Posted: 13 Jul 2008 12:10 PM CDT
For the second day in a row, Barack Obama and John McCain are tied in the latest Rasmussen daily poll, with Obama showing slightly more negatives that John McCain.
For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race for the White House is tied. Sunday's numbers show Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 43% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, the two candidates are tied at 46%. For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points. It will take a few more days to determine whether this recent tightening of the race reflects real change or is merely statistical noise.
McCain is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters and unfavorably by 40%. For Obama, the numbers are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable.
Unknown whether this is an anomaly or if it is indicative of Obama's more recent shift to the middle which has angered much of his base, but adding to this news is the fact that the highly touted expectation from the Obama campaign and Democratic fundraisers, all assuming that the Clinton donors would be more help than they have proven to be, that they would have a $100 million dollar month in June has fallen flat.
In the meantime, WSJ estimates that Obama's totals, in the month since Clinton suspended her campaign has just topped $30 million, which is not a bad haul but shows the disconnect from what they expected to what they actually were capable of achieving.
Add this to the fact that the Republican National Committee, as of the end of June, had 13 times the amount of money in the bank as the Democratic National Committee, which has allowed McCain along with the RNC to outspend Obama in advertising in key states and the Rasmussen numbers start to make more sense, much to the anger of Obama's base who is now infighting with each other.
In the meantime, John McCain has not only tied up the numbers in the polls, but has also brought in his best month of fundraising in June as his campaign continues to gather strength.
Obama's campaign team has yet to post its fundraising figures for June. His fundraising has been on a downward trend: he raised $55m in February, $41m in March, $31m in April and $22m in May. The June figures are expected to reverse that trend but still fall significantly short of the total needed to meet election budget needs.
Is it the ever shifting or "evolving" of Obama's stances on issues that are important to his base or could it be the betrayal many of his most ardent supporters felt at his backing and voting for the FISA compromise bill, despite an active campaign encouraging him to support a filibuster, which he did not do despite promises to the contrary months before?
Could it be that the media is now vetting him in a manner that they did not do during the Democratic primary?
Or is it the disenfranchised Clinton voters that are growing their own movement and actively working against Obama with some showing support and donating to the John McCain campaign?
Perhaps a mixture of all the above?
Whatever the reason, as John McCain did during the Republican primaries, which saw him so far behind last summer many speculated he would drop out of the race entirely, he is slowly but surely gaining support within the party, most recently from over 100 conservative leaders.
Contrasting that, Barack Obama highest level of support, his peaking moment so to speak, was in February and he has slowly but surely been heading downhill since then.
June will be a better month for Obama than May was, no doubt, because a fair number of Hillary Donors have helped with the fundraising "bounce" in the month since she suspended her campaign, but considering the $100 million goal that Democratic fundraisers set out there, very publicly, anything under $50 is a huge disappointment to the Obama campaign which counted on more support than what they have seen to date.
Time will tell if McCain's steady rise will continue or if Obama's steady dwindling numbers will prevail, but either way, the race is tighter than anyone predicted it would be at the beginning of this year and promises to be interesting to watch over the next few months.
Posted: 13 Jul 2008 10:51 AM CDT
Cynthia McKinney is an African American woman that represented Georgia's 4th Congressional District, as a Democrat, for six terms, five of which were consecutive.
The Green Party had their nominating convention on Saturday, July 12, 2008, at the Chicago Symphony Center and Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was nominated as their party's presidential choice.
McKinney chose Rosa Clemente, who is a journalist and activist as her running mate.
In 2007 McKinney left the Democratic party and a month later, in October of 2007 she filed paperwork with the FEC creating an exploratory committee for a Green Party presidential campaign.
At the Green Party's nominating convention on Saturday, McKinney received 313 votes out of the 532 votes cast on the first round of balloting.
Green Party spokeswoman Scott McLarty acknowledged McKinney was a "long shot" for the White House, but said, "Every vote that she gets helps the Green Party."
There were approximately 800 people attending the convention and McKinney told them in her speech, "I am asking you to vote your conscience, vote your dreams, vote your future, vote Green. A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the movement that will turn this country right-side-up again."
McKinney runs on an anti-war and human rights platforms and is well known for her efforts to help Hurricane Katrina victims as well as her criticisms of the government on their handling of it.
McKinney also took an active interest into the death of Tupac Shakur where she sponsored a bill that would have demanded release of records pertaining to his death, in a manner that would have been faster than the process used under the Freedom of Information Act.
In 2003 and in 2005, McKinney introduced bills called the MLK Records Act, that had they succeeded, would have seen all currently sealed files concerning the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr released. Those records were sealed in 1978 and are not due to be declassified until 2028. The Senate version of that bill was introduced by John Kerry and co-signed by Hillary Clinton.
Cynthia McKinney has been very outspoken on a number of issues which are popular to members of the far left progressive Democrats, but running as the Green Party candidate makes it a "long shot", even according to the Green Party officials.
The most successful Green Party Candidate was Ralph Nader in the year 2000, where he received 3 percent of the vote, and later was highly criticized by members of the Democratic party that blamed him for Al Gore's loss.
This year Ralph Nader is running as an Independent.
(Cross posted from my piece at DJ)
Posted: 12 Jul 2008 09:52 PM CDT
Warning. This article has a PC rating of "X".
Cross posted from radarsite
From an original article in the Independent.IE
By Kevin Myers
Thursday July 10 2008
No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.
So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.
One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .
Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.
There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.
But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.
Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.
This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.
Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.
They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.
Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.
So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?
How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.
For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.
It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.
If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.
A note from Radarsite: This is a tough article. No holds barred. I gave it a great deal of thought before deciding to cross post it here to Radarsite. However, what finally pushed me over the edge was the answer to this simple question: Is it true? Putting aside for the moment the obvious question of whether or not Mr. Myers' article is a racist rant from an angry white supremacist -- is what he is telling us the truth?
The truth, whether we deem to acknowledge it or not, remains. The truth has an annoying habit of outliving the lies. It is there, like it or not. The truth of Africa is indeed a bitter truth. A hard pill to swallow. Since the self-inflicted defeat and departure of the colonial empires what has happened to the Dark Continent? Has the future for Africans under black rule become brighter? Or has the Dark Continent descended even deeper into that wretched darkness of violence and anarchy? Has the spear merely been replaced by an AK-47? Are we being racists to comment on this catastrophic downfall? Is discussing this subject just automatically taboo? Obviously, for some it is.
I wonder, am I becoming that quintessential xenophobic racist? Am I becoming just another embittered old man, resentful of progress and change, distrustful of anything new, deeply suspicious of the Other? Am I allowing myself to buy into that simplistic Us versus Them mentality?
Perhaps. I know that since that awful day in September 2001 I have become harder. And the more I've studied the issues that confront us, the enemies that confront us, the harder I've become. I'm not sure that I buy into the Us versus Them paradigm quite yet. But I do believe that it has become Them versus Us. They have made this quite clear. It is They, after all, who have defined the terms of this universal Clash of Civilizations, not I.
Who, then, are They?
They are all of those disgruntled peoples of this planet who have declared war on the Judeo/Christian world of Western Civilization. They are all of those who blame their every misery on the white man and the white man's world. They are the professional victims and professional haters, those who lust after blood and booty and revenge. They are all of the miserable failed, and failing, societies around the world who hate us because we are successful, because we have been doing it right.
The truth is hard, but it won't go away just because we refuse to look at it. Africa is a failed/failing continent. Almost the entire Middle East (with the exception of brave little Israel) is a failed/failing region (and without oil it is a virtual goner), Islam is a failed/failing religion (cult). American Black Separatism is a failed/failing movement. Communism and fascism are failed social systems, which have brought nothing but emptiness and disaster to all who embraced them. Sorry, but that's the truth.
The city of my youth is gone, the black people moved in and destroyed it. Sorry, but that's what happened. Africa is going, going, gone. Sorry, but that's what happened. Islam has destroyed every civilization it has conquered. Sorry, but that's what happened.
Am I a racist? Maybe I am. I'm not even sure what that word means anymore. But I am sure of this: I will not allow myself to be intimidated by that word any longer. I will not be forced to look away from the truth out of fear of being called names. I will no longer pretend not to see it.
We are facing an array of formidable enemies, from both within and without, who are utterly determined to destroy us. Truth is our only sure ally. We must learn to see the truth and to speak the truth once again. We must have the courage of our convictions. We must learn to believe in ourselves once again, to believe that we really deserve to win this war, this veritable Clash of Civilizations. To survive, we must have to courage to face this world as it really is, not as we would wish it to be. - rg
Posted: 12 Jul 2008 04:02 PM CDT
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a new book out. It's called "Joe's Law", and the good sheriff was in town Thursday, July 10, 2008, for a book signing and radio show. He has also been a guest on 104.1 The Truth with Jon Justice Monday, July 7, 2008, to discuss his book and his views of law enforcement.
Jon Justice has become a voice for Tucson, particularly in the areas of ILLEGAL immigration, city council corruption, corrupt school board issues (one school board member is backed by her US Congressman father in forcing things onto the taxpayer--said father is a former school board member as well) and things concerning the legal taxpayers of Tucson.
Isabel Garcia is a Deputy Pima County Public Defender. She is also co-chair of the Coalicion de Derechos Humanos, an alleged border rights group which is actually a group specializing in helping illegals cross the border, "Reconquista" and Aztlan and indulging in violence against those who disagree with them. While she is an attorney sworn to uphold the law, she deliberately breaks it and flaunts her conflicts of interest with impunity from Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry (520/740-8661; Chuckelberry@co.pima.az.us; email@example.com).
Tucson is a relatively laid back town. We pretty much let people be, and if they want to protest something, well, as long as it's peaceful, we let them protest. That doesn't mean there won't be a counter protest, but generally both sides are cool about having their voices heard and doing it within the confines of the law.
Unless Garcia is involved. Protests involving Garcia often involve escalating hate and walk very closely to the edge of breaking the law. She is responsible for encouraging high school students to leave their classrooms and protest police action on campus (when an illegal was discovered after being arrested for allegedly possessing drugs and his family was deported), responsible for encouraging violence against the police, influencing politicians through intimidation, encouraging the La Raza hate studies and the attendant protest when the State School Superintendant spoke against funding them with taxpayer dollars--in short, she is complete bad news.
She is the Mexican equivalent of Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan. Worse, while those three racist hate mongers are bad news, she also encourages the overthrow--violently--of the legitimate United States Government through Derechos.
Yet, Huckelberry refuses to discipline her. Why? Allegedly, she is engaging in these activities on her own time.
Chuck, we have news for you.
As an attorney, Isabel Garcia is on duty 24/7. As a County Attorney, she is a representative of the public 24/7. And her salary (as well as yours) is paid for by the LEGAL taxpayers of this county.
Now, how did Garcia cross the line?
She showed up with her gang of racist hate mongers to Sheriff Joe's book signing. Okay, they have a right to protest the fact he is doing his job and enforcing the law of the land.
They don't have a right to incite a riot, contribute to the delinquency of minors, and engage in blatant violence, encouraging said minors to engage in violence as well.
They brought along a pinata (effigy) of Sheriff Joe. While Garcia stood on the sidelines, she encouraged the minors to beat the pinata to a pulp, severing the head of it in the process. She then took the head and delightedly paraded around the parking lot, holding the head aloft. Against a lawfully elected law enforcement officer.
From left, Leilani Clark holds a piñata representing Sheriff Joe Arpaio as Dallely Hernandez, 17, and Crystal Terriquez, 16, take whacks at it. This picture was the front page of the Arizona Daily Star on July 11, 2008 (from the Arizona Daily Star July 11, 2008 article located here).
Edgar Toledo, 14, of Tucson, holds a pinata of Joe Arpaio with the head cut off during a protest Thursday night. About 75 people gathered at the Barnes & Noble bookstore, 5130 E. Broadway, in Tucson to protest a visit by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (this picture is from the July 11, 2008 Tucson Citizen article located here).
There were several videos taken of this event as well: KGUN 9 News has video here; KMSB 11 has video here; KOLD 13 (which also has a news hotline 520-744-6397) here; KVOA 4 apparently didn't cover this incident, although they have covered many protests against Sheriff Joe in the past, the most recent being a disruption of the Pima county Republican Women's Club by (guess who) January 25, 2008 and linked here. Jon Justice also has video (as well as contact links for the news outlets and Huckelberry) at 104.1 The Truth here and on YouTube here, here and here.
The outrage over Garcia's action has been long in coming, but it's time she was put out of our misery. She has committed crimes against the county; she has committed crimes against fellow law enforcement officers; she has committed crimes against this country. It is time. She has to go--and she has to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for her activities.
Below is the letter I wrote to Huckelberry; I encourage everyone to copy it and use it. It is because of people like Garcia we have the problems with illegals we have.
Dear Mr. Huckleberry:The quicker we get people like Garcia out of office, and those who cover for them, such as Huckelberry, the quicker we can see some progress on the illegal issue.
Had a white person done what Garcia did, the news would have been splashed across the headlines for days as a hate crime. As it is, it's being buried. Isabel Garcia committed a hate crime. Her sanity is questionable. Her judgment is questionable.
Remove her from office. Arrest her. Prosecute her. Now.
Posted: 12 Jul 2008 01:23 PM CDT
The controversy surrounding remarks made by Jesse Jackson and what he would like to do to Barack Obama's testicles, isn't about the intent of the words, no, but instead is about whether he said he wanted to cut Obama's testicles "out" or "off".
Recently Jesse Jackson made some crude comment about what he would like to do to Barack Obama's testicles.
(Video from YouTube)
It was a comment that Jackson whispered which was caught on an open microphone, called a hot mic. The comment wasn't noticed until a Fox News employee, working the overnight shift, transcribed the tape, the alerted the Fox staff, who emailed the producer for "The O'Reilly Factor," who was out of the country and he, in turn, emailed the shows staff in New York.
According to Fox News' senior vice president for programming, Bill Shine, "I looked at it and thought, 'This is going to be news'."
The network then notified Jackson and Obama about the pending airing of the video, which was when Jackson preemptively went to CNN and issued an apology.
So, there is the background.
Bear in mind, there was more to the tape, according to Bill O'Reilly, who claims that other comments were "damaging" but did not pertain to policy (Obama's faith based initiative stance) so they decided against airing the additional comments.
O'Reilly told viewers that the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, saying there was "more damaging" material.
One would assume the comment itself was enough to cause controversy, but much to my surprise I see that it wasn't the comment, per se, that has tongues wagging, but the distinction of whether Jackson said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts "off" or cut them "out".
Further amusement comes from the fact that the discussion of what word was used is listed under the "entertainment" portion of the LA Times blog.
Complicating the discussion a little more was Foxs' decision to bleep out the word "nuts" making it more difficult for people to hear the word that followed to determine whether the it ended with "out" or "off".
The examples listed in that piece, under the entertainment category, shows that different news organizations reported a different word, with AFP, Bloomberg, ABC, Fox (video above) and the LA Times describing the sentence as "I want to cut his nuts off" and the Chicago Tribune and Reuters saying the sentence was , "I want to cut his nuts out".
In the New York Post, hysterically, Charles Hurt, the Washington Bureau Chief, actually argued that the use of the word "out" or "off" truly mattered because using the term "out" is used by thugs or gangsters and they assert that Jackson should know the "symbolism of castration and its blood-soaked link to lynchings in the Old South", while the term "off" is used by veterinarians and doctors.
Like I said, hysterical!
All of this brings me to my commentary.
Being a woman, and the men reading this can correct me if I am wrong but this leaves me with a couple of questions.
Despite the New York Post's assertions that the word "off" or "out" truly matters, does it really? Isn't the thought of either option painful for men?
Secondly, while television news show could be categorized as entertainment, is the thought of a man's testicles being cut off or out, really entertaining to the man in question or to any man that hears it?
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|