Lest anyone had any doubt, the UN “culture” is pulling
for Obama
US
The UN has proven itself to be left wing and corrupt, and
when challenged in the real world, it’s a moribund failure to achieve much of
anything.
No wonder the UN doesn’t support the US
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html
McCain raises terror spectacle: a total takeover of
Washington by liberal Democrats
Should Obama win and Democrats gain huge numbers in both houses, there would
be no check or balance to protect normal America
Already, liberal extremists such as the infamous Barney Frank have begun pushing for major reductions in our national security.
With government in the hands of liberal extremists, who will protect the people of this nation and their future?
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5103152/mccain-warns-against-democratic-takeover/
Democrat racist politics may have put Obama in a position hard to maintain.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/27/undecideds/index.html
Opinion:
Political Selections of the morning
(Complete columns follow the headlines)
Buddy
1.
Obama: friends on the fringe and on the left
2.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
Media's
Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist
Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
3.
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/message?board.id=news&thread.id=205279
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
4.
More questions about voting roil Indiana county -
An Indiana county still recovering from a primary night
black eye is embroiled in a new election-year drama that could determine
whether Democrats win Indiana's presidential contest for the first time in more
than four...
5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
RED ALERT:
In 2001 Obama explicitly endorsed Marxism!
And
I do mean Red Alert. I'm guessing the anointed one thought this particular
audiotape had disappeared down the memory hole. Or he'd utterly forgotten about
it, what with he and his wife busily planning their move into the White House.
In 2001, in an interview with WBEZ public radio, Barack Obama explicitly endorsed a "redistribution of wealth". His words. Well, Karl Marx's words too, but you know what I mean.
6.
Obama's Redistributive Shock & Awe -
Shame, Cubed
Three separate reasons
to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
Speaking on
a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should
profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time
to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Now for the details:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left
Thomas Sowell
Monday, October 27, 2008
Although
Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals
over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest
and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has
been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.
ACORN is not
just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN
has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of
thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families,
in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack
Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long
ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way.
Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric
in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright
and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are
reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are
recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is
not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is
a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of
resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that
Obama headed.
Nor has the
help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack
Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began
in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real
follow-up.
It was not this
year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier
campaign for the Illinois
That is one way
to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a
president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a
nuclear Iran
People who
think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real
issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record,
ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative
government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly
have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things
that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must
trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States
Once we
recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of
how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the
so-called "real issues."
A candidate who
spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter,
rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald
Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States
No way would he
have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and
Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama
had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then
we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he
has always stood for.
Some people
take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on
some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to
show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.
But political
zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume.
Lenin
zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is
playing the public for fools.
Some people who
see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama
knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics
but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He
does that very well.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and
author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Copyright
© 2008 Salem Web Network.
.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
Media's
Presidential Bias and Decline
Columnist
Michael Malone Looks at Slanted Election Coverage and the Reasons Why
Column By MICHAEL S.
MALONE
Oct. 24, 2008 —
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.
But worst of all, for the last
couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be
embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a
new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a
writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a
journalist.
You need to understand how
painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm
cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my
great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene Kan. Oregon
My hard-living -- and when I
knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los
Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long
career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and
spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in
every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest
son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national
byline before he earned his drivers license.
So, when I say I'm deeply
ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just
how deep that cuts into my soul.
Now, of course, there's always
been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including
reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to
color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced,
reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will
apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at
least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.
But what we are also supposed to
learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of
that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.
But even more important, we are
also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure,
Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to
approach that ideal as closely as possible.
That means constantly
challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and
never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge
people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than
at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.
Reporting
Bias
For many years, spotting bias in
reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a
newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often
unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad
judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious
advocacy.
Sure, being a child of the '60s
I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of
it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed
to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream
media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by
its very nature was opinionated and biased.
But my complacent faith in my
peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the
country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories
from whole cloth.
I'd spent my entire professional
career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking
sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone
else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been
told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense & indeed, it meant being
blackballed out of the profession.
And yet, few of those worthies
ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon
rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of
rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another
for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.
Meanwhile, I watched with
disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in
the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there
onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in
my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy
editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the
Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
But what really shattered my
faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon Windhoek , Namibia
I sat there, first with my jaw
hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after
another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut Israel
The
Presidential Campaign
But nothing, nothing I've seen
has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably
foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the
two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even
Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless
support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as
they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and
fair press.
I was one of the first people in
the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of
his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him,
even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not
one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican
vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams
to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big
leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better
be ready to play.
The few instances where I think
the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective
first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved
with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.
No, what I object to (and I
think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball
coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the
presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are
correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is
essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few
friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his
biography.
That isn't Sen. Obama's fault:
His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's
fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to
cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
Why, for example to quote the
lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't
we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know
all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to
interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why
are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by
the traditional media?
Joe
the Plumber
The absolute nadir (though I
hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came
with Joe the Plumber.
Middle
America
I learned a long time ago that
when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be
entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what
their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and
betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is
trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world
and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any
presidency, is probably less than 50/50.
Furthermore, I also happen to
believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes
& and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the
Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was
proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story,
like a shark to blood in the water.
So why weren't those legions of
hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in
this story of mainstream media betrayal?
The editors. The men and women
you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what
doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the
editorial pages. They are the real culprits.
Bad
Editors
Why? I think I know, because had
my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your
50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the
cockpit of power & only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry.
The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers
and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes
and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it
did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect
you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you
cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.
In other words, you are facing
career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if
you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to
compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network
news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until
you can retire.
And then the opportunity
presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches
yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington
With luck, this monolithic,
single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness
doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe
be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
And besides, you tell yourself,
it's all for the good of the country &
This is the opinion of the
columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News.
Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known
technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than
25 years, beginning with the San Jose
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet
Ventures
http://community.comcast.net/comcastportal/board/message?board.id=news&thread.id=205279
FBI Launches Investigation of ACORN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
A second senior law enforcement
official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices
in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.
Both officials spoke on condition
of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing
investigations particularly so close to an election.
ACORN, the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now, says it has registered 1.3 million
young people, minorities and poor and working-class voters — most of whom tend
to be Democrats.
Republican accusations about the
group were raised during Wednesday's presidential debate between Democrat
Barack Obama and GOP candidate John McCain.
Some ACORN employees have been
accused of submitting false voter registration forms — including some signed
`Mickey Mouse' or other fictitious characters.
Those voter registration cards
have become the focus of fraud investigations in Nevada Connecticut Missouri Ohio North Carolina
ACORN has said the "vast
majority" of its workers are conscientious, but some might have turned in
duplicate applications or provided fake information to pad their pay. Workers
caught submitting false information have been fired, ACORN officials say.
ACORN says laws in a number of
states require it to submit all registration cards it collects even dubious
ones, so its workers segregate applications with missing, suspicious or false
information and flag them so state election officials can quickly check them
further.
More questions about voting roil Indiana
county - Added 3 hours ago
An Indiana county still recovering from a primary night
black eye is embroiled in a new election-year drama that could determine
whether Democrats win Indiana's presidential contest for the first time in more
than four...
An Indiana Indiana
Weeks after questions
arose over suspect voter registrations, a Republican lawsuit seeks to close
early voting sites in three heavily Democratic Lake County cities: Gary East Chicago Hammond
The flaps have cast
renewed suspicion over the heavily Democratic county that former Attorney
General Robert Kennedy once called one of the nation's most corrupt.
"The amount of
political corruption that takes place in this county is amazing, for a lack of
a better word," said Marie Eisenstein, an assistant professor of political
science at Indiana University Northwest in Gary
Local election officials
are scrambling to assure voters that they aren't engaged in familiar political
shenanigans in a gritty area dominated by steel mills and oil refineries along Lake Michigan
Gary Mayor Rudy Clay
accuses Republicans of using scare tactics by raising the specter of voter
fraud in an attempt to make it harder for people in the county's northern
communities _ many with large minority populations _ to cast ballots.
"That is a smoke
screen by the Republican Party to slow down, stop and disenfranchise people in Gary , Indiana
Barack Obama needs a
strong showing in Lake County
Indiana Illinois Indiana Gary
Many polls show the race
between Obama and Republican John McCain is a tossup in Indiana
The pre-election
squabbling is "embarrassing to me and embarrassing to the county,"
said Terry Stanton, 25, a financial analyst from Hobart
Memories are still fresh
of the late vote tallies that delayed results of the May primary. Clay and
Democratic Mayor Thomas McDermott of Hammond
In 2003, the state
Supreme Court threw out an East
Chicago East Chicago
Clay insists that's in
the past.
"This is the first
time in a long time that Indiana Lake County
Republican Secretary of
State Todd Rokita said some of the problems in Lake County
"I'm not sensing
this is being done by any local machinery there," Rokita said of Lake County
A record 4.5 million
voters are registered in Indiana
Early voting was delayed
by more than a week in the three Lake County
Republicans contend a
single site in Crown Point Indiana
Democrats say it's
unfair to limit early voting to Crown
Point
"I think what they
know is that minorities are supportive of Barack Obama," said Democratic
state Sen. Earline Rogers of Gary
RED ALERT:
In 2001 Obama explicitly endorsed Marxism!
And
I do mean Red Alert. I'm guessing the anointed one thought this particular
audiotape had disappeared down the memory hole. Or he'd utterly forgotten about
it, what with he and his wife busily planning their move into the White House.
In
2001, in an interview with WBEZ public radio, Barack Obama explicitly endorsed
a "redistribution of wealth". His words. Well, Karl Marx's words too,
but you know what I mean.
"If
you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously disposed peoples... But the
Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and
more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society..."
"...To
that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court Warren Court
It's
clear that the Framers were "all about" redistribution of wealth.
They were all up in our faces about it, in fact.
Of course, the American people favor economic liberty over Marxism by the razor thin margin of 84% to 13%. But that will change once they get used to a true workers' paradise.
Obama's Redistributive Shock
& Awe -
Shame,
Cubed
Three separate reasons
to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
By Bill Whittle
|
The Drudge Report
this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago
You know, if you look at the
victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation
strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights
in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to
vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as
I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the
issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of
political and economic justice in this society. Warren Court A caller then helpfully asks: “The
gentleman made the point that the Warren
Court You know, I’m not optimistic about
bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The
institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all
sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court
monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and
takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and
politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in
that regard. THE FIRST CIRCLE Warren
Court America United States America United States of America United States America THIRD CIRCLE Los Angeles |
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left
Obama and
"The Left"
Thomas Sowell
Monday, October 27, 2008
Although
Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals
over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest
and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has
been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.
ACORN is not
just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN
has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of
thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families,
in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack
Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long
ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way.
Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric
in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright
and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are
reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are
recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is
not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is
a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of
resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that
Obama headed.
Nor has the
help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack
Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began
in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real
follow-up.
It was not this
year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier
campaign for the Illinois
That is one way
to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a
president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a
nuclear Iran
People who
think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real
issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record,
ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative
government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly
have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things
that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must
trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States
Once we
recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of
how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the
so-called "real issues."
A candidate who
spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter,
rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald
Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States
No way would he
have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and
Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama
had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then
we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he
has always stood for.
Some people
take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on
some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to
show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.
But political
zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume.
Lenin
zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is
playing the public for fools.
Some people who
see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama
knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics
but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He
does that very well.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and
author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Copyright
© 2008 Salem Web Network.
Comments