here are two fine examples of how the democratic machine works... all part of a great strategy. get the media in your pocket, get the pollsters on your side and pack the boxes full of fraudulent votes... and everyone will think to themselves... 'oh well, he was ahead all along...'
first - this:
CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.
The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.
Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.
Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
Early today, Stadlin's van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.
"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."
And now -- ARCORN office raided in Vegas over voter fraud
looks like the Dallas Cowboys are now the Las Vegas Voters:
Secretary of State Ross Miller said the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.
"Tony Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada, and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4," Miller said.
More recently, 27,000 registrations handled by the group from January to July 2008 "went into limbo because they were incomplete, inaccurate, or fraudulent," said James Terry, chief public advocate at the Consumers Rights League.
do you think this voter fraud drives up the votes for republicans ??? laff-out-loud.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
a life or death election..
a great GREAT read by Anne Bayefsky--
Wake Up People
Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.
Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn’t it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae — a candidate’s look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.
The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and vice-presidential candidates is: “Will you authorize the use of force in time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons — yes or no?”
Wouldn’t your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn’t your worries about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your lifetime? Wouldn’t your concerns about affording a college education fade if you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of horrifying devastation instead of going to school?
Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel — to start. A villain who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel’s population to live underground for almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group — to terrorists who cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.
I don’t know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread denial of man’s capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad’s virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story about “experts” who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have any interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council: “Iran’s biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords,” and it is the United States “which the Iranians consider a mortal threat.” These “experts” have it exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns, these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel — by stopping its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.
No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or discrimination or because of anything you’ve done. But because they hate you — whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate everything you stand for — liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are made up. Closed — period — to the entreaties of naïve foreign diplomats or would-be presidents and vice presidents.
During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without preconditions: “Barack Obama, he did not say ‘sit down with Ahmadinejad.’” Perhaps he should read Barack’s website: “The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”
So let’s look at the differences between the presidential tickets on what to do about the nuclear weapons ambitions of a would-be mass murderer.
On the one side:
Vice-Presidential Debate
DEBATE MODERATOR: “Let’s move to Iran and Pakistan….Senator Biden. What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan?”
SENATOR BIDEN: “…I always am focused…I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan….Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing…[T]hey are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed.”…
SENATOR BIDEN: [on Iran] “Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, “Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.”…And if we don’t…what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?”
Ask yourself: does preventing a nuclear holocaust involve winning a popularity contest?
First Presidential Debate
Senator Obama [on preventing a nuclear Iran]: “Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree…that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with…Russia and China…[W]e are also going to have to…engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain.”
News flash: Russia and China have told us to take a hike on tough sanctions, Barack. Any other ideas?
Obama Website:
If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
“If” it continues? Anybody in Iran trembling?
And on the other side:
Vice-Presidential Debate
DEBATE MODERATOR: “Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?”
GOVERNOR PALIN: “An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to
consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period.”
First Presidential Debate
Senator McCain: “If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region…[W]e cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. …Have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons…What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without preconditions you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.”
Barack Obama isn’t just inexperienced. It isn’t naiveté that drives him. I take him at his word. He and his vice-presidential candidate believe in “talk, talk, talk” regardless of the hourglass or the stakes or the intentions of the person across the table. No amount of learning on the job is going to change their way of thinking. Approving the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a Rubicon they will not cross — before civilization as we know it comes to an end.
So when you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when the point of no return in Iran’s nuclear program is reached. And the balance of power in the world will — with terrible consequences — have changed forever.
Wake Up People
Since the time of Hitler, civilization has never been so close to the brink of total catastrophe. This American election will decide whether civilization as we know it will survive. As much as economic questions are currently front and center, with blame to go all round, this is not an election primarily about corporate greed, or individuals living beyond their means, or government neglect of economic oversight. Nor is it about whether we should have gone into Iraq where, like it or not, American boots on the ground have begun to create an emerging democracy. This election is about whether there will be a nuclear holocaust.
Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn’t it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae — a candidate’s look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it.
The question that must be put point-blank to both presidential and vice-presidential candidates is: “Will you authorize the use of force in time to stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons — yes or no?”
Wouldn’t your beliefs for and against abortion fade if you thought nobody would be born into a world fit for living things? Wouldn’t your worries about health care pale if you thought the mutilation, cancer, and death of millions upon millions, sure to follow nuclear war, would occur in your lifetime? Wouldn’t your concerns about affording a college education fade if you thought your children will have the grim task of fighting a war of horrifying devastation instead of going to school?
Wake up. There is a genocidal maniac on the verge of reaching the point of no return in his ability to make a nuclear weapon. A fanatic with the stated ambition to murder five million Jews living in Israel — to start. A villain who has already funded and armed a terrorist war against the Jewish state that in 2006 forced one-third of Israel’s population to live underground for almost a month. In other words, an individual who is ready, willing, and able to give the nuclear trigger to a terrorist group — to terrorists who cannot be bargained with because they prefer their death to your freedom. As for the suggestion that the Mullahs are more powerful and nicer guys, the millions brutalized and subjugated in Iran tell a different story.
I don’t know why it is possible after the Holocaust, to have such widespread denial of man’s capacity for evil. Nor do I understand why Ahmadinejad’s virulent anti-semitism and call for the destruction of Israel are dismissed as irrelevant factoids when calculating the Iranian threat. Time has a story about “experts” who believe that Iran seeks an atomic bomb not because they have any interest in using it or passing it to others who will, but to deter, to ensure its security. According to Thomas Fringar, chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council: “Iran’s biggest strategic concern is obtaining security assurances and accords,” and it is the United States “which the Iranians consider a mortal threat.” These “experts” have it exactly backwards. If Iran were really driven by such security concerns, these concerns could be alleviated without spending a nickel — by stopping its nuclear-weapons campaign and its funding of terrorists.
No amount of ignorance, stupidity, or wishful thinking will change the reality that there are people who are prepared to kill you and your family for no good reason at all. Not because of poverty, or envy, or discrimination or because of anything you’ve done. But because they hate you — whether you live in Jerusalem, Washington, London, or Paris. They hate everything you stand for — liberty, tolerance, equality. And their minds are made up. Closed — period — to the entreaties of naïve foreign diplomats or would-be presidents and vice presidents.
During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden denied the undeniable fact that Senator Obama said he would sit down with the Iranian President without preconditions: “Barack Obama, he did not say ‘sit down with Ahmadinejad.’” Perhaps he should read Barack’s website: “The Obama-Biden Plan: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”
So let’s look at the differences between the presidential tickets on what to do about the nuclear weapons ambitions of a would-be mass murderer.
On the one side:
Vice-Presidential Debate
DEBATE MODERATOR: “Let’s move to Iran and Pakistan….Senator Biden. What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan?”
SENATOR BIDEN: “…I always am focused…I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan….Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing…[T]hey are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that’s able to be deployed.”…
SENATOR BIDEN: [on Iran] “Our friends and allies have been saying, Gwen, “Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.”…And if we don’t…what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?”
Ask yourself: does preventing a nuclear holocaust involve winning a popularity contest?
First Presidential Debate
Senator Obama [on preventing a nuclear Iran]: “Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree…that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with…Russia and China…[W]e are also going to have to…engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain.”
News flash: Russia and China have told us to take a hike on tough sanctions, Barack. Any other ideas?
Obama Website:
If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.
“If” it continues? Anybody in Iran trembling?
And on the other side:
Vice-Presidential Debate
DEBATE MODERATOR: “Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?”
GOVERNOR PALIN: “An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to
consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period.”
First Presidential Debate
Senator McCain: “If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region…[W]e cannot [allow] a second Holocaust. …Have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons…What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without preconditions you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.”
Barack Obama isn’t just inexperienced. It isn’t naiveté that drives him. I take him at his word. He and his vice-presidential candidate believe in “talk, talk, talk” regardless of the hourglass or the stakes or the intentions of the person across the table. No amount of learning on the job is going to change their way of thinking. Approving the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a Rubicon they will not cross — before civilization as we know it comes to an end.
So when you cast your ballot this election, make no mistake: you are voting for or against a nuclear holocaust. Not because Barack Obama wants such a horror, but because he will not prevent it. He will still be talking when the point of no return in Iran’s nuclear program is reached. And the balance of power in the world will — with terrible consequences — have changed forever.
the weather underground..
in case you are not old enough to remember who the weather underground was.. here it is.. and in case you didn't know, senator obama is buddies with these guys.
push polled by secular messiah..
man-made-messiah delivers change.. it can't be said enough - look at what he does, don't listen to what he says. all of the bleeders out there who cannot wait to shelve their self inflicted guilt will ignore this -- but the hard working American who takes time to understand a topic will find the following unsurprising.
this from sunblog:
Push Polled
When the phone rings, and nothing shows up on the caller ID it's usually one of two entities on the line: telemarketers or pollsters. Tonight, it was the latter. The caller said he was conducting a national opinion poll and wondered if I had a few moments to answer some questions.
Since I'm a political geek, I agreed.
The poll started with standard questions about party registration, personal ideology and who I planned to vote for in various races next month. It then moved onto who I would trust more to handle particular issues and my personal opinion on a number of political figures.
Then the weirdness started. The pollster said the next set of questions was to determine whether I found a set of arguments convincing on a scale of zero to ten, zero being not at all convincing and ten being totally convincing. The first statement was 'John McCain voted 24 times against voting the minimum wage while Barack Obama voted for the wage and to protect American workers.' I answered zero, and figured an anti-Obama statement would be coming next.
Nope. The next question had to do with health care, and said that John McCain voted to spend money on providing tax cuts for the rich while Barack Obama wanted to use the money to provide health care for orphaned children or something. I answered zero again.
Next issue? McCain is a puppy-murdering fiend whose favorite hobby is feeding the cute little fellas to crocodiles while Obama has his own personal angelic choir to sing his praises. Okay, maybe I made that last one up. It was actually something about how McCain voted against the interests of the American worker on various issues, while Obama voted to protect them. By this point, I figured out what was going on and pretended to think about it before saying zero again just to annoy the guy and have some fun.
There were about half a dozen questions like this and I answered zero on most. I answered three on a couple of them to give the guy a little encouragement, though. I'm a giver that way. The more conservative my answers got, the less professional the 'pollster' became. He actually chuckled in derision at a few answers.
He then moved to demographic questions. He asked about church attendance. When I said I attended once a week, I heard him mutter "Does it work?" followed by another chuckle. At the end of the poll, I asked him which polling firm he represented - Rasmussen, Gallup, Survey USA? His answer? "Uh...national opinion poll..."
It seems Senator Hopenchange is either using push-polling, or a 527-type organization is doing so on his behalf. I guess Maine's second congressional district really is in play.
Funny. The 'new politics' of Barack Obama and his supporters seems awfully like like the old type.
So...has anyone else heard from this 'pollster?'
this from sunblog:
Push Polled
When the phone rings, and nothing shows up on the caller ID it's usually one of two entities on the line: telemarketers or pollsters. Tonight, it was the latter. The caller said he was conducting a national opinion poll and wondered if I had a few moments to answer some questions.
Since I'm a political geek, I agreed.
The poll started with standard questions about party registration, personal ideology and who I planned to vote for in various races next month. It then moved onto who I would trust more to handle particular issues and my personal opinion on a number of political figures.
Then the weirdness started. The pollster said the next set of questions was to determine whether I found a set of arguments convincing on a scale of zero to ten, zero being not at all convincing and ten being totally convincing. The first statement was 'John McCain voted 24 times against voting the minimum wage while Barack Obama voted for the wage and to protect American workers.' I answered zero, and figured an anti-Obama statement would be coming next.
Nope. The next question had to do with health care, and said that John McCain voted to spend money on providing tax cuts for the rich while Barack Obama wanted to use the money to provide health care for orphaned children or something. I answered zero again.
Next issue? McCain is a puppy-murdering fiend whose favorite hobby is feeding the cute little fellas to crocodiles while Obama has his own personal angelic choir to sing his praises. Okay, maybe I made that last one up. It was actually something about how McCain voted against the interests of the American worker on various issues, while Obama voted to protect them. By this point, I figured out what was going on and pretended to think about it before saying zero again just to annoy the guy and have some fun.
There were about half a dozen questions like this and I answered zero on most. I answered three on a couple of them to give the guy a little encouragement, though. I'm a giver that way. The more conservative my answers got, the less professional the 'pollster' became. He actually chuckled in derision at a few answers.
He then moved to demographic questions. He asked about church attendance. When I said I attended once a week, I heard him mutter "Does it work?" followed by another chuckle. At the end of the poll, I asked him which polling firm he represented - Rasmussen, Gallup, Survey USA? His answer? "Uh...national opinion poll..."
It seems Senator Hopenchange is either using push-polling, or a 527-type organization is doing so on his behalf. I guess Maine's second congressional district really is in play.
Funny. The 'new politics' of Barack Obama and his supporters seems awfully like like the old type.
So...has anyone else heard from this 'pollster?'
Monday, October 6, 2008
obama's bedfellows!
you really want this guy running the free world ?? it's like a really bad joke..
from Ireland with love
We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies!
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run!
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies!
obama's words v. obama's deeds
If you want to know the true measure of a man, you look at what he does, not what he says.. in the case of obama, there is a chasm between the two. I hope that American voters are wise to this fact.. here is an interesting piece from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obama's words & deeds
By Ralph R. Reiland
In March, Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race was inspiring and knowledgeable.
Attempting to put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy behind him, Obama said he had "already condemned, in unequivocal terms," Wright's "inexcusable," "divisive," and "racially charged" comments.
Wright's "incendiary language," he said, expressed "views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." Wright's criticisms of the United States, additionally, were based on "a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and elevates what is wrong in America above all that we know is right with America."
The "offending sermons about America" by Wright, asserted Obama, were rooted in the past, in "a reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up," a generation that "came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted."
It is this past that lives on in "the bitterness and bias" that make up the black experience in America, Obama explained, quoting William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even passed."
Despair is the price of keeping this bitterness alive, the price of the endless preaching about past wrongs. The "legacy of defeat," said Obama, "was passed on to future generations, to those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future."
Unfortunately, to keep things from cooling down, to keep the money rolling their way, there's no shortage of hucksters who are willing and able to fan the flames of anger.
"At times, that anger," said Obama, "is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines" -- and to gin up the flow of money from the pews.
"That anger is not always productive," Obama asserted. "Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition."
Why, then, given this call to reject "a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism," did Obama establish a long-lasting working relationship with unrepentant former terrorist William Ayers?
Obama dismissed inquiries about his relationship with Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, by saying that he was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
In fact, Obama served from 1995 to 1999 as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), the brainchild of Ayers, an organization that funneled some $100 million into the hands of community organizers and activists, including ACORN, in order to radicalize Chicago's public schools.
Between 1969 and 1974, the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for some 20 bombings in the United States -- at police stations, banks, jails, courthouses, the Capitol and the Pentagon. Ayers became a fugitive in 1970, reports Andy McCarthy at the National Review, after three of his cohorts were "accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers' specifications -- Ayers was a bomb designer -- went off during construction."
The explosive, a nail bomb, "had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey," reports McCarthy. "Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, 'tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.'"
Ayers, describing the Weather Underground as "an American Red Army," motivated by "hope," succinctly summed up the organization's mission: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments."
"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001. "I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers, in charge of shaping CAC's education philosophy, describes himself as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist." Rather than focusing on anything as mundane as math or reading, the job of teachers, said Ayers, is to "teach against oppression."
Ayers "downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism," writes Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
"Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression," reports Kurtz. "He believes teacher education programs should serve as 'sites of resistance' to an oppressive system."
The question: Why do Obama's deeds contradict his words? Is anyone in the mainstream media curious?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Obama's words & deeds
By Ralph R. Reiland
In March, Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race was inspiring and knowledgeable.
Attempting to put the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy behind him, Obama said he had "already condemned, in unequivocal terms," Wright's "inexcusable," "divisive," and "racially charged" comments.
Wright's "incendiary language," he said, expressed "views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." Wright's criticisms of the United States, additionally, were based on "a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and elevates what is wrong in America above all that we know is right with America."
The "offending sermons about America" by Wright, asserted Obama, were rooted in the past, in "a reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up," a generation that "came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted."
It is this past that lives on in "the bitterness and bias" that make up the black experience in America, Obama explained, quoting William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even passed."
Despair is the price of keeping this bitterness alive, the price of the endless preaching about past wrongs. The "legacy of defeat," said Obama, "was passed on to future generations, to those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future."
Unfortunately, to keep things from cooling down, to keep the money rolling their way, there's no shortage of hucksters who are willing and able to fan the flames of anger.
"At times, that anger," said Obama, "is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines" -- and to gin up the flow of money from the pews.
"That anger is not always productive," Obama asserted. "Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition."
Why, then, given this call to reject "a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism," did Obama establish a long-lasting working relationship with unrepentant former terrorist William Ayers?
Obama dismissed inquiries about his relationship with Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, by saying that he was just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood."
In fact, Obama served from 1995 to 1999 as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), the brainchild of Ayers, an organization that funneled some $100 million into the hands of community organizers and activists, including ACORN, in order to radicalize Chicago's public schools.
Between 1969 and 1974, the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for some 20 bombings in the United States -- at police stations, banks, jails, courthouses, the Capitol and the Pentagon. Ayers became a fugitive in 1970, reports Andy McCarthy at the National Review, after three of his cohorts were "accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers' specifications -- Ayers was a bomb designer -- went off during construction."
The explosive, a nail bomb, "had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey," reports McCarthy. "Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, 'tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.'"
Ayers, describing the Weather Underground as "an American Red Army," motivated by "hope," succinctly summed up the organization's mission: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments."
"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001. "I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers, in charge of shaping CAC's education philosophy, describes himself as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist." Rather than focusing on anything as mundane as math or reading, the job of teachers, said Ayers, is to "teach against oppression."
Ayers "downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism," writes Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
"Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression," reports Kurtz. "He believes teacher education programs should serve as 'sites of resistance' to an oppressive system."
The question: Why do Obama's deeds contradict his words? Is anyone in the mainstream media curious?
Friday, October 3, 2008
biden's 14 lies..
from ace of spades
Biden's 14 Lies
JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
Biden's 14 Lies
JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Palin 1 Biden 0
Chalk one up for Sarah. For being in national politics for about a month, she put down a veteran senator handily. She reduced him to blatant lies..
I can't wait to see the bleeders go really nuts now.
I can't wait to see the bleeders go really nuts now.
sarah palin scares me...
diddy dons a white sheet to tell you how much sarah scares him..
now for some real journalistic value
why the bailout is bad..
Why the Bailout is Bad for America
From Dan Mitchell at Cato:
• The bailout is bad for the economy.
• The bailout repeats the mistakes Japan made in the 1990s.
• The bailout will increase corruption in Washington.
• It rewards executives and companies that made poor choices.
• The bailout will encourage imprudent risk in the future.
Bottom Line: When government tries to redistribute wealth from rich people to poor people, it causes economic damage by discouraging productive activity by the most successful and by discouraging productive activity from those who are lured into government dependency. The proposed bailout is even more pernicious. It would redistribute wealth from poor people to rich people, and simultaneously encourage reckless behavior by recipients and impose an immoral burden on those that behaved responsibly.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
obama's usa.gov
andy rutledge takes a stab at what the new usa.gov website would look like under an obama administration: http://andyrutledge.com/usagov-redux-fullsize.html
vets for freedom
again, if you want to know the true measure of a man, look at what he does, not what he says.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
more evidence of dem responsibility...
Nancy giving assurances that there will not be a 'witch hunt' for those responsible for the fannie/freddie mess.
Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a "witch hunt" to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.
Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically -- or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally -- treacherous for many.
They sure have no problem having a witch hunt over nothing in the scooter libby case - but on something that results in the partial collapse of the financial system?? nah, no biggie. Business as usual.
Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a "witch hunt" to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.
Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically -- or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally -- treacherous for many.
They sure have no problem having a witch hunt over nothing in the scooter libby case - but on something that results in the partial collapse of the financial system?? nah, no biggie. Business as usual.
bailout politics
Once again Thomas Sowell knocks the ball out of the park..
Some highlights:
Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.
Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."
Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."
Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.
In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.
read the whole thing - the more Thomas Sowell you read, the smarter you will be.
Some highlights:
Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.
Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."
Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."
Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.
In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.
The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.
read the whole thing - the more Thomas Sowell you read, the smarter you will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
