Posted: 29 Oct 2008 12:12 PM CDT
With the controversy surrounding Senator Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi, and the tape being suppressed by the LA Times people are forgetting that Khalidi is just ONE of many terrorist-connected characters that Obama has allied himself with.
Posted: 29 Oct 2008 10:46 AM CDT
From Pam at Iraq War Today. (And yes, I DO know Pam...lol)
And you know there is more - much more. Go read this well-articulated piece NOW here!
*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*
Posted: 29 Oct 2008 10:23 AM CDT
Not the real Adolfe Hitler, probably not even a person using a real name, but representative of the type of problems being seen and finally reported by the mainstream news outlets about Barack Obama online donors.
Let us start with the Hitler donation and move on from there to the Washington Post article today showing how the Obama campaign deliberately did not implement security measures which allow Adolfe Hitler and others to get away with donating money using things like pre-paid credit cards and avoiding the limits set to what a campaign can accept.
Meanwhile, last week a reader made a donation to the Obama campaign under the name "Adolfe Hitler" (Don't ask me why the "e") of "#1 Reichstag Building, Berlin, Germany", charging it to his Mastercard and is now getting welcome-to-the-big-change emails:Dear Adolfe,
The WAPO piece shows exactly how some of these donations come to be accepted by the Obama campaign in a piece they titled "Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations."
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
There is your teaser from the top paragraph, go read the rest to see how huge this problem is.
The bottom line here is that all campaigns end up having to return monies donated after reviewing the donations but Obama's campaign relied on over two-thirds of their donations coming from the Internet.
The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
Here is the kicker:
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
There is your bottom line... sure all campaigns end up having to return monies that make it past their security measures, and yes John McCain has also had to return monies deemed unacceptable from donors deemed unacceptable, but Obama and his campaign have deliberately chosen to not implement the basic security measures that would catch a large portion of dummy donations.
They also explain the problems with the pre-paid cards:
The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.
The Corner points to another example which shows exactly how huge this problem really is:
Which brings us to the case of Mary T Biskup of Manchester, Mo, who discovered there were scores of small online donations made to the Obama campaign in her name, even though she hasn't given him a dime. They added up to $174,800, which is a wee bit over the $2,300 limit. This very generous donation was not billed to her own card, but to someone else's - meaning (as the Post says) "someone appropriated her name".
Public financing a general election campaign was put into place and candidates for decades have been using it in the name of fairness, yet this election cycle, despite pledging to use the system, Barack Obama went back on that pledge and opted out of it because of his ability to collect online donations and the fact that he believed it would give him an advantage and he could attempt to "buy" the election by outspending the $84+ million that John McCain received by keeping his pledge to use public financing.
Obama opened the door to this type of fraud, then took all the security measures away that would stop Adolfe from donating without proper checks to make sure Adolfe existed, to stop someone from using Mary's name from donating $172,500 more than the contribution limits allowed and allowed people from other countries to donate illegally.
PowerLine has been all over this story and tracking people that have been testing Obama's security measures and has another recent example:
Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog gets right to the heart of the issue by stating:
"Fully $100 million of the record-breaking $150 million that the Obama campaign collected in September alone came over the internet via credit card donations."
The Raw Story points out an Obama Lawyer, Robert Bauer, lies in order to try to justify their lack of security protocol:
Obama's campaign laws say they have scrubbed contributions that appear dubious. One lawyer, Robert Bauer, attacked the premise, saying, "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud."
Any grocery store clerk can tell you that credit cards transactions are rejected all the time if an address, name or zip code does not match, so one would expect a lawyer working for a presidential candidate to be aware of the fact that those type of security measures do exist.
Posted: 29 Oct 2008 09:17 AM CDT
A note from Radarsite: "Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy." This from Ed Lasky in his superb editorial response to The Boston Globe. Now more than ever, in these last few days before this fateful election, it is vitally important to thoroughly understand what is at stake here, and to remember that what is happening in America right now has happened before.
One of the biggest misconceptions about Germany's infamous Third Reich is that Adolf Hitler somehow seized power and that the worst excesses of Nazism were later unleashed on the unsuspecting German people after he had assumed the reins of government. (Note: Before letting out that exasperated sigh and saying, Oh no, not another Hitler parallel, please read on). Thus the German Volk have been disingenuously portrayed as innocent victims rather than the complicit participants they most certainly were. The truth of the matter is a little less attractive. The overt murderous racism, the horrors of the Holocaust, the ruthless military aggressions, the almost complete suppression of civil rights, the ultimate invasion of Russia -- all of these fateful and ultimately catastrophic realizations of the goals of the Third Reich were clearly spelled out for all to see long before January 1933 when Hitler finally assumed the Chancellorship of Germany.
Throughout the pages of Mein Kampf, and in all of the Nazi manifestos, and in their hundreds of widely-publicised speeches their intentions were made crystal clear. And, far from seizing power, Hitler and the Nazis were legally voted into office. Subsequently, through a whole series of votes and referendums, all of Hitler's wildest ambitions were easily ratified and given the force of law.
Why? A wildly popular and charismatic leader had promised change. And the German people desperately wanted change. And they most certainly got it.
Here once again we are being seduced by the siren song of yet another popular charismatic leader who is promising us change. And in his Twenty-First century version of Mein Kampf, and in all of his party's manifestos, and in all of his innumerable speeches, his wildly ambitious and ultimately disastrous agenda is laid out openly for all to see. This article is just one more example of what we can expect from an Obama government. This will be our impotent answer to the existential threats posed by the mad mullahs. This will be our future.
If Barack Obama wins this election this coming Tuesday, no matter how horrific the consequences of an Obama presidency might be, we cannot pretend that we didn't know what was coming, and that a majority of Americans didn't enthusiastically embrace it.
Please God give us the courage and the wisdom the steer the right course through these perilous waters. - rg
Cross posted from PA Pundits
h/t to Tony from Oz at Real Clear Politics
October 28, 2008
Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday's Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.
By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned - a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.
Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban - a Sunni extremist group - hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.
Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed - as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.
The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace - under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various "carrots" offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.
What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is - and has long been - designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).
That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning. We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.
Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy.
Ed Lasky is the news editor for American Thinker.
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 08:16 PM CDT
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 07:22 PM CDT
(Cross-posted from America Needs Me)
If you are a McCain-Palin supporter these days any exposure to the media can be disheartening. Guess what kids? It's only going to get worse.
You are going to be under a barrage of negative news telling you that your candidate is doomed and your life sucks because you didn't fall under the Obama spell. "Hey, don't even get out of bed loser."
I think we have established by now that the MSM is not just in the tank for Beloved Leader Obama, they're naked and spooning with him at this point. They want you to be discouraged and stay home. So when you turn on the TV you'll hear all about The One's coronation plans. When you log into your Yahoo! mail you'll see poll numbers that will make you want to head to Mexico for some cheap Zoloft. The number one show in America this week will be "Barack Obama and the Mantle of Inevitability".
Just remember this, when I went to lunch on the West coast on Election Day 2004 all the exit polls were telling me that John Kerry was going to be the next POTUS.
This is hardly the time to go underground and hope we don't all get assigned to ACORN sponsored reeducation camps.
Rasmussen shows Pennsylvania tightening and Ace of Spades HQ has some ideas for working in the home stretch.
The angry, well-organized and deadly serious PUMAS offer some even more encouraging news.
Tonight we spoke with a friend from Hillary Clinton's campaign who is now working for McCain/Palin — and is specifically working with Democrats for McCain in Pennsylvania. We worked with her in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for Hillary and have spent many LONG hours with her in the trenches in all of those states. She's smart, doesn't BS, and never lies.
Nothing anywhere or at any time is a given, of course. But that includes an Obama victory. If you're a sports nut then remember how many experts picked the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. The game still has to be played.
If you can't get to a swing state and knock on doors, you can make phone calls to the state of your choice all you want between now and then.
Yes, it would be better if McCain was up in the polls right now but he's not. But we don't need to hang our heads, cry and get marched right over because we listened to the very MSM that we're always saying is biased.
One last note:
Extra beer might help.
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 02:09 PM CDT
(Cross-posted from America Needs Me)
Maybe some of the Obama Kool-Aid is wearing off in the waning days of the 6000 year campaign. Perhaps some people decided to take a real look at the Emperor-in-Waiting. Whatever it is, some small bits of perspective have been escaping the Obama Thought Suppressor and being revealed, hopefully in time.
The most interesting yet is from Elaine Lafferty, the former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine. Lafferty is a pro-choice Democrat and former feminist activist but she has been consulting the McCain campaign (because he is the one who actually does reach across the aisle) to help with a speech on women's rights that Sarah Palin wants to give.
Lafferty addresses the dismissal of Sarah Palin as unintelligent by many media elites (code for "brain dead"), both left and right. Her assessment:
As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
This isn't just a quick wink and a nudge to a beleaguered sister, Lafferty explains in detail why Gov. Palin is smart.
I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a "quick study"; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her "confidence" is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
I think it's that last line which has been driving Palin's detractors to act like psychotic chimps in a feces-flinging frenzy. They have spent two months attempting to define Sarah Palin with mostly lies and the silly, small town country bumpkin wouldn't let them do that. It's driving them absolutely insane.
There are people in certain parts of this country who believe that geography determines the proportional influence in political and cultural debate. They believe that they are the beginning and end of such discussions. Why? Because that is what they have been telling themselves all along. Spend your time with only people who agree with you and you will never be proven wrong.
I just spent two weeks in Manhattan. My friends and colleagues back there have no idea how to react to Sarah Palin in a rational way. She's from the West. She went to a state college. She hunts. She has a twang. In short, she is the kind of person they've heard about but have never bothered to wander outside of their neighborhoods and meet. How dare she presume to know anything or be anyone? I fielded questions about her that I usually never bothered to answer because they were so naive yet asked with such dripping condescension. I felt like patting the poor dears on their heads and letting them continue to revel in a perceived superiority complex that was crafted almost wholly out of ignorance.
There is an unwarranted smugness that comes with living in Los Angeles or New York or Washington, D.C. People seem to feel that the ability to pay extortionist prices to live make them superior. It never occurs to them that someone who can buy twice the house with half the money might be thinking more clearly.
Lafferty clarifies the differences between leftist feminists and Gov. Palin.
For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision—is nonsense. I digress.)
Then she hits the point that I believe will make Sarah Palin stronger in the future no matter what happens next week.
I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted.
The Democrats have been doing a lip-service, smoke and mirrors job with women and minorities for a long time now. Absent any clear, fundamentally sound vision for America, the modern Democratic party has had to deal almost exclusively in identity politics. Their nightmare this year was that their two mainstays of identity politics went against each other in the primaries. One group stood a good chance of being alienated. When the Republicans reached out to women with the choice of Gov. Palin the hardcore leftist women were quick to excoriate her for not participating in group think.
Not all women on the left are hardcore NARAL and NOW activists, however. The hard working pragmatists who have to manage seemingly unmanageable work loads will notice the condescending tone in the promises of the Democrats and remember the dump the party took on Hillary Clinton. If not in this election, then very soon.
A final quote about Sarah Palin from Lafferty:
Will Palin's time come next week? I don't know. But her time will come.
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 01:08 PM CDT
The media keeps trumpeting an Obama win in the upcoming election just a week away but the polling seems to show that the result is not a foregone conclusion by any means.
Among "likely voters" which uses the traditional models of historical voting habits, there is a two percentage point advantage for Barack Obama, according to Gallup.
Gallup has also started something new they call their "expanded" models which doesn't take history and previous voting history into account at all and under that model Obama holds a seven percentage point lead.
The traditional likely voter model matches the recent IBD/TIPP poll which showed an Obama advantage at 3 percentage points as well.
About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season.
Obama's "spread the wealth" comments seem to have started resounding echo inside the heads of those that previously were undecided and it is not a theme the majority wanted to hear and these most recent numbers might be reflecting that.
The media might want people to think the race is over but with one week to go it seems the "people" have decided their votes might just actually count more than the pre-election "spin."
On a side note since we are talking about the media here, it also looks like MSNBC is getting ripped by both sides of the aisle with Democrats saying they are "completely out of control."
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 09:25 AM CDT
To: Nick Meo
From: Not an American blogger
Re: Your "defence" of your actions in Afghanistan
I have been reading the ongoing discussion that has arisen from your ill-advised column in the Telegraph when you were embedded with a US unit in Afghanistan.
Nick: You are a fool, a dangerous fool. First, let me assure you, I am NOT an American blogger, although I DO – indeed – write for a few American blogs, (milblogs as well as political sites) as well as have my own site. I also write for an international online news site. ...
Go to Assoluta Tranquillita to read the rest here.
Posted: 28 Oct 2008 09:20 AM CDT
It is now official, for me at least. The CBC - affectionately called "the Mother Corp" by some, is now OLD news for me. I am done with them.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the publicly funded media for Canada. For many, the CBC IS Canada. In many rural areas of the country, CBC radio is the only station they can tune in to; there are no other options.
Over the years, CBC Radio has been an integral part of my life, even to the point of proudly displaying a sticker created by a long ago "Save the CBC" when it was threatened with funding cuts. In this most recent federal election, Stephen Harper (re-elected minority government Prime Minister) caused an uproar - among the merry few - when he talked, again about cutting arts funding, labelling most arts projects "elitists" and "irrelevant to "ordinary Canadians." Loyal 'Mother Corp' fans raised their voices in protest across the land.
My loyalty to the CBC is now over....
And yes, of course there is more. Go to Assoluta Tranquillita to read it here.
|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|