entitlements," accompanied by a stifling regulatory bureaucracy. His claim that he wants to help the middle class is in fact a plan to tax it out of existence and transform all but a small political elite into wards of a state on the east European model. There has been no case in history of state socialism stimulating growth anywhere in the economically developed world.
After six years of strong growth, the economy is now in a cyclical downturn, which has allowed Obama to get away with telling the most materially prosperous people in the history of humankind that they are living in misery. An Obama presidency would mean fewer jobs and less disposable income for most jobholders and retirees. [snip]
"We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Waving one's hands aloft and screaming "Yes we can!" is Obama's calculatedly emotional response to complex issues that require careful, thoughtful analysis. The record of history is a mournful litany of the horrors wrought by cynical demagogues whose sole message was themselves.
[serious business, serious article {short} - Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
The Metastatic Gaffe
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran...
[Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
