Blue Moon

It must be, because CBS finally did what they should have been doing all along. Beleive it or not. They must figure an Obama electoral win is a foregone conclusion and it's too late now anyway. Will there be any other of the Big 3 networks to jump on this? Don't hold your breath.

Also, there's a pattern developing about Obama's treatment of dissidents. Is he taking pointers from Hugo Chavez, or what? Apparently, these reporters were from newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.

I wonder how long the MSM will continue to protect him if and when he's commander-in-chief if he continues these totalitarian tactics. Eventually he going to cross even the members of the press that seemingly worship

Biden Lies About Gay Marriages

This is not just another gaffe by the master of them, this is just an outright lie. That or his hair-plugs are affecting his brain.

On October 3, at the Vice-Presidential Debate against Sarah Palin, Biden said both he and Barack Obama did not support an amendment to the Constitution that would change the definition of traditional marriage.
But yesterday on the Ellen Degeneres Show, he lied to her face, the sheep in the audience as well as her television ones, when he said if he lived in California, he would oppose Proposition 8, that effectively overturns the overturning the fascist decision by the California 9th District Court of Appeals did to the people of the Golden State after over 60% of them voted to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

This guy keeps feeding what the MSM should be reporting if they weren't in the tank for "The One" and his gaffe-laden crony.

Study Finds Media Bias Against Palin...DUH!

How can anyone on the planet not know this by now?

I've Wondered a Few Times About This Myself

It's about time a major daily commented on this.
What do you expect the polls to say when you ask "Who are you voting for?" in the heart of downtown Manhattan?

L.A. Times Fearful of Truth About Obama, Ayers & Khalidi

I wonder if the New York Times would go even this far to cover for Barack Obama and his relationships with terrorists, both foreign and domestic.

I wonder (sarcastically) what they're afraid of? Perhaps not only turning the tide for McCain, but maybe even creating a landslide late in the campaign? If this video they're hording contains what I think it contains, it would and should spell the end for Obama's presidential hopes.

If, after all the reporting by anyone, including any and all right-wing television news shows, conservative radio and well-known as well as independent bloggers (not to mention the transparent bias of the mainstream press themselves) haven't convinced you that that very same MSM is so far in the tank for Obama (actually, then there is really no help for you) this suppression of information by the Times is the icing on the cake and the end game is near.

As it says in the piece the reason they're not releasing the video (printed in where else?..the Los Angeles Times)

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

That would beg the question then, if the source wanted to keep it a secret, why would they have given it to the Times at all?

Little Green Footballs has another take on the matter. Note the story about Hamas campaigning for Obama immediately following.
Also check out the suppressing of information of WBEZ radio in Chicago about hiding obama recordings pertaining to Obama's “redistribution of wealth” plan and comparing America to Nazi Germany.
And even following that...ah, just read the whole page and/or blog, it's all relevant.

Too Many Headlines to Comment On...

So, I'll just post some links and perhaps comment where I can today.

Stevens Found Guilty on All Counts
Go ahead lefties, I'd be rubbing it in, too. Too bad the media doesn't get excited about Democratic scandals the way they do about Republican ones. Could this be the "October Surprise?" I wonder how long this will run on the front pages and top stories of MSNBC, CBS, ABC...ah, you get the picture.

Skinhead Plot to Kill Obama
Thank God they caught these scumbags before they could execute their plan. Like I've said before, I definitely don't want Obama to be president, but this is just evil! Kudos to the investigators who foiled their cowardly little plot.
Apparently the twisted pair thought they would do it with what they considered "going in style."

Russia to Test America's Mettle Yet Again?
Apparently, Putin and Raoul (or even Fidel) Castro want to re-ignite the Cold War and have another Cuban Missile Crisis, or a variant thereof. McCain was right not to trust Putin. Is this the crisis that Biden said Obama would be tested on?

More Hate and Intolerance from Obama Supporters
Not surprising anymore. At least this one's real.
and...
How Long Will It Take For Obama to Denounce This?
Don't hold your breath.

It Must Be Snowing in Hell

Uh-Oh. Along With the Russia/Cuba Alliance, Communists are Starting to Flex Their Tounges, if Not Their Muscle

WFTV Anchor Has to Defend Herself for Asking Ligitimate Questions to Biden
The whiny, double-standards of the Obama/Biden ticket is truly, truly amazing.
By the way, you can no longer access the video on YouTube, after only a couple of days. Convenient, huh? Those Google boys don't mess around when things don't go their way.
*In case you didn't know, Google owns YouTube. Famous for banning conservative-minded videos, yet allowing hate-filled terrorist-supporting, anti-American, anti-Semitic ones.

Give Me Half a Break!
First he's the Messiah, now he's simply in step with history's greatest presidents. Oh. My. God.

Is This News?
The Circulation Numbers of the Top 25 Papers.
See any patterns?

The Pride Before the Fall?
Someone may be counting their chickens.

Fascism Would be Great!-Dean
The "Fascist Doctrine" is the first step

Pelosi: It Won't Hurt, I promise.

Today's "Journalism" Isn't Fooling Anyone
A rare, honest look at the industry. I feel his pain, being a journalism graduate.

French President Critical of Obama's Stance on Iran: calls it "utterly immature"
It appears even Sarkozy' France would fight Iran before Obama would. Wow!

Telling, Isn't It?


2001 Radio Interview: Obama Disappointed that Supreme Court Didn’t Pursue Redistribution of Wealth
Obama discusses the civil rights movement which focused on legalities, neglecting the redistribution of wealth and the tragedy of the Supreme Court to address the matter as well.He called it “economic justice”.

*More on this term in an upcoming post. You'll know it when you see it.



S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M!!!

Barney Frank Wants the the Defence Budget Slashed by 25%
First Biden wants us to be ready for A "Crisis" in an Obama presidency, now Frank wants to ensure America isn't ready to strike back. Idiots!!!

Judging by This, Maybe We Can All Get Along

Amazing pooch! More brave than most people. And he probably never thought twice about it.

Palin, Obama and the Media

What else do you think this post would be about?
Do you think we need a watchdog for the MSM? Something like a Attourney General for journalists?
Since Obama wants to shred the Constitution by killing the Second Amendment, shouldn't "freedom" of the press be limited also?

W Fading Fast

I was wondering if the new Oliver Stone movie, W. would share the same fate as Lions for Lambs, Redacted and other anti-war, anti-right films. As it turns out, happily, yes:

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. 8 with $1.5 million Friday from 2,050 dates for what will probably be a $5.2M weekend. The $30M negative cost film should end up with $23M domestic box office gross by the end of its North American run. That means, with a $25M P&A investment and Lionsgate's distribution fees, the film won't recoup. -From Nikki Finke's Deadline Daily

In fact, Stone hasn't had a hit, I believe, since World Trade Center. Why was that? Because it showed the heroes of 9/11 in positive light, like it should have. You see, when you make a film based on FACTS, it does well, when you make crap up, it tanks.

This makes me wonder:
Does Hollywood have the guts to make a movie about Barack Obama and his cocaine days and Chicago Machine politics or Bill Clinton's womanizing and the "Clinton Body Count" thrown in?
Ah, no.

Interesting...

Here's a post about a Iran-al Queda connection from one of my favourite sites, Bottom Line Up Front by the invaluable, Amy Proctor.

Biden Takes His Ball and Goes Home

Predictably, the Obama/Biden campaign is crying foul (emphasis on crying) about a reporter finally asking tough questions, or at least questions any self-respecting journalist should ask of any politicians that are seeking the most powerful office in the world, of Joe Gaffe, I mean Biden.

The lefty media go out of their way to attack anything right (have you seen the blood-lust directed at Sarah Palin?) but if any question comes up they deem out of bounds (namely normal questions as I have explained) they see red.

Nothing new here. I just thought I'd point out the obvious, yet again.
You can read the interview here.

Bias Media Once Again Shows Their True Colors

This type of crap is going to seriously backfire on the MSM and Democrats someday soon. Americans are getting sick of this stuff.

When the backlash really starts, I can't wait for these elitists to drop their jaws and scratch their collective heads when people start losing their jobs because of newspaper subscription cancelations and low (even more than now) ratings.
David Gregory, Katie Couric

Claims Like This, Not Good For Our Side

Why oh why would someone (apparently for McCain) do this. This is a lefty-type thing. McCain's not that desperate.

It's Only Fair

Just a quick thought:
If Barack Obama made about $150 million in campaign donations (from still unknown and highly suspect individuals and organizations) and John McCain received...well, not even close to that; in the name of "fairness" that Obama and Biden like to espouse, why not give McCain some of that money so that he can get some more TV ads up and running, so that he can be more competitive in this race? I mean why not, it's only "fair," Right?

The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 5

"So, what's the big deal," people ask about Barack Obama's association with people like William Ayers, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Atoin "Tony" Rezko and his life-long interest in the words and ideology of Louis Farrakhan and Malcom X?

Well, just think seriously for a moment (if your a lefty I'll give oyu some extra time) if John McCain had close ties with a former terrorist or an abortion bomber, or God forbid, someone with a history of pedophilia, how would the American people treat him? How long would it take the media to eviscerate him? I've been thinking lately, if Obama simply had a (R) after his name, how do you think he would have gotten? How much of his past do you think would be front page news? All the way down to the color of his boxer's. Think about that.

Well, that's the pickle that Barack Obama should be in. Of course, he's not in a pickle of any kind about tany of these associations. The mainstream media has seen to that.

What's that you say? You don't know who William Ayers is? Due to the reasons mentioned above, I can't say that I blame you.
William Ayers is a radical, left-wing, anti-American punk who with his terrorist organization, The Weathermen Underground (which Wikipedia seems content to list that terrorist organization as an example of "urban educational reform") are responsible for multiple bombings in the New York and Washington, DC areas. Another unexploded bomb was discovered (after a Vietnam veteran, Larry Grathwohl, infiltrated their group) in the Detroit Police Officer's Association, at a time when the maximum number of people were in the building. In San Francisco, they weren't so lucky as a police station there was bombed resulting in one death and injuries to two others. The Pentagon and Capital buildings were his most prestigious targets.

Ayers writes in his own book, Fugitive Days:

"The Pentagon was ground zero for war and conquest, organizing headquarters of a gang of murdering thieves, a colossal stain on the planet, a hted symbol everywhere around the world. We'd already bombed the Capital, and we'd cased the White House. The Pentagon was leg two of the trifecta."

This is the associate of Barack Obama that he has said "is just a guy down the street" and is "mainstream."
Obama has said repeatedly that he and Ayers are not that close. But, even David Axelrod, Obama's strategist, has described their relationship as "friendly."

Obama has attempted to distance himself from Ayers by trying to marginalize their relationship by saying that Ayers has "moved beyond terrorism" and that he shouldn't be condemned for "something that he did 40 years ago."
Moreover, Ayers has never apologized, he's never admitted he was a terrorist and has said he regrets "not doing more." When asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." And on the question of regretfulness?

"I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."

Nowadays Ayers is a professor of English at the University of Illinois. Doesn't that say wonders for the American educational system?
Ayers wife, Bernadine Dohrn is just as radical and dangerous as he is. She is also a Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law. Nice huh?

At a Weathermen War Council meeting in December, 1969, Dohrn was quoted as saying about the Charles Manson murders,

"Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!"

Conveniently omitted by Ayers from Fugitive Days, was this telling statement:

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents."

Apparently, Ayers is too much of a coward to give an interview with FOX News, where he would undoubtedly have to answer real questions. I'm sure he his students at the Uof I have been assigned his books, while being indoctrinated by his anti-American and anti-Semitic statements. And I'm sure they all listen in amazement and wonder, as well as captivity.

On the morning of September 11 ,2001, Ayers was once again espusing his insensitive and hateful anti-American garbage when he said,

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Five days later, he was quoted in the New York Times:

"This society is not a fair and decent place...We're living in a country where the election was stolen and we didn't have a mass uprising. It's incredible. We're all asleep. The pundits all pat themselves on the back: God, what a great country." It makes me want to puke."

On April 17, 2008, Mayor Richard Daley warned against attempts to create "guilt by association" or "tarring" his political ally, Barack Obama, "because he happens to know Bill Ayers."

Obama himself doesn't seem to get what all the hoopla is about:

"The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense to me."

Obama met ayers through Alice Palmer, when Obama was invited into Ayers home home for a campaign fund-raiser in which Obama gladly accepted not only a donation to his campaign but also donations to radical left-wing causes a majority of which was donated to programs designated for "educational purposes. Do the phrases, Wahhabism and madrases ring a bell?

These "educational purposes" were mainly for an organization called the Woods Fund of Chicago, where they served together on its Board of Directors from 1999-2002. The fund's stated mission is to "break down structural barriers to job opportunities, job retention and job advancement" for people in low-income neighborhoods.

The organizations that the Woods Fund supports are, but not limited to:

-The Tides Foundation (wherein donor's money is funneled to groups that are often found to be radical)

-The Midwest Academy, a training camp for radicals founded by disciples of Saul Alinsky

-The Center for Community Change, another Alinsky-influenced organization

-The Arab-American Action Network, run by Rashid Khalidi, another radical supporter and "alleged" member and financier of the PLO.
In 2000, Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama. This particular group is also "creating an oral history project on 'an-Nakba'-the great 'catastrophe' of Israel's founding."

What does all this tell you about a politicians judgment and morals when a person who hates America with every fiber of his being finds that politician acceptable enough to work with on committees for his own projects, not to mention giving campaign contributions to that politicians presidential campaign, after jump-starting his political career?

After a poor analogy attempt by Obama to compare his association with Ayers with that of conservative senator, Tom Coburn, when he noted that he "considered Coburn a friend without sharing his views."
Coburn commented on the statement later,

"Why answer a question by throwing a funder a bus? He did not answer the question, and if your running for president of this country, there is not any question about your associations, your friends, that you should not have to answer. And the fact is that he has never answered the question."

And that's the point folks, a person of public office's friends and their actions, no matter how long ago, matters.

Ayers has killed and wounded innocent people, is unrepentant about it wishes he could do more. Barack Obama doesn't consider it a big deal.

Believe it or not, there are others. Ayers isn't the only radical association in Obama's life. Not only was Alice Palmer influenced by and defended the actions of the communist Soviet Union, but other communists and Marxists have had a profound influence on Obama's personal and political life.

To start with, there's the Communist/Marxist readings of of Richard Wright and Stalin supporter, W.E.B. Dubois and the aforementioned publicized influence of Saul Alinsky. Then there's the Marxist "New Party" of Chicago.

According to New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Obama appeared at the New Party's 1995 meeting to seek their endorsement in the State Senate race.

Obama did in fact obtain the NP's endorsement, but it came with a price:

Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

These are just the influences and allies with radicals that have come to light. Ones that Obama and the press will not discuss.


ODDS & ENDS...
Education:

Obama supports the Chicago Teacher's Union (CTU) over the children of the city of Chicago. Especially that of the Thorton Township district. While the average salary of a teacher in that district is $83,000 a year, the kids simply wanted more hours at school. They "pleaded" with Obama for it, because on average at Thorton Township High School, the school days lasted only five and a half hours a day. 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
The school boards reason? They can't afford longer days. Literally. With those kinds of salaries for their faculty, what school could? it's no wonder the test scores and aptitude tests in Chicago are some of the lowest in the country. Elementary schools in Chicago have about the same length of time to teach the kids at five hours and forty five minutes.

Does Obama know about these outrageous salaries? Probably. Could he do something about it? Yes, but he fears the CTU. In fact, according to his own writings, he's in debt to them for their endorsement of his presidential run.

"I owe these unions...I don't mind feeling obligated...towards teachers in some of the toughest schools in the country, many of whom have to dip into their own pockets at the beginning of the school year to buy crayons and books for their students."

With their average salary, would dipping into anything really make a dent in their own pocketbooks? Do they even have to worry about it? Maybe they shouldn't have to, but does it really harm them personally?

Supreme Court Justices

The Presidency derives part of its particular importance from the power of appointing judges and Supreme Court justices. What sort of judges would Barack Obama appoint?

Liberal, left-wing ones obviously. In fact, extreme liberal, left-wing ones that would strike down any restriction on abortion, ones that treat the Constitution as a "living document," therefore giving themselves reason to legislate from the bench. Obama was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer,
"Are there members, justices right now upon who you would model, you would look at? Who do you like?"
Obama answered,
"Well you know, I think actually justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible [liberal] judges. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee [who regularly votes liberal causes] is a sensible judge."

Surprise, surprise.
Ginsburg and Souter, fo their part, were on the short end of a 7-2 ruling on criminal penalties for the promotion of child pornography. They opposed the penalties.
Obama totally disagrees with Justice Antoin Scalia's assertion that,

"the Constitution original understanding must be followed, and if we strictly obey this rule, then democracy is respected."

Obama sees it as "unrealistic to believe that a judge, two hundred years later, can somehow discern the original intent of the founders or ratifiers."
But he has absolutely no problem with the way the liberal Supreme Court Justices approach the Constitution.

"Ultimately, I have to decide with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution-that it is not a static, but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

So apparently, Obama would like to appoint judges who would use the Constitution as they see fit. Eventually hoping to re-write it in his and their image.

Flip-Flops

The flip-flops of Barack Obama are too numerous to mention. Look at this campaign season alone. There are a couple in particular that you may find interesting and show the transparency of the man when he is truly under inspection:

In the Illinois State Judiciary on February 25, 1999, the assembly was voting on a non-binding resolution put forth by state senator, Patrick O'Malley urging Illinois's state senators to reject a ratification of President Clinton's treaty to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and America's subjection to it. The result of this vote was 10-0, including Obama's vote. But according to O'Malley, that was not Obama's first choice.
Unfotunately, there is no roll call vote available, no list of names...Obama did not vote "yes," but "present."
After the other nine had voted "yes," [he changed his vote] with the permission of the committee's chairman...O'Malley's version is given credence by Obama's ambivelence on the issue.

When the resolution came to the floor, Obama "absented" himself from it (it passed 52-1, with one present vote)
Obama was not actually absent from the Senate that day, he was present to vote for two other unrelated resolutions, one of them sponsored by his political patron, Emil Jones.

The other, more important flip-flop was his opinion on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Obama has always maintained that he has been against the war from the start. This is true (if not a little convenient giving the timing of his views.) But one cannot be blamed for being confused about his stance if one had read the Chicago Tribune July 29, 2004. Believe it or not, he said,

"There's not much difference between my opinion and George Bush's opinion at this stage. The difference in my mind is who's in a position to execute."

It wasn't until 2006 that Obama changed his mind again. Like most Democrats in the Senate he wanted a precipitous withdrawal (not to mention surrender) from/of Iraq. That heavy rhetoric quieted some when the Republicans called the Democrats bluff by calling for an immediate vote on the issue. The Democrats quickly backed off.
Then in November of that year, with the midterm elections finished and the presidential election cycle beginning, Obama suddenly decided it was time to leave,

"The time for waiting for in Iraq is over, it is time to change our policy."

His website then stated he would immediately start withdrawing all troops within 16 months of his inauguration. After conflicting opinions and advice, Obama conceded in his book, Audacity of Hope,
"There are no easy answers."
That is until he began is presidential campaign.

Abortion

Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts NO RESTRICTIONS on late term abortions, or abortions of any kind.
If elected president, he's promised to sign a bill into law that is tantamount to infanticide. Legal, federally-mandated infanticide. He has in fact voted three times to allow infant survivors of botched abortions to be aborted outside the womb. On July 17, 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,

"The First thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, how no matter how modest or reasonable. It would, according to the National Organization of Woman, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions.
Any doctor or nurse that refused to perform abortions on grounds personal disagreement, morals or any other reason, would lose their jobs and may even face criminal charges. And even if you adamantly disagree with abortion, you'd be paying for it nationally, with your tax dollars.


So, that's it. That's what you need to know about "the Messiah." Obviously, it's not even close to everything, but that's all I can really tell you, legally speaking.
But, as usual, don't take my word for it, or even David Freddoso's; use the list of sources that have been provide in parts one through five and do your own research. It's important. Really the future of America depends on it.

Take note of the following list of names and check out their history and Obama's association with them:

William Ayers
Bernadine Dohrn
Emil Jones
John Stroger
Todd Stroger
Alice Palmer
Richard Daley
Jerimiah Wright
Antoin "Tony" Rezco
Alexi Giannoulias (with "alleged" ties to the Chicago mob)
Father Michael Pfleger
James Cone (avid racist of which Obama's former church-where he witnessed Jerimiah Wright's sermons for 20 years-doctrines are based on)
ACORN
Saul Alinsky
Frank Marshall Davis
Khalid al Mansar
Rhashid Khalidi
Franklin Raines
Jim Johnson


"Storm Clouds for Weathermen," Time, Monday, August 3, 1970.

William Ayers. Fugitive Days. Boston: Beacon. 2001. p.256 & 258

Bernadine Dohrn, quoted in Timothy Noah, "Radical Chic Recruitment." Slate, August 22, 2001.
http://www.slate.com/id/1008160/

Bill Ayers, quoted in Hope Reeves, "The Way We Live Now: September 16, 2001: Questions for Bill Ayers; Forever Rad," New York Times Magazine. September 16, 2001.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate." Philadelphia, April 16, 2008.

"Fact Check: Obama's Relationship with William Ayers," Associated Press, April 17, 2008.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/17/fact-check-Obamas-relationship-with-William-Ayers/

http://www.aaan.org/oral.html

The Sean Hannity Show, May 28, 2008.

Bruce Bentley, "Chicago New Party Update," New Ground 42, September-October, 1995.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

ODDS & ENDS

Barack Obama. The Audacity of Hope. Three Rivers Press. New York. 2006. p.90, 119 & 160.
Kati Phillips, "Youth is Served," Daily Southtown. May 28, 2005.

Diane Rado, "School Day Falls Short in Poorer Districts," Chicago Tribune, September 29, 2002.

David Mendell and Jeff Zeleny, "Obama Says War to Decide Election," Chicago Tribune. July 2007.

Mark Sherman, "Court Upholds Part of Child Porn Law," The Associated Press," May 19, 2008.

Simply Just Don't...

Talk about Obama's ears, his wife, his birth certificate or his medical record, his college years, his background, his job as community organizer, any of his radical anti-American friends, his thin resume, his non existent record as a US Senator, his extreme socialistic policies for this country, his arrogance, his ability to sit in "church" and listen to anti-white and America bashing for 20 years, the origin of much of his campaign money - don't talk about anything except his Messiah like stature.
-Rosemary, RI.
(From Townhall.com comments)


Everything else other than that is fair game, so fire away. Oh wait, I can't say "fire," because I'll bet that somehow racist, too.

But on the other hand, you lefty whack-jobs can say whatever you want, because YOU and ONLY you have "freedom of speech."

Like...well everything on here and here, for starters. I love the comments section on these sites, they're so full of "facts" and "love" because anyplace else, like Townhall.com or FOX News.com or any right-leaning site is just like reading the Necronomicon isn't it lefties?

Remember...don't talk about Obama unless you plan on ignoring anything and everything about him and his past and you MUST adore him.

It's Official, Everything is "Code" for Black

Here's a little tidbit of laughs for you. I told you, I told you-the left is rolling out everything that they think (and they're hoping you're ignorant enough to believe) that anything and everthing from the right these days is racist.

Um, what was that Mr. Lewis? Oh, nobody said anything about your McCain/Wallace reference? Oh, right, I forgot; being on the left means never having to say you're sorry.

And the rebuttal goes to...

Outrageous!

Hope For Change...Because You Won't Have Any Cash

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND?
PLEASE READ ENTIRELY.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years.
The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2
year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a
gallon;

3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

5) American's were buying new
cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So,
in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got

'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon
& climbing!

3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10%
increase);

4) Americans have seen their home
equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still
dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in
foreclosure.

6) as I write, THE DOW is probing
another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS
EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE
GOT IT! ....

REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF
THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.

AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS
HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESS!!!!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK
YOU CAN STAND?

The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 4

What is it about Barack Obama that makes him immune to criticism? Put aside for a moment the many, many allusions to his apparent divinity (you know the seven times he's been on the cover of Time magazine-as opposed to McCain's three-with four of those seven in which the photographer purposely angled or "fixed" the picture so that Obama would have a light behind him, so as to seem to have an angelic "halo" over his head) and his disdain for "answering" questions straight-on and then turn his opponents legitimate criticisms against them. Then again, has Obama even gotten any criticism? Has he ever been asked by the mainstream press anything less than, "Really, how great are you?" The answer, sadly and pathetically, is no.

He has greatly benefited from a mainstream media that has shown him a reference of omission, going to great lengths to hide his past from the American people. You can bet if his past was anything short of divine (besides what they have tried to embellish, i.e LIE about) they would tell you all there is to know. when anything even remotely newsworthy about his past does surface, conservative commentators that are invited on to far-left, liberal networks (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, etc) and are actually allowed to speak the truth of his past, (when they aren't double, or triple-teamed on a "balanced" panel) the covering up, embellishments, race-baiting (that is only brought up by the left) and lies by Obamacized liberal "journalists" is truly reprehensible.

Even the Clintons are not immune to the all-powerful Obamedia, especially Hillary.
During the Democratic primaries when her campaign accurately pointed out that Obama was lifting entire passages of speeches from Massachusetts governor, Deval Patrick, her claims were mostly ignored, downplayed or even met with derision by the mainstream press. When she said in a debate against Obama, "change you can Xerox," she was booed by Democrats in the crowd. The booing was what the media focused on. A month earlier, Clinton was booed for criticizing Obama for not giving a straight answer about a vote in which Obama voted against a measure that would have capped at 30 percent interest rates charged to consumers.

"You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you," she said, "because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern."

After the crowd's boos subsided, Obama gave the kind of response that has become typical of his campaign, asserting that Clinton was engaging in the "old politics" that he alone transcends.

Robert Novak documented this dishonest rhetoric, dated May 22, 2008:

"When one of the Democratic Party's most astute strategists this week criticized John McCain for attacking Barack Obama's desire to engage Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I asked what the Republican presidential candidate ought to talk about in his campaign. "health care and the economy," he replied...Obama embraced that formula once it became clear that he would best Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. He began pounding McCain for seeking the third term of George W. Bush. At the same time, Obama implores McCain in the interest of 'one nation' and one 'one people' not to attack him. The shorthand widely repeated by the news media is that the Republican candidate must not 'Swiftboat' Obama. That amounts to unilateral political disarmament by McCain."

So, ipso facto, any criticism of Obama is a smear. And because of his heritage, it's quite simply a racist smear.

That's the calling card of the desperate, paranoid left, especially when talking about the poor (because according to the left, only black people are poor-which Barney Frank recently pulled when attempting to excuse himself from any responsibility on the Freddie Mac/Fannie May fiasco. That says more about the racism of the left than the right) Whenever they don't have an answer for their own ignorance and/or incompetence, they roll out the phony racism charges.

Rich Lowry of National Review chimed in on this subject with a column in the spring of 2008:

"Here are the Obama rules in detail:
He can't be called a 'liberal' ('the same names and labels they pin on everyone,' as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can't be questioned ('attempts to play on our fears'); his extreme positions on social issues can't be exposed ('the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives' and 'turn us against each other'); and his Chicago background too is off-limits ('pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy') besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign."

On May 19, 2008, Newsweek magazine published the first salvo of pre-emptive strikes that would become the norm during this election season:

"The Republican Part has been successfully scaring voters since 1968, when Richard Nixon built a Silent Majority out of lower and middle-class folks frightened or disturbed by hippies and student radicals and blacks rioting in the inner cities. The 2008 race may turn on which party win the lower and middle-class whites in industrial and border-states-The democrats base from the New Deal to the 1960s, but 'Reagan Democrats' in most presidential elections since then. It is a sure bet the GOP will paint Obama as 'the other'-as a haughty black intellectual who has Muslim roots and hangs around with American-haters...Se. John McCain has explicity disavowed playing the race card or taking the low road generally. But he may not be able to resist casdoubt on Obama's patriotism."

Did you notice how the article attempts to disarm the GOP by admitting the facts about Obama, then using it as something the Republicans shouldn't and mustn't talk about? Discarding any discussion of his past as "politics as usual" or simply as ad hock racism?
Too bad Obama himself already played that card, in an attempt to disarm McCain as an "old-school politician," then playing the card himself.

The article embraces and accepts Obama's immunity claim uncritically. It equates legitimate criticisms of Obama with illegitimate smears, suggesting that all are equally unjust.





David Freddoso. "The Case Against Barack Obama: the Unlike Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." Regenery Publishing. Washington, DC. 2008. p. 70-72, 77.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, sponsored by CNN and Univision, University of Texas at Austin, February 21, 2008.

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, The Palace Theater, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, January 21, 2008.

Robert Novak, "McCain Stakes His Turf," Washington Post. May 22, 2008.

Rich Lowry, "Obama Rules," National Review Online. May 13, 2008.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVkMWIzOGQMzdmMzg4NWE0YzFINzQ0oTE0ZmQ0oDE=

Richard Wolfe and Evan Thomas, "Sit Back, Relax, get Ready to Rumble. Newsweek. May 19, 2008.

Shout Outs by McCain Supporters Reported, Disgusting Shirts About Palin and McCain Marches Not

I'm sorry this has to come from the Associated Press, because we all know how honest and objective they are.

The problem with this is, as digusting as it is (there are reports that it didn't even happen and that original reporter, Chris Hackett made it up-although I don't believe that since I seem to remember seeing the YouTube video of it and actually hearing it myself) Palin allegedly wasn't even on stage to rebuke these comments. And with Barack Obama's complaints about it to John McCain last night at the debate, he didn't seem to mind his supporters wearing "Palin is a c**t" shirts, so he seems to be proving more and more that he is indeed the master of hypocrisy.

Obama and ACORN

Here's the skinny

The Debates-4th and Final

I don't care what the polls say-like I'm going to believe the CBS/Traitor Times poll anyway. McCain not only won the debate, he schooled Obama. I have no idea what these guys were watching. It was like watching a father admonishing his cocky, punk kid.

Again, if you know how I score these things-I gave one round, or even one point to Obama and saw the rest as a pummeling. McCain did what he needed to do. He didn't get angry, he didn't get mean, he got assertive. This should really even things out in the polls, me thinks. He'll get the bounce. That is of course if you believe that CBS/NYT debacle saying that Obama was up by 14 points. Fourteen! Whatever.

I think it's still Obama's to lose (for now) but don't think for a moment it won't be close.

Obama lied again about his taxes in what I consider (and borrowed from Michael Savage-who I don't really agree with half the time) as "trickle-up poverty."
He also lied in front of the world about 100 percent of McCain's ads being negative. What's so negative about telling the truth about his radical associations.
And apparently Obama chose not to remember the congratulatory message McCain gave Obama at the end of the Democratic National Convention.

Which reminds me of the other lies, including, but not limited to his association with William Ayers, ACORN, etc.

So the final tally on the debates (and I've changed my mind on one of them-the second McCain-Obama one from a slight McCain win to a draw) is McCain/Palin 3, Obama/Biden 0 with one draw.

The next three weeks are going to be very interesting.

The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 3

How did Barack Obama become a United States senator?
He'll tell you that he networked his way up the political ladder after being a "community organizer," and take credit for things he had absolutely nothing to do with.

In 2003, Obama literally told his mentor, Illinois State Senate President, Emil Jones,

"You can make the next U.S. senator."
"Wow, that's sounds good," replied Jones. "Got anybody in mind?"
"Yes," Obama said. "Me."

Of course, as the Senate President, Jones had the pull to do exactly just that.
As Jones himself put it, Obama was smart enough to succeed but,
"He needed someone who could give him credibility."
But to know how Jones was able to give Obama "credibility," is to know Jones himself, a Chicago Machine politician who is described as Obama's "political godfather."

Jones was yet another product of the patronage system..."when Democratic ward-heels were turning out the entire population of Chicago cemeteries to vote for John F. Kennedy."

Another patron to Chicago Machine was Jones' son, Emil Jones III, who despite having no college degree, was able to procure a $57, 000 a year job with the Department of Commerce.
Jones' step-son, John Sterling, who owns a technology firm called Synch-Solutions received a government contract for $700, 000 in 2007.

In that same year, many people were wondering why Jones was so vigorously backing Commonwealth Edison in its fight against lower electricity rates.
Reporters from the Chicago Sun-times later discovered that Synch Solutions had been on the company payroll of Com-Ed's parent company since 2004.

Now that you've got the partial resume of another typical Chicago Machine politician in Emil Jones, how again did he "make" a U.S. senator out of Barack Obama?
By engaging Obama in what is known in the U.S. and any state legislature as "bill-jacking," by giving him high-profile legislation in its late stages. This was the single-most thing Jones did for his protege (other than giving him the Chair of the Illinois State Health Committee , that placed Obama in charge of legislation that affected the Service Employees International Union. This in turn, would put Obama in the position to, as Obama's biographer, David Mendell put it, "carry SEIU's water.")
As a result, Obama received that union's endorsement in his senate race.

Obama's colleagues at the time expressed bitterness about Jones' habit of taking popular, high-profile, must-pass bills away from their writers and champions in the late stages and giving them to Obama to mange in the Senate. In other words, Obama took other people's projects and took full credit for them.

Obama now often writes and speaks about these bills as if they had been his own. This, according to Mendell, was "a consequence of Jones' patronage."
Obama quickly returned the favour by requesting and receiving $11 million in earmarks for Chicago State University, one of Jones' pet projects.

Obama now rarely, if ever, talks about Palmer, the Strogers, Jones or Daley these days. They simply don't reflect the public image he has created for himself. They do explain why he is where he is today (other than the protection of the media, of course) It certainly hasn't been his judgment of character or moral compass.

He did what he was told and it made him a senator.
He's still doing what he's told.




David Freddoso. "The Case Against Barack Obama: the Unlike Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate." Regenery Publishing. Washington, DC. 2008. p. 27-31, 37.

David Mendell, 180

"Obama's Political Godfather in Illinois." Associated Press. March 31, 2008.

Chris Fusco and Dare McKinney, "Secret Deals Enrich Jones Stepson's Firm; work for gov's budget office aa subcontractor valued at $700, 000," Chicago-Sun-Times. July 9, 2007.

Mike Riopell. "Senate PresidentJones Zaps Efforts to Freeze Electric Rates." Journal Gazette, Times-Courier. April 21, 2008.
http://www.jgtc.com/articles/2007/04/21/news/doc46297e42688d8071464602.txt

Dave McKinney, Carol Marin, Abdon M. Pallasch and Steve Patterson, "Free Loans for Jones: Senate president Emil Jones has taken tens of thousands od dollars from his campaign kitty." Chicago Sun-Times. May 22, 2008.

Howard Stern's "Man on the Street" Exposes Obama Supporters Ignorance

Not exactly a shill for the Republican Party, Howard Stern sent his crew out to the streets of New York to ask people why the y support Obama. The video herein is absolutely hilarious and just goes to show that most Obama supporters have absolutely no clue of what they're talking about or why they even support their candidate that they clearly know nothing about. They don't even know who his running mate is.

The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 2

Along with Richard Daley, Barack Obama learned his "new politics" from paying close attention to the former president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, John Stroger and later, his son Todd.

Before a federal investigation into the corruption allegations within the CCBC office and a FBI raid on the Cook County office building in September 1996, the county's government was "John Stoger's personal, agenda-driven cash-cow."

In Stroger's Cook County, if you have the right political connections, you get the job or raise. All you need is the right amount of campaign contributions. If you don't have the contributions, you "languish at the same desk while 'unqualified stooges take the best jobs for which you were better qualified for."

Obama knew exactly how Stroger's political army worked when it was "sending out cheques that would make their way to his campaign."

Obama certainly did not engage in illegal patronage hiring and other corrupt practices in Cook County's government, but he has repeatedly and knowingly enabled those who do.

When Stroger faced a credible challenge in the 2006 primaries from a reform-minded liberal Democrat, Obama said nothing and did even less. The pitchforks and torches were at the ready and their target in plain sight, when "politicians from both sides of the aisle were lined up against Stroger, while Obama said nothing and the reformer narrowly lost."

The only thing separating Stroger and Daley is that the latter "has managed to avoid being directly implicated."

If Obama had done anything in the name of "change you can believe in," there would be no corrupt power-mongers abusing civil-servants and pocketing tax-payer cash in Chicago and certainly no "Soldiers for Stroger" in power today.

As soon as Stroger fell ill suddenly, his son, Todd took his place on the ballot (under suspicious circumstances) for the general election. Many Democrats refused to back their own party's candidate. That's when Obama suddenly "found his voice."
He endorsed the junior Stroger, even going so far as to call him a "good, progressive Democrat." Barack Obama has never stood for up for "change" or "reform" in Chicago.

From reporter, John Kass's column from the Chicago Tribune, dated Oct. 8, 2008:

Why Obama is allowed to campaign as a reformer, virtuallu unchallenged by the media, though he's a product of Chicago politics and has never condemned the wholesale political corruption in his hometown the way he condemns those darn Washington lobbyists?
...He has endorsed Daley, endorsed Daley's hapless stooge Todd Stroger for president of the Cook County Board. These are not the acts of a reformer."

By this time, Obama "the reformer" was a U.S. senator. He passed on the chance to change things in Cook County forever. He also had a chance not to advocate a corrupt system just by excusing himself from the scene and keeping his mouth shut, but he chose to endorse corruption one again by lending his name to it.

Everybody in Chicago, including media outlets of both the left and right knew how the Stroger machine worked, including Obama, yet he chose not to endorse" change." A very different mode of the post-partisianship that Obama extols today.




David Freddoso, "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate". Regenery Publishing. Washingtom, DC. 2008. p. 1-3, 6, 8, 20.

David Jackson and Ray Long, "Showing His Bare Knuckles," Chicago Tribune, April 4, 2007.

John Kass, "Anti-Daley Forces Start to Beat Campaign Drums," Chicago Tribune. July 29, 1994, and Steve Neal, "2nd District Race May Get Crowded." Chicago Sun-Times. July 30, 1995.

Sunya Walls, "Alice Palmer from Race for Re-Election." Chicago Weekend, January 21, 1996.

Ibid, 12, 14, 15.

Fran Spielman, "Daley Blasts Tillman for Waiter Request." Chicago Sun-Times. February 12, 2004.

John Kass. Chicago Tribune. October 8, 2004.

Palin Abused Power...Nothing Illegal

So before all you giddy lefties out there get on your collective high-horses, you may want to read and this with a critical eye (unless of course with all the 24/7 consumption of the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org, you haven't had to have that eye surgically removed) the actual report and it's actual findings.

Here's the story via Newsbusters.

Bill Ayres...Real Amerikan

Isn't this guy the ultimate patriot? Him and his pig of a wife?
That's the American flag under his feet, by the way.
He says the patriotism of Americans "makes him want to puke" and he "wished he had done more" about bombing government buildings and employees.
Did you know that he's a university professor? Isn't that a great social comment on the American educational system? Not to mention its standards and practices when it comes to hiring its faculty. Madras anyone?
Kinda makes you long for the days of Ward Churchill now doesn't it?

Bt the way, this picture was snapped on 9/11-after the attacks. Nice, huh?

Networks On the Take?

Seriously. Why else do they continually avoid and ignore any and all stories about Barack Obama's past associations (such as this one)with shall we say less that stellar personalities? William Ayres, The New (Socialist) Party, Louis Farakan, et al.
I mean, do they get some kind of bonus or something the way they all seem to be fighting over what to ignore?

The Debates-Part 3

Well, Obama held the status quo yet again last night.
McCain was better this time out than last time, as he went on the offensive as expected.
He was a little more vigilant about not letting Obama get away with falsehoods and didn't let him get away with dominating the debate by smoothing over his own contradictions (which Obama did several times) and other than the one time moderator, Tom Brokaw-who did a fairly decent job-let Obama go over the alloted time, McCain reeled him in on that, too.

This time, McCain got right on Obama as soon as Obama tried to paint McCain with that ol' "same as Bush" garbage about voting along the same lines as the president. As I said in a previous post, most of those votes were to disallow Democrat pork and pet projects and overspending. Last night, McCain vindicated me on that when he made that point clear.
Another point he made clear was that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" remark. As Sarah Palin pointed out in her debate with Joe Biden (who after doing some fact checking on his remarks, doesn't know shite from shinola) McCain was referring to the American worker and their work ethic.

If you know my scoring system, based on the other two debates, I scored this one 5-3 in favour of McCain. So again, I believe McCain won the debate (and again I bet you're not surprised) But I also believe Obama once again didn't lose anything here, therefore he didn't lose anything in the poles.

Obama is good. He's very, very good. Oh, I still think he's a fraud, he's just a very, very good one. How else would he have gotten this far with no experience, crooked friends and a terrorist committee partner? I mean aside from the MSM covering it up?
That stuff was supposed to come up, but with the preconceived format and questions directed to both candidates, they never had the opportunity to do so. Too bad.

There were questions from the audience and questions sent in via the internet that were specifically aimed at one of the two candidates. The web questions were chosen by Brokaw. I'm willing to bet the farm that there were more than a few ones in there that Brokaw didn't choose to ask because he probably didn't find them "prudent" enough.

Two things that bothered me about McCain's plan of attack last night:
One, when discussing the economic disaster and the democrats part in it, he didn't name names as he should have.

Two, he didn't hammer Obama like he should have. again, with the whole William Ayres thing; who cares if obama came back with that whole Price thing.
McCain had nothing to do with it, he was exonerated and nothing even remotely close to that sort of "scandal" has touched him since, so bring it on.

McCain is going to have to start getting mean if he is going to win this election.
There is still time to do so and you never know, we may still see that old "October surprise." If he doesn't and if there isn't, President-Elect Obama will be a scary reality.

Who's Really Responsible for the Freddie Mac/Fannie May Fiasco?

Ah, I'll let Thomas Sowell tell you.

And these next two columns are must reads, as well.

Classy Sarah Knows How to Handle 'Em

I agree with Gateway Pundit,
Best. Comeback. Ever.

Check out the last five or six seconds of this:




You gotta love this woman!

Even though Obama/Biden are up (thus the MSM thinks it's over-in fact when McCain pulled out of Minnesota, it just added fuel to their early party rituals. Of course, they're certainly not making a big deal out of Obama conceding Georgia) I have a feeling McCain is going to come out swinging. Actually, he has to. And who says the polls are accurate? Remember, he was supposed to be finished last November.

O'Reilly Goes Postal on Frank

Last night, before the debate between Sarah Plain and Joe Biden, Bill O'Reilly had on The O'Reilly Factor, Barney Frank as a guest. To say it got a little heated would be a massive understatement.

Instead of trying to explain it, I'll just show it to you.



Cozy, huh? Although I hate to use anything associated with the "Young Turks" as they undoubtedly a couple of tools, it was the only video post up on YouTube about this.

Let me just say this:
O'Reilly was absolutely correct in his choice of words and his entire argument. Yes, even calling Frank a coward.
It's just his screaming was over the line. I know he does this quite frequently, that's why his detractors score points when he does this.
But even I think it was unprofessional. He didn't have to holler at the man, although it does make good television, he just had to cut him off when he tried to get away with his spin and denials.

But Frank is a Democratic coward, so overall, good for O'Reilly.

The Debates Part 2-Palin/Biden

Well, as much as it pains me to say this, this one didn't go as well as I'd hoped.

Governor, Sarah Palin and Senator, Joe Biden met last night for their first and only debate for the 2008 campaign and although I thought Palin did very well, I'll have to give this one to Biden.

At about the 30 minute mark I was prepared to say Biden was killing her. But then Palin got a little more zest in her aproach and settled down. A little to late to claim victory, but she did very well none the less. The reason I gave this one to Biden is that I felt he was a more assertive. Not more confident or lively (in fact, I think Palin had him beat in the gusto department) but assertive-at least until near the end.
Biden has 35 years in the Senate and-as Palin herself pointed out-she has been in the national spotlight for approximately five weeks.
The experience showed.

That's not to say that Palin didn't score any points, in fact I gave her extra credit for going back to the foreign affairs question when she wanted to counter a point by Biden on Iran. This was supposed to be Biden's strength (and the main reason Obama tapped him for V.P.) But after moderator, Gwen Ifill let her off the hook, sort of speak , about the "nuclear Iran/unstable Pakistan" question and was ready to move on to the next topic, palin voluntarily went back in. Gutsy.
I mean it's kind of ironic because this is where Palin was supposed to get creamed. That didn't happen. She held in own in the one area where Biden was supposed to land a knockout. He didn't even score a standing eight-count. Like I said, ironic.

By the one-hour mark, i was again ready to concede on points. If it were a hockey game, it would have been 8-4 by that point, working on the premise that one good point would more or less negate the other, while unanswered accusations or unchallenged assertions also scored.

Although I did catch a few factual inaccuracies by Biden, he seemed to score points (again, according to my system) when Palin didn't respond to them. Also, you do have to take into account that Biden, (although a decent man and I do actually like the guy) he is a Democrat so...his "facts" differ from mine, and apparently Palin's as well.

Also, I think Palin went to that cutesy, I'm just like one of you tactic too much. I realize she still has to sell herself to the American public, as I'm sure lots of people still don't know who she is, but she was way more credible when she was looking into the camera being serious about her points and not always giving us her "dogone-its" and "you betchas". Still, she is the closest anyone has seen to middle-class in a politician. But that "aw, shucks" stuff (even though I know that's really who she is) gets old fast.

I do believe that she got her points across well on McCain's plans for the economy, as well on her points on accountability, but overall, Biden just seemed to on his game plan better. That doesn't mean he embarrassed her; or beat her senseless. Far from it. It just means, like I said he won on points. Much like Obama against McCain in their first debate, Palin just had to hold her own and she did just that-although her performance had much more riding on it, which is all the more impressive.

By the way, I still maintain moderator, Gwen Ifill should have relinquished her duties as the host on general principles because of her upcoming book, but she did fine. No bias, no agenda, no problem.

Before I close this out, I do have to comment, as did Palin, on Biden's continual returning to blaming the Bush administration for everything. You know the adds,
"Do we really need more of the same?" Forget the fact that McCain is not Bush, but why doesn't McCain return the favor by starting ads that sound like,
"Remember the fiasco that was the Jimmy Carter administration? Barack Obama...do we really need more of the same?"

Anyways, so after two debates: McCain/Palin 1 Obama/Biden 1.

However, me thinks the Obama/Biden ticket will get the bounce from this one yet again. I could be wrong.
I hope I am.

The Case Against Barack Obama-Part 1

It's no secret that I do not wish for Barack Obama to be president of the United States.
Like the former senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson said at the GOP convention,
Do you know this man? Can you trust him to lead the country into the future?

No, on both counts. Really, we don't know this guy. If you can't answer the first question, how can you possibly answer the second?
say what you will about John McCain, at least we've had about 30 years to pass judgment on the man.

In the recently released book,
The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate, author and political reporter for National Review Online, David Freddoso gives us the skinny on the junior senator from Illinois.
This is not to be ignored or minimized.
In a following series of posts, I will take information, almost in verbatim, from this most valuable pool of information merely for the benefit of those who haven't had the chance of reading it as of yet, or for those who don't want to shell out the $25-$30 fee, or even for those who don't want to read something that may destroy (or at least question) their foundation of argument as to why they would support that is clearly unfit to lead, uses old-school tactics when claiming that should be a thing of the past (then going on to use those very tactics during his campaign for president, denying his own political past)
Not to mention his association with domestic terrorists, as well as crooked politicians and businessmen.

As the inside flap on the back cover states (realizing all biographies, autobiographies, memoirs and tell-alls do this)
"Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched-and all the more provocative-because of it-'The Case Against Barack Obama' removes the halo from the man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know."

For the sake of expediency, I will be condensing much, but not all of the author's text (for space and time as well as legalities)
Also, I want to get this finished and entirely posted before November 4.


Note: any type in italics is that of the author, David Freddoso.


Barack Obama has crafted himself an image of one of those rare reformers...
As it became clear that he was going to win the Democratic nomination for president, it seemed irresponsible to stand by as so many were offering admiration, piety, even worship to-of all things-a politician.
Because the idea of Barack Obama as a reformer is a great lie.

Obama has not pursued true reform in any of the offices he has held. He has silently and at times vocally cooperated...to preserve one of the most overtly corrupt political systems in the nation.
He maintains his silence now, even though he has the political capital to do something about the problem. These are the allies who drafted and gave him popular, must-pass bills to herd through the state legislature, the allies who openly take credit for making him a senator; the allies who control Chicago's political money. In Washington, his commitment to reform has been no greater -not even this year -as he runs for office promising "change" and "hope."

He is the product of...60's era hard-core radicalism and Chicago's Machine politics. He plays hardball and knows when to look the other way.
But he also surrounds himself with political, social and spiritual mentors who are so far to the left that many push the envelope on ideological respectability.

It is appropriate to consider his character, record, background [as well as his morals and judgment] and proposals. It is not appropriate for anyone who takes their role as a citizen seriously to weep at Obama's message of "hope" and "change" or to shake hands with someone, just to touch the hand that touched the hand that touched Obama's.
It is foolish to be caught up in an orgiastic frenzy over some non-existent "new policies," or over campaign chants of "yes, we can!"
It is imprudent to entertain false hopes about what Obama stands for and what he can accomplish in the way of changing history and American attitudes. He is an oratory genius [he can make people swoon like teenage girls at a Beatles concert or have them cheer just for blowing his nose] but the goodwill of good oratory cannot last forever; even with speeches carefully written, parsed, and tested in advance to achieve maximum emotional impact.
Whether in victory or defeat, Barack Obama's supporters will be the last ones to understand that he is just another politician. He is not, and never will be worthy of such adulation.

In his first run for elective office for the Illinois State primary in 1996, Barack Obama's unopposed victory was not due to his experience, knowledge of the issues or political knowhow. it was in fact due t the efforts of his campaign staff and especially that of the "Guru of petitions," Ronald Davis, a paid consultant.

Davis's job on January 2, 1996 was to look at each of the nearly 1,600 signatures that incumbent State Senator since 1991, Alice Palmer's campaign had collected in order to place her on the ballot for re-election. Davis was supposed to find a way to challenge and disqualify as many signatures as possible. The goal was to throw her off the ballot.
Palmer had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required. But Davis and his team...disqualified hundreds of them for one reason or another. The same tactic was used to throw all the other candidates off the ballot as well.

The Chicago Tribune spoke to one of them, Gha-is Askia in 2007 about it:

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style politics to remove legitimate candidates? he talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not the people decide?"

According to Obama himself,
"If you can win, you should win and get back to work doing the people's business."

This campaign, by the way, was helped by another of Obama's long line unsavory associates, convicted real estate investor, Antoin (Tony) Rezko in the form of a campaign contribution of roughly $15,000 (more on him later)

Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley was just one of many of those unsavory associates. He had been the mayor of Chicago for nearly 20 years, and for good reason-he knows political organizations, and his puts the yet-to-be-mentioned Stroger family (the political head of the Chicago Machine for decades) to shame.
Unfortunately for Daley, much of the Machines workings have been revealed in court papers and news articles. But even when things got tough, Daley could count on Barack Obama to endorse him for re-election in 2007.
Daley considered Palmer a serious threat, a potential mayoral rival. By clearingn the ballot, Obama had erased any doubt of Daley's path to his next term.
There was nothing illegal in what Obama did in the primary. But it was typical Chicago politics [and typical old-school, partisan politics]

And that's the point, Barack Obama promises to smooth over the bitter divides of American politics. He promises "hope" and an end to bitter partisanship.

He frames himself as someone who rises above Clintonian or Rovian tactics. Contrast his promises today with what he did in 1996. He was not even a state senator yet and he already done enough to make Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, or Niccolo Machiavelli proud.
He got his start in politics by denying voters a choice.

Every political soldier needs his pay and a place on Daley's city payroll. You can be a former gang member and still be appointed to oversee a $40 million program, as long as you have the right political connections. The city will hire you even after you've stolen $4 million in quarters form the city's toll booths.
That's the Chicago version of change you can believe in.

Notes:

David Freddoso, "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. Regenery Publishing. Washington, DC. 2008. p. 1-3, 6, 8, 20.

Keila Szpaller, "Missoula Crowd Cheers, Weeps for Obama," Montana Standard. April 6, 2008.

Michael Whack, "The Bam'...the Obama Handshake," Michael Whack's Blog. January 12, 2008.
http://my.barack.obama.com/page/community/blog/michaelwhack.

Mendell. p. 203-204.

Dear Leader

Nevermind the fact that there's no possible way that children know anything about politics (thank God) as the advocates for this "rhetoric in song" would have you believe, and that the parents of these children being used as propaganda tools wrote most (read 90% in case some lefty says the children "helped") of it, this is just plain wrong folks.



And besides, I don't know about you, but doesn't this little love-fest remind you of the "Dear Leader" songs sung by children in North Korea for the same purpose of propaganda?
No?
Are you sure?

Words He Lives By

I can't. I can't keep repeating myself as to why this man MUST be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Adolf Hitler reincarnated. I have absolutely no doubt of that. I've posted before about how the Iranian government, nay all evil dictators since WWII, have used the exact same language, symbols, rhetoric and evil logic to describe their hatred and intolerance for the Jewish state and the Jewish people. Or as these pieces of "human" trash call them, "Zionists".

Not only is the ineffectual, corrupt United Nations invited him to twice speak at the U.N. General Assembly (the second even after he boldly and proudly stated that Israel should be "wiped off the face of the map") but there are nutbars actually defending these people. I for one have personally had debates with these sorts. One in particular stated (of course using the term "Zionists") that Abraham Lincoln was a jew, therefore all the positive history written about the man, including freeing the slaves, shouldn't be taken serious because they're all, and I quote, "Zionist lies". His reasoning? Because the man's name was Abraham. That's all, no historical references, no proof of any wrong doing AND ignoring the fact that Israel didn't even exist in his lifetime.

But the brain-shaking part is that all of these arguments sound just like the anti-semitic rants of Amadinewhackjob, Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and yes, Adolf Hitler.

These people think that the Republicans and conservatives are more of a threat to them than a rouge Iran with a nuclear arsenal.
Actually, Dennis Prager has a great column on that very point, about why Sarah Palin is more of a threat to Hillary Clinton than Ahmadinejad is.

Again, why is the left always on the wrong side of history?

Read this column by Tim Rutten to get a good view point on why this man is a real threat and why hardly anyone on the left is taking him serious.

Palin/Biden Moderator Not So Moderate

More "In the Tank" journalism for you.

From RealClearPolitics.

Calculated Chances for McCain

Without the input and votes of the independents, undecided (although how through 17 months how anyone can be undecided at this point is beyond me) and the silent majority out there, this has to be taken with a grain of salt. But it is interesting none the less:


The formulas below show McCain's chances of winning the election since the beginning of September--using data from intrade.com.

X = 35 (days remaining until election)

y = -0.0587x^2 + 1.9159x + 36.215 (polynomial)
McCain's chances could decline to 31.4 %

y = 46.278e0.0009x (exponential)
McCain's peak would likely not exceed 46.4 %

y = 0.0365x + 46.552 (linear)
McCain's peak would likely not exceed 47.8 %
McCain's chance could also decline to 45.3 %

y = 1.9672 ln(x) + 42.18 (logarithmic)
McCain's chances could peak to 49 .2 %

If you take the average of the 5 methods, McCain's chances stand at 44 % which translate to 236 electoral college. 270 is needed to win.

McCain is not hitting the 50 % margin and is not a good investment at this point.

The data used in these calculations are available for download from intrade.com--the data shows polling trends.