The MSM-Obama Full Court SupPress

I have been observing the Left leaning bias of the media for 25 years of my life. Many times I have been angry, surprised, shocked and indignant at the sheer blatancy of the bias. Nothing in that 25 years, however, comes close to what I have seen in this 2008 Presidential election. In other elections we have seen the MSM dig up dirt on a GOP candidate and drive, drive, drive the story home. That would be what I have referred to in the past as an MSM Full Court Press.

When McCain and Obama became the nominees, basically there was a candidate that virtually everything was already known about and the other a virtual unknown. Since there was little chance of scandal against McCain, the Full Court Press against him was thwarted. That left the alternative strategy - the Full Court Suppress to do all in their power to suppress anything that would make Obama look bad.

It has been pointed out to me that stories I may think are newsworthy and of interest are not everybody's view. Perhaps not, but the stories and areas of Obama's life that the MSM has failed to lift a finger to pursue go well beyond the typical story. In the conglomerate, nobody of either political persuasion can deny how much the MSM has been in the tank for Obama. They may spin it, they may make excuses for it, but they do not deny it.

Some would claim the MSM has "covered" most if not all of these areas. Wrong. I am looking back into other election coverage using fairly measurable factors of
1) How in depth did they research the story?
2) How in depth did they report the story?
3) How many news cycles did they include the story?

The MSM seems to be under the impression that if during a single news cycle, in midsentence they rapidly mention one of these items, without any details, under the notion that it is a claim on "the right", that it meets the criteria of having "covered" the story. How much attention did George Bush's drunk driving arrest get days before the 2000 election? How much attention did George Bush's AWOL story get (yeah, the forged document one)? How in depth and how many news cycles did the Mark Foley and Larry Craig stories get? Using these stories as bench marks, compare that to how much coverage these Obama items have gotten:

- Family claims of Barack Obama's birth in Kenya that would make him ineligible to become President
- Obama's formative years under communist and sexually perverted mentor Frank Marshall Davis
- Obama's drug years. He admits taking them - where did he buy them? Did he sell them? When did he stop taking them?
- Since Obama will not release his school transcripts, how did he get into Harvard?
- What was he doing in Pakistan?
- Why would a virtual unknown community organizer be selected to chair the board of the CAC?
- With a organizational newsletter supporting by claim and a picture that Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, why is he denying being a socialist?
- The depth of his association with William Ayers. Have you seen the little office bldg they shared?
- The likelihood that William Ayers ghost wrote Obama's book "Dreams of My Fathers"

The three newest news suppression stories are:
- The withholding of the tape of Obama praising PLO operative Rashid Khalidi by the LA Times
- The deliberate shutting off of basic credit card security measures on the Obama website to guard against illegal foreign donations and against exceeding donation limits.
- The depth of the investigation of Joe the Plumber in retaliation for getting Obama to reveal his socialist inclinations

There are many more items in this list that the MSM has simply yawned over. It is an all out information suppression campaign. The information is there. It is easy to obtain much of it. The MSM, however, has always had a different standard of what is newsworthy depending on the ideology of the person the story involves. It is only newsworthy to play a story that makes a Republican look bad. It simply is not newsworthy to make a Democrat look bad. In this election, they have been exponentially worse than in the past.

I am certain there are books already in the making describing this information suppression. We can only hope that they are being written by a source not easy for the MSM to dismiss. Either way, the people have seen with their own eyes their electioneering. Somebody said recently that if he is elected, the MSM will have ownership of an Obama Presidency and all the ramifications that come with it. The memory of most people is very short. It will be up to the New Media and word of mouth by the informed to keep the memory fresh.

NObama 08 Blogburst

Presidential Character

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.

I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.

Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.

In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.

In the twentieth Century, notable Republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.

In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”

Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.


Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.

Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a Democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?

It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.

Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;

Economic Policy

• An immediate energy rebate to American families

• An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

• Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure

• Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

• Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

• Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

• Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

• Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

• National health care initiatives

We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.

John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:

Economic Policy

• Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process

• Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs

• Empower states to improve public services

• Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs

• Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs

• Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure

• Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs

• Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis

• Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity

Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.

Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.

Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.

On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.

We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Praesidium Respublicae; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

The Election Consolation Prize

I have not given up on the election. McCain / Palin may still pull it off yet. Basically the results of the election boil down to whether or not on election day the people know who and what Barack Obama is. Unfortunately, the MSM and the Obama campaign have done everything in their power to prevent enough people from that state of informed votership. How refreshing it would have been if Barack Obama had presented himself to the voters: this is my clear life history, this is who I am, these are my clear positions, this is my record showing how I have supported those positions; please vote for me. However, it Obama had done that he would not have made it past the primaries.

With only a week for the people to catch on to this phony, it seems that we may be facing the prospect of an Obama presidency. For many that is a disheartening concept. I would propose, however, that the Right will be more able to psychologically deal with an Obama win, than the Left would be able to cope with his loss. I for one find myself contemplating what I refer to as the "election consolation prize".

This prize is the positive side of an Obama win. While I fully intend to on day one offer my support to whichever candidate wins, granting out of respect for the office the benefit of the doubt until that candidate chooses a wrong course, it is not likely that Obama will make me wait long to prove my poor opinion of him and his positions. Once Obama, by his policies, declares war on me; I will declare war on him. Not before. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I doubt I am. If I am wrong, there will be a lot of angry Lefties out there.

For eight years Reagan Conservatism has taken a beating and been pushed off of the political map. The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush is not a Reagan Conservative. I have supported several of his policies and actions, but the fact is that his popularity is so low because he is not a conservative. Bush has been fiscally irresponsible, too compromising with liberals and failed to implement policy accompanied by a clear debate between conservative and liberal distinctions. Political accomplishments are not enough. In short, we find ourselves at the point where the conservative movement must be rebuilt from the ground up.

For eight years, those like me have been on the defensive and often defending at best the better of two evils instead of defending right against wrong. The consolation prize will be the opportunity to again be on the offensive. If the DEMS get it all (the White House and both Houses), they will be making decisions and taking actions that will need to be defended. Prior to 2006 the DEMS have not had to answer for their actions (even though they should have). The media was not required to expect any defense. After 2006 the MSM continued to allow DEMS to get away with taking action without accountability under the guise that the GOP still held the White House. When it comes to power, the Legislature wants equal powers with the other two branches, but stick it to the other branches when it comes to accountability.

If the DEMS take it all, the MSM will be forced to demand some accountability from them. After this election cycle, the MSM will be in a very weakened state from their blatant lack of objectivity and full support of Obama. With nearly non-existent credibility, the MSM will next be faced with the prospect of all the things about Obama they so aggressively covered and hid, become exposed. With each Cabinet nomination; with each policy proposal; with each news conference Obama will expose himself and the media filter will not be able to cover for it all. When Obama the Moderate transforms himself into Obama the Leftist before the eyes of the American people, the MSM will either shred the remains of their credibility and carry more water for him or they will realize their only hope is to play stupid like they did not know but now are "shocked" at how radical he is. No matter which way they choose, their words during the election are on record.

I relish the prospect of being on the offensive. For the good of the country I would pass on it, but if thrust upon me I will enjoy it. The memory of the people is very short. They forget what it was like under Jimmy Carter (which is why unemployment going from 5% to 6% can so easily be portrayed as a deep recession). When the people are living under liberal control by all houses, they will not need a long memory. They will see it every day. While we have the prospect of censorship looming, the New Media will still be powerful. The new media was a fledgling during the last Democrat presidency. This time, if that occurs, it will be at full strength.

Some have pushed to vote against McCain for the opportunity the Election Consolation Prize offers. While I don't go that far, if Obama wins; I am ready, willing and able to step up to the plate. I pray for a different outcome, but unlike the loony Left, I am able to cope with a political loss. It may be that for true conservatism, defeat is the best prescription for ultimate victory.

Ostroy Lunacy on Wealth Redistribution

It is very infrequent that the Left ever says anything that makes me drop my jaw. I might raise one or both eyebrows from time to time, but rarely drop my jaw. Eight years ago the Left was simply wrong, sometimes a bit arrogant and mostly hid how they really felt. They now are radical, in your face, obnoxious and make no bones about how they want to change this country (with the exception of those running for office and MSM elements that support them).

I did drop my jaw when I read this blog post by Andy Ostroy of the Ostroy Report. The title of the post is: Wasn't it "Spreading the Wealth" Eight Years Ago with the Bush Tax Cuts for America's Wealthiest 1%? The title was enough to nearly throw me into shock. The body of the post creates neither more or less shock. Ostroy:

- Calls the charge of socialism against Obama's "spread the wealth" statement hypocritical
- Claims the Bush tax cuts were wealth redistribution


Ostroy completely misses several points:

- He thinks that we claim that merely raising taxes is the socialist part.
No, it is the plan to raise taxes on one tax bracket and give lower taxes on other tax brackets (even those that do not pay income taxes)
- He forgets that the Bush tax cuts were for all tax brackets (except those that do not pay income tax)
- Most importantly, he forgets that the money belongs to the person that earned the money
To claim that keeping more of MY OWN MONEY is wealth redistribution transcends socialist thinking and leaps to the communist notion that every thing belongs to the state. If my money is 100% mine before taxation, then it is impossible to have any of my money redistributed to me. My money is mine before it is taken away. The money after taxes is not some gift of the state, it is what is left after the state has robbed me.

I am supportive of paying taxes. We have an imperfect, but great exceptional country. I don't mind contributing to keep things running, to defend us from our enemies, to protect our streets from criminals, to educate our children (not indoctrinate), and even to have a thin safety net for those most in need that have done all to help themselves and cannot. There is so much waste and corruption in government. There is plenty of room for spending cuts instead of raising taxes, but Obama is more interested in real wealth redistribution than budgetary concerns. It has been said that liberalism is a mental disorder, but only in the most crazed mind under the fullest moon would somebody claim that somebody being allowed to keep more of their own money would be considered wealth redistribution.

NObama 08 Blogburst

An Enigma Named Barack
by L.A. Sunset

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.

Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.

Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.

Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.

Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.

Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.

Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)

Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.

Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.

Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.

Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”

Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for
six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the name of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.

Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.

Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.

John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.

Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.

Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.

Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.

We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.

We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

After Distinguished Career Peggy Noonan Flushes Credibility Down the Toilet

People have the right to express their opinion, but have no right over the thoughts of others upon receiving that opinion. Peggy Noonan recently wrote a piece called "Palin's Failin'". Upon reading this diatribe, I have lost all respect for Ms. Noonan. She has the right to think that Sarah Palin is a bad pick, but to lay the blame of McCain's polls at the feet of Sarah Palin is ridiculous. In my opinion John McCain would have been behind by 15-20 points if not for Sarah Palin.

Noonan basically criticizes Sarah Palin for the style in which she has approached the national stage. No doubt about it, Noonan is an intellectual. It appears she would have no appreciation for anything except intellectual dialogue. She criticizes Palin for not knowing if she is a Bushian or a Reaganite. She criticizes her for not holding news conferences and for only doing safer interviews. Sometimes the gifted can be quite stupid. Sarah Palin is not running for president, John McCain is. As his VP, she cannot come out too strongly on many positions that may differ with McCain. Noonan seems blind to the hysterical attack mode the media is against all that is not Obama this election season. The media response to Palin's selection was to go into immediate attack mode and throw out a list of allegations regardless of proof or validity. The two MSM interviews Palin did became a circus because of the gotcha nature of questioning. The only thing missing before each question was an aside to the viewing audience and fellow liberals saying "This one will really stump the snot out of her".

In short, everything that Noonan thinks Palin should have done, would have been spun by the MSM into a side circus. If she ran on her personal detailed positions, the MSM would have focused on the differences between her and McCain. If she had news conferences and more interviews, again there would always be the one question (the one nobody really knows the answer to, but we pretend even an idiot should) and the next 3 days of news cycles would be spent on how she answered.

Sarah Palin has been used to excite the base and to fill the historical role of attack-dog against Barack Obama. She has done a fantastic job. Look at the huge crowds. Look at the passion in those who attend. Look at her effect to pull the highest ratings on her appearances like the VP debate and SNL. Even as the polls tighten, the media and even quite a number of conservatives have written off the McCain / Palin ticket. They may very well lose. The ticket may very well be "failin'", but it is not because of Palin.

I hate to say this, but the way Noonan has come out to cut off Palin at the knees before the election is even held, she comes across like a catty b**ch. Sorry, but there is no other way to say it. I ask myself what drove her to write a piece against Palin and what drove her to be so personal and nasty about it. What motive? What desired outcome? After much consideration, I don't have an answer. Sorry, the only thing left is catty b**ch. From now on, that is my name for Ms. Noonan until she finds a way to redeem herself.

More Whining By Obama

Apparently Obama is whining again. This time he is claiming that he would be doing better in the polls if it were not for Fox News. He is quoted by Boortz in the NYT Sunday Times Magazine:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls ... If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that? I guess the point I'm making ... is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful."

The first thing I think about is how many times entities like Fox News, Talk Radio and Conservative Blogs criticize Obama by taking a good look at the words he is actually saying and the actions he is actually taking. While the rest of the news media is only interested in halo'd pictures, stories of Obama getting flowers for his wife for their anniversary, why Barack loves Michelle, etc. Fox News actually wants to attempt to vet Obama like every Presidential candidate should be. So basically Obama is whining because Fox News is doing its job because he is so used to kid glove treatment by the Katie Courics and the Charlie Gibson's of the media world.

The second thing I think is how the rest of the media has treated Sarah Palin. The unprecedented attacks on Sarah Palin have been disgusting. Time after time the MSM reported allegations before they were confirmed. After days of discussion about them, they were debunked. The MSM shrugged and moved on to the next allegation. If anybody has the right to whine about media treatment, it is Sarah Palin, but she just keeps pressing ahead without complaint. She acknowledges the unfair attacks but says they come with the territory and were expected.

The third thing I think about Obama's statement is that it is a shot over the bow for when he does become President. We have already seen Obama and his people attempt to suppress criticism against him. He rallies armies of people to call into broadcast stations to flood them with calls. Supporters in law enforcement have used intimidation tactics to suppress free expression. We have all been concerned about the revival of the misnamed "Fairness" Doctrine. From Obama's actions and his highlight here against Fox, I tend to think he has his sights of brownshirt censorship much higher than that.

Obama has a logical meltdown in his statement. He says "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!". He states how he would view himself if he were watching Fox News. By this statement we know he is not watching Fox News. Yet he has claims about how he is portrayed 24/7 on Fox News. Come on! Even Sarah Palin isn't portrayed badly 24/7 on CNN or any other bias network. After all Barack, the news outlets do have other things to talk about besides you. So what is this notion in your head that they talk about you 24/7: arrogance, narcissism, paranoia?

Finally, I imagine a world with zero bias or spin - simply full and deep reporting of only facts without an agenda driven media on either side. Without a multi-year propoganda machine in all the magazines, entertainment shows, and many other venues with the goal of projecting a positive image on Obama. In that world we would see Obama trailing by double digits. Obama here knows there are two driving forces like two winds blowing against a boat from two opposite directions. Of course if the wind stops blowing from one of the directions, the boat will move swiftly to the vacuum. Yet Obama wants to sit there with a straight face and claim that everything is an even playing field, above board, fair and without agenda or bias - except Fox News. Now that is arrogance.

Joe the Plumber He's Our Man If He Can't Do It No One Can

It was a stroke of genius for McCain to both tap into Barack Obama's self-exposure of his wealth redistribution plan and to put a face on the difference in policy by referencing Joe the Plumber in the debate last night. McCain was distinctly uncomfortable reaching across the aisle to slap Obama's face instead of shake his hand, but he did it. Yes, I wish he were a more gifted speaker and was able to nail Obama, but he did sow the seeds that now can be used to shoehorn them into the discourse of the MSM. While there were other items McCain brought attention to, the exposure of how Obama views the wealth of hard working Americans is the best chance at a game changer out there.

Joe the Plumber exudes the notion of hard work when you look at his hard, stocky build. He made clear that he hopes to work hard enough to get to the point he may be in the higher tax bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on. While there is a small percent out there that have acquired wealth by being lucky or unscrupulous, most who achieve do so by having clear goals in their life and work (physically and/or intellectually) to gain their wealth. While taxation is necessary, the view that it is unfair to be able to keep the wealth after working so hard to achieve so it can be given to those who have not achieved is nothing less than socialism.

I have heard all the arguments of how the wealthy use a government funded infrastructure to build their wealth so it is only fair to take more from them. First, every able bodied person has the same opportunity as the next person to achieve. We have free education through high school. From there anybody can put themselves through college if they are committed enough. I put myself through college twice. I paid as much as I could and borrowed the rest. I paid off my loans. Name the obstacle and in most cases you can find many who have overcome the obstacle to achieve. How many millionaires are out there who:

- Have less than a 6th grade education
- Came to this country with nothing
- Grew up in the worst neighborhoods in the USA
- Faced the worst and ugliest prejudice
- Have physical handicaps such as blindness, deafness, lack one or more limbs, etc.
- Were abused physically, mentally or sexually by one or more relatives or family associates
- Made a mess of their teenage years with drugs, alchohol and unplanned pregnancy

All of these obstacles and more have been overcome by many. To then view the resulting wealth as something to take and give to others in the irresponsible ways that tend to keep the recipients enslaved to poverty is ridiculous.

Keep in mind, though, that there is already a built in mechanism to take more money from the wealthy than from those who have less. It is called "percentage". I pesonally think that anybody paying a double digit percentage of tax is nothing short of theft. Taking the lowest of double digit percentage of 10% watch how simple math causes every body to pay their fair share - especially the wealthy:

Income ------------Tax
$10 -------------------$1
$1000 ----------------$100
$25,000 --------------$2500
$75,000 --------------$7500
$250,000 -------------$25,000
$3,500,000 -----------$350,000
$1,000,000,000 ------$100,000,000

To say that because somebody makes $250,000 they should pay twice as much of a percentage ($50,000) is theft. Sadly, the percentages are much higher for achievers. While I am nowhere close to Obama's increase level, I am sickened every month to look at the amount of tax I am paying. I am sickened as I look at the year to date Federal, State and FICA taxes that I have paid this year. I am sickened as this year is coming to a close at the thought of having to work until late April for the government until we finally reach Tax Freedom Day and the money I make will be mine. While my wife and I do not make the cutoff yet, we hope to one day. In addition to my job, we are working hard to build a business she started a couple of years ago. The door to success has just now after all that effort begun to crack. It may take 2-3 more years before we are close, but the thought of reaching the point where we are told we are making too much money is disgusting.

Joe the Plumber interviewed with Family Security Matters. You can read his interview in full at this link. He is very articulate; unlike the sterotypical plumber one might think. We read about his working as a plumber 10-12 hours a day for the last 15 years and is only now in a position to think about expanding. He sums it up pretty well by describing higher taxes on achievers as "punishment":

Most people, you ask them “do you believe in the American Dream?” Nine times out of ten they’ll sit there and go, “Yeah, of course!” That’s where he messed up, because as soon as I asked him that, his answer shows that he doesn’t believe in the American Dream. You know, like the question you asked before – he pretty much contradicted himself. “I don’t want to punish you but – “ Well, you’re going to anyways.

Spread the wealth / Share the wealth is nothing but the wealth redistribution ideas right out of Karl Marx. Socialism is nothing but taking money from achievers at the point of a gun and giving it to non-achievers. There are those that have needs that they simply cannot handle on their own. I think a very thin safety net may be in order where the charitable giving of the many in this country with big hearts is not enough. To take money out of the hands of the wealthy, then put the money in the one hand of an underachiever and a vote in the other hand is a recipe for the unthankful, never ending sense of entitlement we see in this country. It leads people to sit on their door step in the face of a hurricane waiting for the government to come and pick them up and carry them to safety instead of using the two feet God gave them.


Update: It is official. We now know more about Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama's:

- Years at Columbia University
- Selection criteria to be asked to serve as Chairman of the CAC Board with only experience as a community organizer under his belt
- Years on the CAC Board with Bill Ayers
- 1981 trip to Pakistan

The media seems hot and heavy as a dog in heat to point out Joe the Plumber's tax liens, but seems unable to rouse themselves from sleep to discuss that the treasurer of Obama's campaign has tax liens and his companies also have them.

It is official that the media has totally abandoned any shame in being completely in the tank for Barack Obama. It will be months to years after this election that their shameful performance will catch up with them, but it will.

Radio Censorship Conspiracy?

I have found it odd and frustrating that when I drive one of my vehicles to work, the two conservative leaning talk radio stations go to static when I hit a certain point. I have about a 30 mile drive to work and when I am within 10 miles of work these two stations simply cannot be listened to. The two stations are WLS 890AM and WIND560AM.

Now this is not in any of the other 5 vehicles I have ever driven to work over the years, so I know it does not affect every radio. I simply find it odd that it does affect this radio. I did note that I am close to the WGN booster for some of this 10 mile stretch, but it does not seem to have an effect on any other AM stations. WGN is fine of course. The two news stations 780 and 670 are fine. The Catholic station is fine. The Hispanic station is fine. The sports station is fine. Even the liberal talk radio station is fine.

It is so frustrating to be deprived of what I want to listen to the last 10 miles of my trip. What is even more frustrating is that when I return after work, the static stays longer than the point it begins on my morning trip. I have to drive 15 miles back before I can turn it on and sometimes 560 takes 20 miles before I can hear that.

I don't know if this is some kind of conspiracy that targets a small enough number of radio types to stay under the radar, but large enough to keep some people from listening. It is simply amazing that all the other stations work just fine, but the conservative stations have a problem.

NObama 08 Blogburst

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?

We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.

With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.

(click chart for larger image)

Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.

None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

Obama's Pattern of Lying Until Caught

Once again Barack Obama has been busted in a bald-faced lie. With all of the recent flow of information concerning the role of ACORN in the current financial crisis and the flood of nationwide investigations into massive voter fraud into this dubious organization, Obama clearly backed away from any association with them. Days ago I saw Obama's "fight the smears" website giving a clear denial that he was ever associated with ACORN stating:

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

Gateway Pundit has pointed out (with before and after screen shots) that the Obama campaign has scrubbed their website with new twisted wording to avoid the clearly false claim that he never trained for ACORN. The Cleveland Leader has the story exposing Obama as indeed having done some training for ACORN. It quotes an ACORN publication from 2004 by Tony Foulkes, ACORN leader:

"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for STate Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."

The Obama camp realizes it has been busted in this lie about training and now has changed the wording on their site stating now:

• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
  

The training claim is not the only misleading "fact" on Obama's website. Sweetness and Light has the rundown on the close associations that Project Vote and ACORN have. It has two New York Times' links, a Time Magazing link and a Palm Beach Post link declaring in 2004 that Project Vote is an "arm" of ACORN. It shows the two organziations sharing offices and advertising. Finally it shows proof of money transferred between the organizations.

We saw a pattern with Obama and information about Bill Ayers where he tried to get away with the small claim that Ayers was just a guy in their neighborhood. As more and more info comes out about Ayers and ACORN, Obama just keeps morphing and scrubbing to adapt and trusts his media sycophants to cover for him. With Obama's track record of lies, how likely is it that we will ever get to the bottom of:

- His true association with Ayers
- His the legality of many of his donations
- Whether or not he has actually stopped smoking
- His relationship with an aide
- His side dealings with Iraq to stall a withdrawal plan

Charlie Gibson recently asked John McCain if he thought that Obama has not after two years been thoroughly vetted. McCain had an oppotunity to rattle off a list of the areas of Obama's life we know little or nothing about and ask Gibson how he could consider Obama vetted without having that information exposed.

We are very likely seeing a repeat of history from 1992 when the media covered for Bill Clinton long enough to get him into office. With the New Media maturing they could not hold it back for long and we then had the Whitewater investigation and the exposure of Clinton's sexual addictions. If the media is able to pull it off again, look for a slew of issue to crop up about Obama in the first two years of his presidency. Look for the media to play innocent as if they knew nothing about it. If they don't know, it is because they are not bothering to look. They just ignore the rug with the huge lump under it and call the place clean.

The Hatred and Mob Mentality of the Left

Ever since McCain allowed Sarah Palin to take the gloves off and the campaign began to do the media's job of finally vetting Barack Obama (no Charlie Gibson, Obama has not yet been vetted since there are still entire chunks of his life we know little or nothing about and the media seems remarkably incurious about), the media has begun the drum beat that the McCain campaign is racist, mean, hateful and inciting a mob. The left is furious at the effectiveness of pointing out the Democrat's role in the current financial crisis, and the extremely poor judgment of Barack Obama over the years when it comes to people he associates with. McCain is also highlighting the truth of Obama's long and deep relationship with the massive voter fraud organization ACORN (exposing the lie that Obama had little to do with them).

(I was going to post the video, but oops! YouTube has once again censored the conservative message and the video is no longer available. You can read the words here)

Michelle Malkin is all over this, showing the lame attempts of the media to find hatred and mob mentality in the McCaign camp. here are some quotes:

Paul Krugman is trembling: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Frank Rich decries “Weimar-like rage” and the “violent escalation of rhetoric.”

Michelle then goes on to show some real examples of hatred from the left. There is the recent loony footage of Madonna inciting her crowd to clap their hands and chant about kicking Sarah Palin's ass.



There is the vulgar and profanity laces performance of Sandra Bernhard (I will only link to since it is so vulgar).

Then there is the crazed artwork from the left. You have at least two pictures out there advocating to "Abort Palin". Then you have this winning picture labeling Sarah Palin as a M.I.L.P. (Mother I'd Like to Punch)



Malkin goes on to show more hateful artwork and actions from the Left. Indeed, as I read lefty blogs (for as long as I can stomach them) I am always amazed at the sheer hatred that streams out of their words and artwork. While they contain a steady stream of venom, when I read conservative blogs I rarely see any counterpart. In fact, when somebody gets out of hand they are usually called on it that we don't want to be like the Left. Yet the MSM overlooks all of the Leftist hatred out there and makes every attempt to portray exposure of the truth as hateful and venomous. Once again we hear the MSM telling us one thing, but our eyes show a different story.

My Eyes See a Different Economy Than the Media Portrays

This weekend I enjoyed an outing held for the company my wife works for when she is not doing work for her own company. We went to Lake Geneva, WI for a Friday dinner cruise and a Saturday on the lake. We stayed at a very nice resort and had a great time. I have never been to Lake Geneva, and I have absolutely fallen in love with the place. The water is the clearest water I have ever seen in a lake. One section of the lake hold the huge summer homes built by the Wrigley family (that's a lot of sticks of gum). The town is charming and the setting is just perfect. We had the chance to use our new toy purchased back in August. We have had quite a number of wonderful times taking out our new SeaDoo to the area rivers and Lake Michigan.

The thing that jumped out at me this weekend was the sheer volume of people engaging in commerce. The dinner cruise was nearly full. There were quite a number of people at the resort for an off season time period. Traffic was heavy in town with people coming and going. Saturday I was caught in heavy traffic in a downtown that consists of about 4x3 city blocks. It took me almost 15 minutes to drive through town to get to the lake. The streets were absolutely flooded with shoppers. In addition to the shoppers in the stores, the sidewalks in front had people packed like sardines as they walked from store to store. The lake had quite a number of boats and personal watercraft.

I have a long drive to work every day. Over the years I can gauge economic conditions by the traffic. After 9/11 I saw a dramatic reduction in congestion when I drove to work. It gradually rose back to normal congestion. Every day I drive to work, I only see more and more congestion. I have not yet seen any reduction at all in spite of all the rhetoric.

With all the swirling economic doom and gloom, you would expect people to be lying in the fetal position at home instead of out enjoying themselves. We may very well be on our way to a weaker economy, but everywhere I go my eyes tell me that as John McCain said and was so ridiculously criticized for - the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Not only does the economy continue to do well, it continues to do well under the drumbeat, onslaught of the Democrats and their friends in the media. Sure people continue to parrot the bad economy media lines fed to them day in and day out, but then they go out and act like the economy is humming along. What speaks louder to you - words or actions? I hear the Democrats and the MSM every day downing the status of the economy, but my own eyes tell me something different.

Screaming at the Radio Part Two

I recalled another time during the debate between McCain and Obama that I found myself screaming at the radio for McCain to call Obama on a ridiculous statement that he made. When Obama was discussing Energy, he said:

Energy we have to deal with today, because you're paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it's a strain on your family budget, but it's also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.

So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

When I heard 10 years to energy independence I nearly choked. Hasn't the Democrat line on drilling offshore and in ANWR been that we would not realize a single drop of oil from those venues for 10 years, so it does not make sense to begin the process??? By the way, they have been saying that for 10 years, so if they had had the foresight and judgment required for good leadership, we would NOW be benefiting from that oil.

Basically the Democrat position on oil drilling is ridiculous. There is no consistency and Obama underscores that point by alluding to a 10 year plan. McCain should have jumped all over this and missed an opportunity to capitalize on another Obama stumble.

Let's Take This From a Different Angle

With the growing list of scummy people that Barack Obama has associated with all his adult life, and the media's reluctance to spend any time on it because "the American people aren't interested in it" (when did I lose my citizenship?), maybe there is another way the media or even the Obama campaign can tackle this problem.

Maybe they can provide a few names of people that Obama associated with when he was at Columbia and Harvard, worked with before his political career began and allies he cultivated after he went into politics; a few people that are respectable, non-radical, non-socialist, non-racist bigots, productive and wholesome. Right now it appears that at every juncture of his life, Obama had bad judgment when selecting his associates. If they are unwilling to address those poor choices directly, maybe they could address it indirectly by revealing good choices along the way.

Screaming at the Radio

As I listened to the debate last night, there were several statements by Obama that leapt out at me. I was driving at the time, so I was screaming at John McCain to please pick up on what was just said and hit back hard. Although there were several responses by McCain I appreciated, in at least one case he missed a golden opportunity to nail Obama to the wall. Here are some statements from a CNN transcript:

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

This is after Obama jumped on McCain again for his statement a few weeks ago:

Obama: And we've -- you know, Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Barack Obama and his media sycophants jumped all over John McCain for making this statement. Campaigns and the media should operate under different rules of engagement, but when it comes to the media and their agenda, they have the same rule. A campaign will take something that somebody said and regardless of what was meant, use the statement to their advantage. In my opinion the media should take what somebody said, attempt in good faith to determine what was meant and comment on what the person meant to say. While I can expect the Obama camp to spin McCain’s “fundamentals” statement against him, I do expect the media to refrain from joining the Obama spin. When a campaign does spin as Obama did in this case, I would expect a certain consistency regarding the spin instead of spinning one way for one circumstance, but spinning another way when it suits.

Here after Obama and his media sycophants made such a huge effort to take McCain down a few notches, Obama turns around in the debate last night and made a virtually identical statement as McCain did weeks ago. Obama says he is confident about the American economy. There are only two ways to read that statement. Obama is confident about the American economy because the fundamentals of the economy are sound OR Obama is confident about the economy even though the fundamentals of the economy are not sound. If it is the first, Obama, may have scored points with it but is a hypocrite of the highest order. If it is the second, then Obama is living in an alternate universe where he is happy and optimistic in spite of the economic house burning down. Hypocrite or hysterical, Obama needs to be called on it.