Sunday, 31 August 2008

Video: Obama and McCain at Saddleback

Straight answers from McCain; hedging and non-answers from Obama.

Advisors: Michelle? Grandmother? - What is their experience in governing?

The truth is that he could not mention his real mentors, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, Emil Jones and so on since they are too radical for most Americans to palate, so he had to fall back on his wife and grandmother.

Can you just imagine Obama being woken up at night as a crisis unfolds phoning his grandmother and asking what SHE would do? Likewise for Michelle.

I think we all wish that Obama was an experienced more centrist black candidate.

However his extremist radical liberal philosophies and choice of association with shady characters and at least one known terrorist disqualifies him from that position.

One example of that is his rejection of Supreme Court conservative judges, means he is totally unbalanced in his views so that he cannot see anything but liberals as being "good" judges.

The sad thing is that his fellow democrats don't see that or sadly may not care.

Wake up America

Wake up America

Sarah Palin 'Electrifies' Republican Base After 'Leak Free' Deliberation Process

Posted: 31 Aug 2008 12:46 PM CDT

Reports of the reactions from people in St. Paul preparing for the convention at the time John McCain announced his VP running mate say that the base was "electrified." Reports also show Palin instantly impressed McCain in February after they met.
The Washington Post reports the instant liking that John McCain had for Sarah Palin after meeting with her privately in Washington back in February during the National Governors Association meeting.

One adviser tells the Post that McCain spoke well of her after the meeting saying she was impressive and he liked her, but that no one outside his inner circle knew how strong of an impression she made on John McCain.

The Deliberative Process and the Press.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis who played point with Washington lawyer A.B. Culvahouse overseeing the vetting process, says Palin went through the same vetting procedures everyone else did with a FBI background check and reviews of financial and other personal data. Then deliberations and discussions ensued with a handful of advisers, where it is said McCain asked a lot of questions but did not tip his hand even to those closest to him about which direction he was leaning.

According to the adviser that spoke to the Post, the campaign basically allowed rampant speculation by the media to go unanswered and allowed them to play themselves against each other with the adviser saying, "It's a little naive on the part of the media to assume because they weren't reporting this [Palin's consideration] for the last few months, there's something up on this. We didn't spend any time saying yes or no to any of the speculation -- just because everyone thought it was going to be Mitt Romney for a month, and then it was going to be Joe Lieberman for a month."

The media played into this by reporting that Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney were sent to the Democratic National Convention as Republican surrogates as "final auditions" for the vice presidential spot on the ticket.

McCain aides scoffed at that characterization, calling it pure coincidence. "These guys are all good surrogates. They've done a thousand hours of surrogate work," one McCain adviser said. "I don't think we needed to audition anybody at the Democratic National Convention a week before ours. It's wonderful to fill cable time with it, but it's just nonsense."


Unknown to reporters that were busy following Romney and Pawlenty at the Democratic Convention and speculating on Ridge and Lieberman as well, McCain called Palin last Sunday, the day before the Democratic Convention, spoke to her at length and invited her to Arizona to meet.

Day Three of the Democratic Convention, Wednesday, while attention was focused elsewhere, Sarah Palin was flown to Flagstaff, Arizona where she met with top McCain officials, Schmidt and Salter.

The next morning she was taken to McCain's retreat in Sedona.

When they arrived, McCain offered Palin some coffee before taking her to a bend in a creek on the property where there are places to sit and a hawk's nest looming above. It is one of McCain's favorite places, and the two talked alone there until they were joined by McCain's wife, Cindy, who is described as having played a key role throughout the selection process.



After about an hour, Palin joined her aide on the deck of McCain's cabin, while the candidate and his wife went for a walk along the creek. When they returned, McCain held one last session with aides Schmidt and Salter. Then he offered Palin the job. The deal was sealed "with a handshake, a pat on the back," one adviser said.

All that was left was one more secretive trip, from Arizona to Dayton, where the announcement was going to be made at a rally at Wright State University. Salter and Schmidt accompanied Palin on that final leg, and her family in Alaska was alerted only at the last minute that a plane was being sent to bring them to Ohio.

McCain aides were forbidden to leak anything on the night of Barack Obama's acceptance speech, but by Friday morning speculation was again running rampant and it wasn't until a couple of hours before the official announcement in Dayton, Ohio, that word started filtering through that it might just be Sarah Palin that would be named as John McCain's vice presidential running mate.

Reaction To The Announcement.

The reaction from the conservative base was immediate and The Politico reports the announcement of Sarah Palin as the chosen VP, "electrified" them. After listening to her speech it is report many became emotional.

The former New Hampshire GOP chairman and top McCain backer, Steve Duprey, was in St. Paul at the time ad he describes the scene, saying, "I was in the Rules Committee with about 150 people in the room. They had TVs set up and we took a break to watch the announcement. For a second after she came out, it was silent. Then there was a gasp and everybody stood up and started cheering and clapping. We stayed standing the whole speech." He goes on to state, "There were 10 or 12 women, party stalwarts, in tears, using napkins and handkerchiefs."

Conservative activists, never gung-ho, for McCain and waiting to see if he would disappoint them with his VP choice before solidly uniting behind him, instantly became galvanized after learning that he chose a strict conservative as his running mate. The Politico reports that McCain hasn't just won their approval but has "ignited a wave of elation and emotion that has led some grass-roots activists to weep with joy."

Charmaine Yoest, head of the legislative arm of Americans United for Life, says when she woke up the morning of the announcement as speculation about Palin was filtering through the press, her email was "just going crazy" and that after the announcement was made "it was like you couldn't breathe."

Yoest also says that in St. Paul, after hearing the announcement, her and other conservative women were jumping up and down and hugging each other, continuing on to say, "She's lived it! It's so satisfying as a conservative woman. When she walked out on that stage there was just this moment. It was really emotional for a lot of us."

Not only emotional reactions were kicked into high gear, but money started pouring in from online donations, with $7 million online donations within the first 24 hours.

Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen. Without these two camps making phone calls, stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, Republican presidential candidates would severely lack for volunteers. They are critical to the health of the conservative coalition that has dominated Republican politics for a generation.

Republicans say the primary source for the passion can be found in Palin's example and authenticity.

Not only is the 44-year-old governor opposed to abortion rights — but she carried and gave birth to a child with Down syndrome earlier this year, a profound and powerful motivating force to both opponents of abortion rights and the parents and relatives of special needs children.


Reactions from Christian conservatives were not the only reactions that were positive.

Gun enthusiasts, such as Michael Bane, declares, "She's one of us. "FINALLY, we can get 100 percent behind the Republican ticket ... change we can believe in!"

"You know I've had my problems with McCain, but he has reached out a hand to us both at the NRA Annual Meeting [earlier this year] and with the amazing selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate."


The Politico notes many more reactions in their article from a variety of people, showing a base that is finally "electrified" and excited about this election season.

The most satisfying portion of the reactions are those from the left where they have shown they were caught as flatfooted as the media in regards to McCain's VP pick and have let their desperation shine through by attacking not only Palin, but have pathetically gone after Palin's children with nothing more than rumors without any evidence, proof, records or documents.

If they thought women were angry over perceived sexism, just wait until the negative reactions and outrage hit them from woman that find anyone that will deliberately try to destroy a child's life and reputation even more repugnant than those which show evidence of sexism.

They haven't seen women angry yet..... that type of disgusting behavior is guaranteed to rally women and mothers behind Palin at a rapid rate.

.

Fmr DNC Chair Thinks Hurricane Proves God is on the Side of the Dems

Posted: 31 Aug 2008 11:30 AM CDT

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

RedState.com's absentee's Diary videos former Nat. Chair of the DNC, Don Fowler, as he chuckles about a hurricane hitting New Orleans just at the time President Bush is to speak Monday at the RNC. ..."that just demonstrates God's on our side," he says. Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina allegedly was the other side of the conversation.

There's more than just the video. Read it at RedState.





Thanks to YouTube.com

Hurricane Gustav Forces Mandatory Evacuation From New Orleans

Posted: 31 Aug 2008 09:57 AM CDT

The Mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, has ordered a mandatory evacuation as what he calls "The Storm of the Century" bears down and threatens the U.S. Gulf States.

The mayor, C. Ray Nagin, said Hurricane Gustav was larger and more dangerous than Hurricane Katrina, and he pleaded with residents to get out or face flooding and life-threatening winds.

"This is the mother of all storms, and I'm not sure we've seen anything like it," Mr. Nagin said at an evening news briefing. "This is the real deal. This is not a test. For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life."


Buses were brought in to help get everyone out and brought to shelters as hundreds of thousands of people started pouring out of the city.

Forecasters said the hurricane was most likely to strike the Gulf Coast on Monday. New Orleans could get winds of up to 73 m.p.h. and possibly greater.

Forecasters said Hurricane Gustav could become a Category 5 storm, the strongest designation on the scale.

In a mandatory evacuation, residents are not physically forced to leave, but are subject to arrest outside their houses if a curfew is imposed. Mr. Nagin also warned that anyone who chose to stay would not be able to rely on public agencies for emergency assistance.


After watching what happened to their state after Hurricane Katrina blasted through three years ago, anyone staying must know they are taking their lives and that of their family into their hands because once the storm hits and water floods in, help relies on the kindness of Mather Nature and she is not kind.

John McCain, his wife Cindy and Sarah Palin are traveling through Mississippi to see how preparations are going.

Likely GOP presidential nominee John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, are traveling to Mississippi to check on people getting prepared for Hurricane Gustav.

McKain aides say McCain and his wife Cindy will join Palin in traveling to Jackson, Miss., Sunday at the invitation of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. They said the McCains and Palins want to check on preparations because they are concerned about the people threatened by the storm


The Republican Convention which starts tomorrow is being scaled down and contingency plans are being made to alter the event and perhaps use it to help storm victims as I reported yesterday.

Michelle Malkin receives word from a reader who is a member of the Louisiana Army National Guard and her words are comforting.

I'm a new member to the site and a big fan, and right now I'm experiencing a brief (and rare) moment of downtime. I am a member of the Louisiana Army National Guard, and we are up to our nostrils in preparations for Hurricane Gustav. There is a lot going on right now in south Louisiana, but mostly we are watching this monster bear down on us and hoping for the best. I wanted you to know, as a soldier who also had to suffer through the cluster that was Katrina, that we are 1000% better prepared (God Bless Bobby Jindal!!), and that while hoping for the best, we are completely prepared for the worst and ready to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of the people of this state.


See what you can do to help and keep track of the preparation measures at the state's website.

Keep these people in your thoughts as they once again prepare to suffer an incredible loss as this monster of a storm bears down on them.

.

Republican Convention Might Turn Into 'Giant Hurricane Relief Telethon'

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 08:27 PM CDT

In an interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, John McCain said Hurricane Gustav may alter the plans for the Republican Convention due to start on Monday.
Hurricane Gustav was Category 4 hurricane as it passed through Cuba and is expected to be a strong Category 5 hurricane as it prepares to hit the United states, much like Katrina, which devastated portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to Washington Wire, Wallace asked John McCain whether there were circumstances in which he would consider suspending the Republican Convention and McCain's reply was, "The reality is we're likely going to have a national disaster going on. We don't know exactly what this thing is going to do or when."

McCain said he had been in touch with the Governors from Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, Florida and continued on to say, "I've been talking to all of them, but you know it just wouldn't be appropriate to have a festive occasion while a near tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster, so we're monitoring it from day to day and I'm saying a few prayers too."

The Republican Convention planners are preparing to alter the scheduled events and may simply stick to the minimal ceremony required by law to officially nominate John McCain as the Republican's Presidential candidate and Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate for the GOP.

One contingency plan in the event of a worse case scenario where Gustav reaps massive destruction along the U.S. Gulf Coast is to turn a portion of the convention into a "giant hurricane relief telethon", where attending Republicans would be transformed into "Red Cross-type volunteers" as the New York Post phrases it in their report.

Those Republicans would help collect donations, not for the Republican Party or John McCain but instead for storm victims as well as collecting food and goods to help them as well.

McCain - whose campaign motto is "Country First" – said helping people during an emergency will take precedence over accepting his GOP nomination for president.


They are preparing for any possibility and as the McCain campaign notes, in 2000 John McCain postponed the announcement of his presidential campaign because of genocide in the Balkans, so he is expected to continue monitoring the situation and suspend and alter activities at the Convention as he sees fit in order to do whatever can be done to help the victims.

The Republican National Convention President & CEO Maria Cinoissued a statement today which said, "We continue to closely monitor the movement of the storm and are considering necessary contingencies.The safety of our affected delegations is our first priority and preparing for Gustav comes before anything else."

The Post reports that McCain is not due to make his speech until Thursday of next week and that sources have told them he may visit the Gulf Coast earlier in the week.

.

Palin Liked More Than Biden, Donations Rising and Grassroots On Fire

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 04:52 PM CDT

No wonder the left is going into desperate panic attack mode!!

Since John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his VP choice, there has been $7 million in contributions to the campaign, Rasmussen shows that Palin holds a higher favorability rating than Joe Biden does for Barack Obama, and Jonathan Martin from The Politico says the GOP grassroots are "on fire."

Politico:

And outside the arena, far from Dayton, the response I've gotten from Republican activists coast-to-coast has been one of almost joy. My e-mail in-box is bursting with enthusiasm from loyal GOPers who've been either glum, cynical or downright unhappy for the past two years.


The Trail: (linked above)

Sen. John McCain has taken in $7 million in contributions since announcing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a top campaign aide said today.

The money bounce may owe to Palin's appeal with conservative donors, many of whom said privately they had planned on sitting out the campaign this year. The money comes in just under the wire -- after McCain accepts the GOP nomination Thursday, he will accept public funds and no longer be permitted to raise private money for the campaign.


Rasmussen:

After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin while just 26% offer a less flattering assessment.

Palin earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 26% of Democrats and 63% of unaffiliated voters. Obviously, these numbers will be subject to change as voters learn more about her in the coming weeks. Among all voters, 29% have a Very Favorable opinion of Palin while 9% hold a Very Unfavorable view.

By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama's running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters.

Palin has generated some good energy, has revved up the GOP base like I haven't seen in a while and it she appears likable, all-American, troop-loving and smart.

Hey Obama!!!! Starting to regret snubbing Hillary Clinton now and not choosing her as your VP pick?

If not, you are stupider than we thought.

.

Clinton Supporters, Sarah Palin, Shaking Things Up, Abortion And Sexism

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 03:47 PM CDT

Deciding on Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, was done with goals in mind. Making history, shaking up the ticket, appealing to conservatives, choosing a maverick, and appealing to females. Clinton supporters now discuss abortion and sexism.
According to ABC's Political Radar, John McCain had specific aims in making his choice for who he wished as his running mate to be his vice presidential choice.

Making History.

Official history will not be made until the Republican Convention next week when the vote comes down and makes John McCain the official Republican candidate for President of the United States of America and Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska the official Vice Presidential candidate to join McCain on the ticket.

History will be made the day of the vote and was made yesterday when McCain announced the first female vice presidential running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.

Shaking up the Ticket.


Until the Democratic Convention started, the polling from multiple organizations showed a neck and neck race between John McCain and Barack Obama, with neither of the candidates able to take a significant lead on the other.

The convention "bounce", which is an uptick in polling due to a significant campaign event, as the convention was, gave Barack Obama an eight point lead after the three day rolling figures came in.

It is expected as is traditional, that next week by the last day of the Republican Convention, the same "bounce" will be seen, which would then again put the race back to the neck and neck status.

This is where shaking up a ticket becomes necessary as part of a bigger plan to take a lead in the polls.

No candidate for any election wants to go into an election neck and neck. The whole goal during the campaigning season is to take a significant lead in the polls and in public perception so that a candidate has relative confidence they will win the election when the day comes.

With that goal in mind, a presidential candidate chooses his running mate with the thought in mind of shoring up support in demographical areas where the support lags or is not what that candidate believes it should be.

For Barack Obama the choice was Joe Biden who has much more foreign policy experience than the presidential candidate himself has which has been a criticism from conservative Democrats, some Independents and what is called swing voters, which are voters that can swing from one side of the political spectrum to the other, depending on their preference in any given campaign season.

For John McCain, that choice was Sarah Palin, the only person to be a Governor on either ticket now, which is a person elected by the people of a state to be the top leader in that state. They have many of the same powers that a president have, but only on a state level. They can pardon criminals prosecuted by the state, they can sign and veto bills passed by the congress of the state. They can appoint people to certain positions, and they speak for the state on matters regarding the state.

Appeal to Conservatives.

The core base for Republicans are conservatives and conservative leaning voters and it was made clear to John McCain, being known as a moderate conservative himself, to strengthen his ticket and unite the conservative base, he needed a traditionally conservative vice presidential running mate.

Did the choice of Palin fire up the conservative base?

Early indications show that the choice of Palin did fire up certain members of the conservative base, as evidenced by Dr. James Dobson, who is an evangelical leader and the head of Focus On The Family.

Dobson once stated, as reported by TIME, that he would never vote for John McCain because of McCain's moderate stances in areas that concerned Dobson, yet within hours of the announcement of Palin as the VP choice, Dobson walked into a conservative outreach meeting in Minneapolis thrown by the McCain campaign and announced he would be voting for John McCain.

Other evidence showing that McCain did shake up his ticket effectively and to his benefit is brought to us via a report from The Politico saying that online alone, John McCain received $4.9 million dollars immediately after he introduce Palin as his VP.

Palin's appeal to the conservative base is echoed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who had not yet united behind McCain and is now "raving" over the choice of Palin as well as David Keene of the American Conservative Union stating, via The Spec.com, "I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

The examples go on and on in the media of the conservative base hailing McCain's decision and becoming more enthused about McCain's candidacy.

That is shaking things up.

Vote it up! 2 votes
Republican Presidential candidate John McCain with his vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin.
Courtesy of John McCain campaign (Public Domain)


Choosing a Maverick.

John McCain has long held the nickname and reputation of being a maverick, of working in a bipartisan manner when necessary, reaching across the political aisle to get things accomplished. Many times he has done so even with the risk of angering his conservative base.

He has openly criticized Republicans when he has disagreed with as well as publicly criticizing President Bush when he took a stance different from his own.

His goal with choosing Palin is that she too has a reputation of being a maverick. Fighting against Republicans when she disagreed with them, placing Independents and Democrats in her administration and working towards accomplishing what she sets out to do, giving her the highest popularity rating of a Governor in her own state of Alaska, which is over 80 percent as reported by Daily Dayton News.

Palin is fairly new to the gubernatorial job — she took office Dec. 4, 2006 — but has already seen political success, pushing and getting momentum on the creation of a natural gas pipeline that Alaskans have sought for three decades.

She's also knocked heads with energy companies, threatening to strip some of their leases if she felt they were "warehousing" their land and not drilling, according to Drue Pearce, a former Alaska Senate president now serving as the federal coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Project.


Sarah Palin In Kuwait
"SIR: Poseyal Desposyni squire poet (Creative Commons - Attribution)


Appealing to Females.

Polling shows McCain has done better shoring up the male vote than he has with the female vote within his own party, with Independents and with swing voters.

Having Palin on the ticket, a woman who already made her own history as being the youngest and first female to be elected as Governor of Alaska, now making history again as being the first female on a Republican ticket, has energized many conservative woman as is seen on multiple blogs, forums and comment sections across the web.

Clinton supporters, abortion and sexism.

A large majority of female Democrats are 100 percent pro-choice and Palin is 100 percent pro-life and against abortions.

One would assume that if the abortion issue was a deal breaker for female Clinton supporters, they would never in a million years vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

Some Clinton supporters hold abortion rights high in their list of priorities but they do not see it as a deal breaker if they agree with other aspects of a candidates policy issues.

That is a personal choice that only they can make because their vote is theirs....period.

No one can tell them they are making choices for the right or wrong reasons, because how a person votes and for what reason they make their choice is no ones business but the person who owns their vote.

With that said, I am seeing an anger on Clinton supporting sites, which first stemmed from their perception that the media as well as the DNC and Obama campaign, were overly sexist in their reports and statements about Hillary Clinton during the primaries and now is being pointed out within a day of Palin's being announced as McCain's running mate with Clinton supporting sites showing their perception of the media doing the same thing to Palin already.

Using one of the more popular Clinton supporting sites as an example of what is seen on many of them, Tennessee Guerilla Women, shows the theme of what I am seeing.

Yesterday, they were quoting Palin's tribute to Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, where Palin stated, "I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievement of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and of course, Hillary Clinton, who showed determination in her presidential campaign," Palin said. "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

The writer of that piece, Egalia writes:

Wow. Just wow. You should have picked Hillary, Barack! Here's to breaking this country's shameful male monopoly on power. It's just too effing bad that the job has fallen to the Republicans because the Democratic Party threw women under the bus!


The comment section of that posts shows incredible tension still felt by female voters over Hillary's loss and what they perceived as unfairness shown to her during the primaries, with some commentators arguing having a woman on the ticket isn't enough of a reason to vote for a McCain/Palin ticket, others arguing about Obama's inexperience and pointing out Palin's executive experience and still others asking about how a Democratic woman can vote for a pro-life ticket.

373 comments on that piece.

Tennessee Guerilla Women is not the only site with this mindset, as pointed out by Washington Post's The Trail.

The common refrain: "Obama will regret not choosing Hillary now!"


No Quarter USA, an online hub for anti-Obama Hillary supporters, had this comment from Danny in Alaska, a disaffected Hillary Democrat who had pledged not to vote for Obama, on a news post. He called Palin an independent and said a "vote for MCCAIN IS NO LONGER A PROTEST VOTE! I want bumper stickers."


Contrary to critics assertions, it is not only John McCain's choice of Palin that is drawing some diehard Clinton supporters that have refused to get behind Barack Obama, but for many of them it is their choice of priorities as arguments ensue in comment sections about how the media is already being perceived as showing sexism against Palin.

Sarah Palin at school
Sarah Palin visiting a school and painting with two children
by triciaward (Creative Commons - Attribution)


Today, the same "I am woman hear me roar" attitude is being seen, but thanks to some media outlets, those same Clinton supporting sites are giving more reasons to why they may just want to stand up and support the McCain/Palin ticket because to them there is an issue that is as much if not more of a priority to them than abortion is.

Sexism.

Media Matters announces in their headline "With morning announcement of Palin pick comes morning sexism on cable news."

Summary: With reports that Sen. John McCain had picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, sexist commentary on cable news followed. On CNN, John Roberts raised the question of whether as vice president, Palin would be able to devote the time necessary to care for her baby with Down syndrome, and on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd suggested that Sen. Joe Biden bears the burden of having to adjust his behavior in a vice-presidential debate because of Palin's sex.


The reaction to the Media Matters piece as well as other examples that are being cited, is once again shown by Tennessee Guerilla Women, which is representative of what is seen on quite a few diehard Clinton supporting sites.

Egalia against writes, "Bonus MSNBC Sexism: Also in the video clip, Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd argue that Joe Biden will have to be gentle when he debates Sarah Palin because she's a girl!!! The MSNBC pundits do not explain why the men were so free to gang up on Hillary Rodham Clinton on the primary debate stage."

Not to focus on one specific blogger and comment section of one place, a search on Google shows sexism trumping other issues, in a variety of places.

For example, CBS News has an opinion piece written by a man named Joseph Bui for Youth Vote '08, who explains why women that perceived sexism and those that supported Hillary for more reasons that just her policy stances, but instead because of the chance to move women forward and rewriting the history books, he reminds people that "constituents don't always vote just on the issues."

Unfortunately for the Obama camp and his adoring fans: they aren't the only ones that can define change. The legions of female Hillary Clinton supporters that identified with her candidacy are now given another shot at shattering the glass ceiling. And as a Democrat who does plan on supporting Obama this November, I'm worried they'll take it.

If you honestly believe that your candidate was ran into the ground due to pervasive sexism in the media and among the voters, the very natural answer? Vote for the female alternative.


Other examples include MyDD writer, Nikkid, who says "Now - the Republicans will have the opportunity to be the party to make history with the FIRST WOMAN VICE PRESIDENT in history." She then goes on to ask, "The Democrats will ask themselves WHY did we select the unqualified, inexperienced male candidate.

I mean really - WHICH PARTY IS SEXIST?"


Even more amazing are the forums, websites and blogs from women that will not vote for McCain/palin, but are still getting angry of the sexism issue already being shown against Palin.

Examples there include Shakesville, (language alert if you click and replace letters with ** in her quotes), where writer Melissa McEwan points out that she has already heard that Palin was called a "bimbo" and McEwan asserts she will not vote for McCain/Palin, but, "And I'll go ahead and put it right in the f**king inaugural post in this series: I will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I like or support her, but because that's how feminism works."

Reclusive Leftist points out that even those right-center Hillary supporters that won't vote for McCain/Palin will become alienated from the Obama camp and she blames "Obamabots" preemptively for that.

The Palin pick is fricking genius, and since I'm a blogger and this is my blog I should probably take a minute here to blog about it.

Why is it a genius move? Because of two things:

1. It will make it easier for center-right Hillary supporters to vote Republican in the fall, and
2. (this is the genius part) It will complete the alienation of the rest of the Hillary supporters from the Obama camp. How? That's easy — the Obamabots will do it themselves. Go read the Washington Post blog or anywhere online where the Palin pick is being discussed, and you'll see the trademark Obama misogyny already out in full force. She's been on the ticket for two seconds and already the Obamabots are saying she "looks like a porn star," they're making rude remarks about her childbearing, they're ridiculing her intelligence.


The examples do not end there, but since this article is too long as it is, that is enough to see what is representative of what is being seen on Clinton supporting sites as well as just woman bloggers, one day after Palin was announced as McCain's VP choice.

For many women, the issues of sexism, women moving forward, misogynist attitudes and making history are more of a priority than abortion.

It wasn't John McCain's choice of Palin that are driving online donations and woman voters towards him, it is the reaction from the media and Obama supporting sites that is doing it for McCain.

As someone who writes about politics, day in and day out, seven days a week, I can say with full assuredness, this campaign season needed some "shaking up" and it has gotten it, in spades.

GOOD NEWS: Rasmussen shows Palin viewed more favorably than Biden.

.

Obama: The Hero of Change

Candidate Obama, unfortunately, has a loyal following of Democrats who either care less about integrity or qualifications or who are not bothering to check into his background.

If Obama were Republican, the liberal news media, would by now have investigated and found out connections to shady and terrorist connections and it would have been splashed around the world like a tidal wave! However he is an extreme liberal Democrat, so who cares about his background?

He is black, young, an excellent orator! Isn't that enough?

Well, no, it isn't!

Those do not strike me as being qualifications for leader of the free world.

Those who are love with the idea of Obama, are willfully ignorant of his connections to a weatherman terrorist who got off on a technicality but who wishes he had bombed more and who because he is now a liberal qualifies him to teach other "boys and girls" in university to be rebels as well.

Obama has connections or is friends with shady slumlords who instead of helping the very people Obama says he wants to benefit, the poor and oppressed, has hurt them. Is that change?

Many of the buildings built by these questionable characters are ready to be condemned after only a few years or badly in need of repairs or heat which was never turned on.
Is that change?

Yet Mr. Obama helped direct funding and monthly income flow to these slumlords. Is that change?

He supported known fixed elections in the Chicage area. Is that change?

He supported the current mayor of Chicago whose family has been connected with shady hiring and election practises for decades and turned his back on a reformer. Is that change?

He is more liberal than ALL other democrats in the senate. He is not even in favor of keeping babies alive who were still living after an abortion attempt. He is in favor of letting them die. Is that change?

His greatest mentors were all extremely radical liberals like Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright [should be pronounced "w-r-o-n-g"], "father" Michael Pfleger, and David Axelrod among others.

Questionable relationships and donations from, William Ayers, former Weatherman bomber, his friend and pastor for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, Superior Bank which used improper risk assessment and lost the savings of many depositors, convicted developer felon, Tony Rezko, who sold Obama his home for $300 000 below market value and bought the lot next door, later selling Obama a strip of it, "father" Michael Pfleger, Robert Blackwell Jr., Killerspin, EKI, Stuart Levine who helped steer over $50 million in teacher's retirement money to investment firm which gave him a $250,000 kickback, Alexi Giannoulias, Michael "Jaws" Giorgango, John Stroger and son Todd Stroger accused of questionable hiring practices for Cook County and Mayor Richard M Daley.

Questionable judgements:
1. Stays and listens to black racist preacher Jeremiah Wright [pronounced "W-r-o-n-g"] for 20 years!

2. Has relationships with suspicious characters and noted felons as listed above.

3. Seeks endorsement and receives endorsement of radical New Party,

4. Obama gets elected the first time by getting his competition thrown off the ballot.

5. Friends with developer Tony Rezko, who cannot afford to turn heat on in one of his slums, but can afford to give $1000 to Obama's campaign,

6. Co- sponsors bill to subsidize affordable housing units and direct money to developers while many of the homes have sewage backing up in sinks and a few years later are unlivable,

7. In 1998, writes to state and city officials to give $14.6 million for low-income housing project outside his Senate district with later problems as outlined previously,

8. Skips votes on key issues or votes "present" rather than commit himself to a point of view,

9. Accepts money from "father" Michael Phleger and later announces large state grants for his "ministry",

10. Retained as lawyer by EKI and Killerspin tournament, owned by Robert Blackwell Jr.,

11. Votes that babies born alive after attempted abortions should be left to die because of "women's right to choose",

12. Writes to Illinois officials requesting funds for Killerspin ping pong tournament, owned by Robert Blackwell Jr.,

13. Against war in Iraq, but removes that information from his website in 2003,

14. 2003 votes for more money for "affordable housing" creating demand for 7000 new units which allows private developers to circumvent local ordinances [in other words, they can lower their standards and make them cheap and incorrectly so that they often become unlivable,

15. 2004 continues to move more money to developers of sub-standard "affordable housing,

16. 2005 - decries short school day, but continues to vote in favor of more funds for teachers already making well above the national average. Teachers return favor by donating funds to his campaign.

17. October 2005 Obama votes to fund "Bridge to Nowhere" instead of sending money to rebuild New Orleans,

18. Endorses Alexi Giannoulias for state treasurer, a man with 'mafia' ties,

19. June 2006 - Obama votes against withdrawal from Iraq,

20. Obama criticized by liberal columnist, Eric Zorn, for endorsing Todd Stroger for President of Cook County Board of Commissioners, an organization which hires unqualified people who vote the right way,

21. November 2006 - Obama announces it is time to withdraw from Iraq, reversing his previous vote from 6 months previous,

22. February 2007 - Obama challenges Republican presidential candidates to pledge to take public financing for 2008 general election,

23. June 2008 - Obama opts out of public financing called for by him over a year earlier,

24. September 2007 - Obama votes to preserve funding for bike paths instead of redirecting it to bridge safety.

There is so much more, it is astounding. All of this is documented in the book,

"The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Reddoso, political reporter for National Review Online.

The author points out that Obama has the most "unlikely rise and unexamined agenda" due to being the mainline media's favored candidate.

I bet you didn't hear of any of this stuff from C-N-N or M-S-N-B-C, or any of the other Caps-Caps-C TV stations did you?

We have a right to ask, "Why not?"

Ask NOT what your country can do for you; but ask what YOU can do for YOUR country! - quoted by the "right wing" John F. Kennedy".

If Kennedy were alive he would be a Republican, since the unwritten motto of the Democratic party of today is "please take care of me and my buddies", as presented by Hilary Clinton to rounds of applause from the Democratic National Convention.

One might ask the question, "Whatever happened to taking care of yourself when you become an adult?"

There are obviously some who need our help, but surely not the majority of able adults.

My wife and I just took a photography tour around Colorado and in ALMOST EVERY RESTAURANT there was a NOW HIRING, sign!

Is Obama a reformer? An agent of change? His record speaks of patronage to the good-old-boys clubs of America.

Change? Yes, the change is, if Obama is elected, he will vote as he always has for every tax bill put forward, for radical amounts of money to projects which help no one except his buddies and sponsors.

If you think that is change, then America needs more prayer than many thought!

Long live the Straight-Shooters, John McCain and Sarah Palin, who HAVE voted for reform and REAL CHANGE!

Saturday, 30 August 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

Mother Convicted Of Microwaving Month-Old Daughter To Death

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 11:48 AM CDT

Dayton, Ohio took the spotlight yesterday, with the announcement from John McCain about his choice of a running mate. Something else happened in Dayton that received far less attention. China Arnold, 28, was convicted of microwaving her one-month-old baby
This was Arnold's second trial with the first having been declared a mistrial and after closing arguments on Thursday, the jury deliberated and came back Friday with a guilty verdict for aggravated murder, which potentially holds a punishment of the death sentence.

According to prosecutors, the 28 year-old mother, China Arnold, put her one-month-old baby, Paris Talley, in a microwave, turned it on and burned her baby to death, after having a fight with her boyfriend.

The baby's DNA was found inside the microwave, according to CNN.

The defense had claimed there was someone else there and responsible for murdering the baby. Defense attorney Jon Paul Rion cited testimony from a 8 year-old boy who they allege saw another boy take the baby into the kitchen, claims the child heard the microwave go on, then later saw the baby burned in the microwave.

The 8 year-old boys mother testified on Wednesday that they lived a distance away and that her child was not at Arnold's apartment complex when the baby was murdered.

The original trial was declared a mistrial on February 11, 2008, after Judge John Kessler heard private testimony from the 8 year-old boy.

Other testimony came from Arnold's cell mate who testified that Arnold admitted to putting the baby inside the microwave, saying she was worried her boyfriend would leave her if he found out the infant wasn't his.

Arnold showed no reaction when the jury announced the guilty verdict, reports say she just lowered her head and looked at the table before her while relatives observing in the courtroom cried and covered their faces with their hands.

.

Apocalypse Now: The River of Lies

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 06:03 AM CDT

Thoughts on seeing Apocalypse Now again:

Cross posted from Radarsite

It's 1979 and a young Martin Sheen is taking us up that fateful river again. He is our wise and somber Virgil, our guide, our narrator, the ORM (the Only Rational Man) leading us up that labyrinthine river of death and insanity which is our national crucible, our Vietnam War. That great river of no return, that winding thread of dark infuriating lies that will take us further and further into the Heart of Darkness, into the Heart of Darkness of our great national shame and guilt and self-loathing. This was the real secret mission of that clandestine journey. And they almost succeeded.

It's the summer of 2008 and I'm taking that trip with him once again and I am breathless and speechless in shock and wonder at the enormity my previous innocence and gullibility. I am overcome by the tragedy of it all. Not just by the horrors of that bloody and inconclusive war, but overcome by what they, the narrators have done to us all. Our trusted and revered guides have all but ruined us with the binding threads of their dark unscrupulous lies. Up the river we follow them into that great cynical myth, slaughtering myriad innocent women and little children, laying waste to the fertile land, sacrificing a small courageous people in the fiery embrace of Napalm, swooping in on the little schoolchildren playing in their schoolyard, like great birds of prey, accompanied by those brutal and bombastic sounds of the furies of hell, those Hitlerian Wagnerian orgasms of supremacist passion, the demonic sounds of that self-righteous, contemptuous warrior's passion. We are all too young, much to young to know what the hell we're doing, we're all dopeheads and surfers, sadistic, drunken sex-starved smiling adolescent American monsters, smiling the awful smiles of insanity as we slaughter our helpless prey. Meaningless slaughter. Pointless death. Ghastly unnecessary erroneous war. Monumental moral blunder.

And what finally do we find at the end of that gruesome river, at the end of our perilous journey? We find ourselves. And the discovery is alarming. Madness, arrogant, ruthless, contempt of all that is fine and good in human nature, thoughtlessly obliterating a fine nation for inscrutable and indefensible motives. A big stupid illiterate giant stumbling around the world in our drunken orgy of self-gratification. We have become the monsters we once abhorred, too young and naive to even begin to appreciate the enormity of our loss, that loss of all that which we once held dear. This is the grave and ominous lesson of that journey into the Heart of Darkness, into the Heart of our National Moral Darkness. This is the lesson of that ominous voyage, the message of our profound and wise Virgil, our trusted guide, our ORM. This, then, shall be our new national narrative: The epic downward spiral of a once great nation into that great hopeless moral miasma.

This is what they have done to us, this is what they have wrought. Our honored Virgils, our trusted guides, our respected ORM. This, what we have become, is their doing, this is the product of their genuis and ideology and their talent. With the power of their heavy-handed symbols and crude metaphors they have almost succeeded in redefining our national narrative. We have almost become lost in that impenetrable jungle of lies and propaganda. We have almost lost our way and have almost lost our humanity. We have, they have convinced us, sinned greatly, monumentally, against all mankind, and all that saves us from oblivion is heeding their grave warnings, the warnings of our false Virgils, the concerned admonishments of our counterfeit ORM. Oh, and they have worked their magic well. They have taught us how to hate ourselves with great sincerity and how to love our enemies, and , finally, how to find hope and solace in our boundless self-contempt. There is, they tell us, still that one possible chance for salvation -- our willingness to face up to our past mistakes and to try to make amends. To give up all of our old selfish and contemptible imperialistic warrior dreams and join the humble brotherhood of man. It's not too late yet, they tell us. There is still time. If we just follow their lead.

So I have taken that old trip up that long loathsome river once again and I am all but speechless in shock and wonder at my previous ignorance and gullibility. But no longer. Now my eyes have been opened, now I can see the corrupt degenerate treachery of our false guides, our false Virgils. Their lessons are lies and their messages are empty. They have almost ruined us with their deceptions and their purposeful distortions of the truth. They had almost succeeded, they had almost robbed us of our self-respect, our hard-won and well-earned self-respect. But ultimately they have failed to destroy us. Because we can still remember, we can still remember the truth of who we are, despite their most talented and ambitious efforts to obliterate it.

We are a great fine people. We are a great fine nation. We owe no apologies to anyone -- least of all to ourselves. In the end the false storytellers with their secret agendas have failed. It is the beginning of a new season now, we are beginning to create a new narrative. A narrative founded on truth and hope and promise. We are looking for new guides now, for new Virgils. Not to lead us down into the depths of self-immolation and despair, but to lift us up to the heights of promise and fulfilment. We are looking for guides now who will teach us how to love ourselves once again and regain the strength of the righteous warriors that we are. We are free and we are kind and decent. And the old men's tales, the False Virgil's lies just won't do anymore.

"Who is Sarah Palin"?

Posted: 30 Aug 2008 05:00 AM CDT
















abc news and other msm may be headlining their stories on Sarah Palin with the title "Who is Sarah Palin?", but I'm thinking that by now, not many people are cluelss as to who she is, and what she represents for America.

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, is a self-described hockey mum, who was busy raising her kids. Married for 20 years to her high school sweetheart Todd; today is their anniversary. As she says, some of life's blessings come unexpectedly:

"Some of life's greatest opportunities come unexpectedly, and this is certainly the case today. I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office. My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school. And my husband and I, we both grew up working with our hands....

Read the rest at NewsBlaze here.

*And yes, it is also up in all the usual places...lol*

McCain/Palin: The Shortest Critique on the Web

Posted: 29 Aug 2008 05:53 PM CDT


Let me see if I've got this right -- the glamorous young candidate for change has picked for his running mate an old insider politco rerun, and the old geezer has picked a fresh young vibrant newcomer. Wow. Now who's the candidate for change here?


.

Obama Retreats From Campaign's 'Hair Trigger' Response To McCain's VP pick of Palin

Posted: 29 Aug 2008 05:16 PM CDT


John McCain chooses Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, announces it, and the Obama campaign issues a statement that Obama refers to as a "hair trigger" reaction, right before he backs away from that initial reaction.

Beautiful optics.

Many said when they first saw Bill Burton's quick response from the Barack Obama's campaign which questioned Sarah Palin's experience credentials, that they should be very careful about "going there", and it seems that Obama himself is backing slowing away from the cookie jar.

The campaign's initial response:

John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.


Right there they managed to insult small towns again, remember the "bitter" middle Americans that "cling to their guns and religion" remarks that Obama once made.

Also, Palin has been a mayor and was elected as a Governor, both of which are executive electoral positions, to which Senators are not.

For the record for those that do not understand the difference:

A governor is a person elected by the people of a state to be the top leader in that state. They have many of the same powers that a president have, but only on a state level. They can pardon criminals prosecuted by the state, they can sign and veto bills passed by the congress of the state. They can appoint people to certain positions, and they speak for the state on matters regarding the state.

A Senator, is one of two elected by every state. A Senator represents their states constituency by making and voting on laws that are created by congress. Some Senators also serve on various committees.

So, looks like Palin, who is on the number two position of the Republican ticket has more executive experience than Obama does on the number one spot of the Democratic ticket.

Hence the idiocy of the Obama campaign's original response.

Which brings us to see Bill Burton tossed right under the bus for his "hair trigger" response issued by the Obama campaign.

Once Obama realized exactly how that would be used against him, he backed away very very carefully.

At a stop in Monaca, Pa., Barack Obama seemed to distance himself from his campaign's first, harshly critical response to the Palin pick.

"I think that, uh, you know, campaigns start getting these, uh, hair triggers and, uh, the statement that Joe and I put out reflects our sentiments," he said, according to the pool report, apparently criticizing his staff for going overboard, as he did occasionally in the primary.


HEH

Here is the "official" statement that reflects their real feelings, which aren't the feelings expressed in the first statement shown above, according to Obama:

We send our congratulations to Governor Sarah Palin and her family on her designation as the republican nominee for Vice President. It is yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics. While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward Governor Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign," said Senator Barack Obama and Senator Joe Biden.


Hoisted by your own petard!

Talk Left encourages the Obama campaign to tread carefully regarding Palin....too late, that original statement is out there and is not going away.

No Quarters speaks about "Barack's Chutzpah Moment".. amusing.


I never realized how shrewd and smart John McCain could be. (Check Memeorandum.com to see all the stories that now dominate the news coverage.) In selecting Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as his running mate he dared the Democrats to make the case, as they have, that she's not qualified because she "lacks foreign policy experience." He understands that when the media decides to investigate Governor Palin they will be forced to conclude that she actually has more foreign policy experience than Obama. As Susan pointed out below, she was in Germany visiting wounded troops long before Barack sought to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. She is a Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard and those troops have been in combat.

So, if you are running Barack's campaign, you don't want to renew the focus on your own candidate's zero experience as an elected executive do you? Oh hell yes. Clueless to the concept of irony the Barack team is trying to attack Palin's "paltry" experience. They did this with a straight face. Did anyone think to check Barack Obama's resume?


Read the rest...

Since McCain's VP announcement we also see that Dr. James Dobson,head of Focus On The Family, an influential Colorado-based ministry, who once declared he would never vote for John McCain has just announced he is voting for Mccain/Palin in 2008.

Lets see, what else are we seeing by way of reactions......well, the Volokh Conspiracy brings news of some wonderful reactions over at a Clinton forum.....they are loving Palin as McCain's choice.

Evidently the Obama campaign was completely unprepared for Mccain's choice as shown by a dispatch over at The Caucus.

11:40 a.m. | Obama Reaction:
The Times's Jeff Zeleny has the following dispatch:

The Obama campaign had no immediate response to reports that Senator John McCain has selected the little-known Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, as his running-mate. Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Biden talked to reporters, but Mr. Biden could be seen wearing a wide smile in the front cabin of the plane.

Ms. Palin came as a surprise not only to many Republicans and journalists, but also to the Obama team. The campaign has been busily preparing TV commercials to run against Mitt Romney — with aides gleefully watching hours of footage of Romney-McCain exchanges from the primary — but far little opposition research had been prepared about the Alaska governor. And aides said no commercials were ready to be immediately released, which the McCain campaign did when Mr. Biden was chosen.

The takeoff of the Democratic campaign plane was delayed for about 30 minutes, so aides were busily trying to learn all they could about the Palin pick.

With the Democratic ticket in the air for the next four hours, the new Republican team will own the television coverage for nearly half the day.

Should Democrats have anticipated this and left Denver sooner, so the Obama-Biden duo could be seen campaigning on a split TV screen with the McCain-Palin pair? Or was it wise to simply let Republicans spend the day airing out their views of this very unexpected choice?


Ouch!

Here is another little tidbit from LA Times Top of the Ticket:

At organizational convention meetings in St. Paul this afternoon word was passed that some $2 million in new donations had poured into the campaign and Republican National Committee within three hours of Palin's announcement.


Reactions have been coming out all day, I went over a few earlier and you can see all the buzz over at memeorandum.

If I see any more must read reactions, I will update.


Previously:

VIDEO of McCain-Palin Rally in Dayton, Ohio


Video Clip of Portion of Palin's Speech

It Is Official, Sarah Palin Is John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate

.

VIDEO of McCain-Palin Rally in Dayton, Ohio

Posted: 29 Aug 2008 01:56 PM CDT

Full video of the Dayton Ohio Rally below with John McCain announcing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his VP pick, and her full speech accepting.




First and Second piece on Palin as the Veep pick can be found here and here.

New York Times provides the transcript from the Ohio rally.

.

Video Clip of Portion of Palin's Speech

Posted: 29 Aug 2008 01:12 PM CDT

[UPDATE] Full 26 plus minutes of the Ohio rally with McCain announcing his VP pick of Sarah Palin and Palin's full speech, found here.


By now everyone knows McCain chose Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, as his VP running mate pick, below is a video clip of a portion of her speech.



More on Palin from ABC:

The 44-year-old Palin brings working class roots and appeal to female voters, becoming only the second female vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket and a first for the GOP.

She also brings a reputation as a reformer, beauty pageant good looks, a crack shot with a rifle and a eagerness for political combat that earned her the nickname of "Sarah Barracuda."

Being first is nothing to new to Palin (pronounced PALE-IN). She is the first female governor as well as the youngest governor ever of the Last Frontier, the 49th state to join the Union in 1959 and one of the country's least populous states.

Palin became governor just two years ago after defeating Republican incumbent Frank Murkowski in a GOP primary.

"Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president," the McCain campaign asserted in a statement. "Governor Palin has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of. Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today."


More at Top of the Ticket.

[Update] Sonny from America's Future is begging the Obama campaign to focus on the experience factor.

The McCain campaign is hoping and praying that someone will say that Palin is unready for the job. "Please," John McCain is praying right now AS I TYPE, "Let a Democrat say that an executive with 2 years of experience and no foreign policy expertise isn't ready for the presidency. Oh pretty please. Because you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take that soundbite, put it in an ad, slap Obama's mug up there, and run it over and over and over again."

Because Palin has exactly as much experience as Obama–arguably more, since she's an executive. The only difference is that she isn't running for president.

This is an interesting pick. It's a play for white, female Democrats–and you're always better off aiming at a constituency than "trying to win a state," something that never happens.


Massive blog and media buzz over this VP pick over at memeorandum.

.

Friday, 29 August 2008

Wake up America

Wake up America

It Is Official, Sarah Palin Is John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate

Posted: 29 Aug 2008 10:10 AM CDT


After weeks of speculation about who John McCain would choose to be his vice presidential running mate, the "John McCain Veep Watch" is over and it is official that Sarah Palin has been chosen by McCain.
Official word has just been reported by AFP, and other news sources. regarding John McCain and his vice presidential pick and it has been confirmed to be Sarah Palin.

Republican White House hopeful John McCain on Friday named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, US media reported.

Fox and CNN said that campaign sources confirmed the surprise choice of Palin, 44, just minutes away from the start of a rally here where the Republican will make the official announcement.


After early word from Chicago Tribune which stated a Republican source had confirmed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was John McCain's vice presidential running mate pick as well as early speculation that Palin had arrived in Dayton Ohio, the news has been confirmed that Sarah Palin is, indeed, McCain's choice.

Governor Palin's official website is down for the moment, it is assumed there are changes being made.

Palin was the first and youngest female Governor elected in Alaska in 2006 after she defeated the incumbent governor in the Republican primary, then a former Democratic Alaskan governor in the general election.

According to Associated Press reports Palin likens herself to a maverick as McCain has often been likened to and she is credited with being a candidate of reform.

On the issues, her votes shows her to be pro-life, believes that the definition of marriage only be between and man and a woman, says she would sign a death penalty law if legislators passed it, she believes in fully funding K-12 and support early funding of education, believes ANWR should be open to drilling, she supports the Constitutional right to bear arms and she believes "nuisance taxes" including the tire tax should be repealed.

Definitely not a choice many would call "safe" for John McCain, but definitely a choice that shows a willingness to think out of the box, so to speak.

This will definitely energize the Republican Convention this year, she is a mother of 5 and if the Mccain/Palin team is elected in November, she will be the first Women Vice President of the United states of America.

KUDOS JOHN MCCAIN.

More from Wapo.

[Update] If the McCain/Palin ticket is elected in the November presidential election, this would make Sarah Palin the first woman Vice President of the United states of America.

[Update] Palin will be the first woman ever to serve on a Republican ticket and the first Alaskan ever to appear on a national ticket.

[Update] The official press release from the John McCain campaign announcing the choice of Sarah Palin as his VP pick:

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today announced that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate and to serve as his vice president.

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.

Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

Governor Palin has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of. Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today.


This will be up within minutes at the John McCain website.

[Update] Obama campaigns expected response:

John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same


A commenter on another forum, answers that beautifully, so I will quote her here:

McCain elder Washington statesman/insider running for Pres, grooming ambitious like-minded Female for the next go round; Biden elder Washington stateman/insider running for V-P guiding younger Black Man who is President. Which one makes more sense to you?


Nicely said GHL and thanks.

Statement from the Illinois GOP just hot my email box:

"Once again John McCain has proven that he is the leader who will move this country forward.

"This historic decision is a reminder that John McCain is serious about bringing real change to Washington D.C.

"Governor Palin is a proven leader who has taken on members of her own party, led on ethics reform, and has fought wasteful spending and higher taxes.

"This bold pick confirms our doubts about Barack Obama's abilities to change the country when he has done nothing to change Illinois."



More to come......

.

The View From Down Under: How the Aussies See America

Posted: 28 Aug 2008 11:50 PM CDT




The View From Down Under




Most Americans I think have a high regard for Aussies, based on our traditional mutual support of one another in our common wars. These positive views were I believe re-enforced recently with the rather sudden appearance of a whole bunch of first-rate Aussie movies in the 70s -- among some of my favorites would be Gallipoli and Breaker Morant. Then of course everybody loved Mel Gibson and Crocodile Dundee. Aussie culture quickly became the latest rage with the American in crowd.

But Americans really don't know what Aussies think about them. And I think they might be surprised. I for one was very much surprised by the amount of support and honest affection for America coming from down under -- especially considering that our own leftist media has us all thinking that everyone in the world hates our guts.

So I approached my good friend and fellow collaborator KG at Crusader Rabbit in Australia.

Now, anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting CR already knows about their loyal band of regular commenters, smart, outspoken, fearless, and surprisingly well-informed about the state of affairs in the good ole US of A. So why not ask them? Why not give them the chance to voice their unique opinions about this beleaguered country of ours? Both the pros and the cons. Without their being filtered through the notoriously biased medias of both continents. Just plain old fashioned straight talk between fellow bloggers, just regular guys and gals who just happen to know what the hell they're talking about. So our good KG bought the idea and here we go. I hope my American readers find this as enlightening as I do.

Although, perhaps unfairly we too often use the all-emcompassing term Aussies, we are, as you shall see, equally blessed to have many good friends and loyal readers from New Zealand as well. And obviously we look forward to your opinions with the same interest.

So, without further preamble, here are a selection of some of the comments we have thus far received, the good, the bad, and hopefully not too much of the ugly. This is a brand new venture so we haven't really developed any rules -- just the usual deleting of obscenities and overtly anti-American rants. This will be for now at least an open ended posting; if more comments come in, we will simply add them to the article.

Thank you all for your kind enthsiasm and your thoughtful offerings. We begin with a nice compliment from Katie:

Katie
It is a great idea. I too would love to hear the opinions from you guys.
Katie Homepage

Well Katie,I've made my feelings very plain for years now, but I'll kick off with this:There are millions of us worldwide who aare "American, just born in another place" as someone once said. We admire America for her liberties, her principled stand for freedom, for the decency and integrity of the overwhelming majority of her people. We see American airplanes and ships first on the scene of natural disasters, helping out with typical generosity and efficiency those who very often have had nothing good to say about her.We also see an enormous military that for all it's fearsome efficiency still manages to be extremely careful to distinguish the innocent from the enemy combatants, and takes casualties as a result.A powerhouse of innovation, inventiveness and productivity, a country where alternative viewpoints aren't subject to State terror.The list goes on and it's a damn long list at that.Do I regard America as perfect? Of course not--no country ever is nor ever can be. But I regard her as the closest thing yet to a free society and still the gold standard for liberty. It'll be a grim day indeed for the world should America ever fail to lead.
kg
Homepage 08.27.08 - 10:05 am #

As Richard Jeni said: "America - fifty million illegal immigrants can't be wrong". And as I say: If America is really the "Great Satan", an awful lot of people seem to want to dance with the devil. Wake Up 08.27.08 - 10:48 am #

I like Americans. In general they are polite, truthful and VERY patriotic. They would rather live in their own land rather than anywhere else (like us Aussies. Milk and cookies and a good knowledge of their nation's history is evident.Their election process worries me. It seems to be more about the availability of money for a campaign than actual issues. If I was an American I WOULD vote even though it is not compulsory. The Democrats will send the country to the shitter especially in these time when military might is paramount.The Brits have disowned us in defence (shafted us in the past) and we need the USA as our big brother.I worry that sometimes the Americans are too self absorbed and don't know enough of what goes on in the outside world. They have a huge country so it may be that there is no need for them to look outside their borders for the average citizen.Americans are portrayed on TV and in film as stereotypes. Stereotypes are few and far between. It is the plebeian public that chooses to accept what is portrayed through the media.It's only a small contribution KG but I hope it helps.
Marc
Anonymous 08.28.08

Thanks Marc--it sure does.
kg 08.28.08 -

Go read here
Tiberius
Homepage 08.28.08

And I didn't fuck up the link either!
Tiberius
Homepage 08.28.08

Let me get the bad out of the way first, what i don't like about America
In a word, liberals. If you want me to list some of the things i don't like, bear in mind these aren't common to all Americans or confined only to America.Promiscuity.Materialism.Soft on immigration, i understand many Americans want strict controls, but there are enough who don't see the negative long-term effects of illegal immigration.The walls in apartment blocks are so thin.Have i mentioned liberals?You still pay tax.Aren't all the above the fault of lierbals, alright maybe not the walls, but you see why i don't like them don't you.
What i like about America.T he right to bear arms, yeah, yeah banging that old drum again.The armed forces of the United States. America is a force for good in this world. Free speech, and i mean real free speech, not the kind the rest of us think we have. It's a beacon for liberty and safety.I t's the least socialist country i know of. America knows what to do with evil scum.The help that Americans freely give to the poor and suffering around the world.America saves us the true cost of standing on our own.Americas military hardware, wow.
In America, you are free to succeed and free to fail. Everything is bigger in America. Americas' existence and success grates with Liberals the world over. America stands in the way of Communism.They killed those Nazi bastards. Didn't they save our asses in WWII. You don't pay as much tax in America. Fast food. Cheerleaders. The punisher. Cars are so much cheaper in America.What America has done in Iraq.The point of this post, Americans care what others think about them.
MK
Homepage 08.28.08
Read the rest at Radarsite:

Text Of Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech As Prepared For Delivery

Posted: 28 Aug 2008 08:50 PM CDT

Word is Barack Obama made some last minute changes but this is the text as prepared for delivery, via Freep.com.

Nothing unexpected in the speech shown below and makes John McCain's commercial before and after Obama's speech that much more poignant and a stroke of genius!!!

First McCain's ad which has been shown before Obama's speech on television in battleground states and will be shown afterward as well, then read on for Obama's speech:



To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.
.
Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest – a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia – I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments – a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives – on health care and education and the economy – Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.


Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President – when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans – have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose – our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what – it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.




.

John McCain Ad Playing During Barack Obama's Speech says 'Congratulations'

Posted: 28 Aug 2008 05:21 PM CDT



The McCain campaign will be airing an ad during the network coverage of Obama's acceptance speech given at the Invesco Field in Denver. John McCain speaks to the camera and congratulates Barack Obama.
Many have preemptively criticized for what they assumed would be a direct attack against Barack Obama, via network commercials during Barack Obama's acceptance speech, with a first of it's kind ad from the McCain campaign.

The ad is out and contrary to massive speculation earlier in the day, John McCain uses the moment to congratulate Barack Obama.

Text of the ad shown above:

"Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight Senator, job well done."

The ad will be running Thursday on national cable television channels before and after Obama's address.

The Obama campaign, via ABC's Political Punch, says it was "a very nice gesture" with Obama campaign manager stating, "We appreciate that. I wish more of his ads had that tone. But for tonight we appreciate it and will congratulate him next week on his nomination."

Kudos to John McCain.... stroke of genius Dude.

.

Does Security Detail Tip Off Media Again Regarding Mitt Romney Choice For McCain?-- Updated and Bumped to Top

Posted: 28 Aug 2008 02:58 PM CDT

[Updates] It is looking like Romney might just be the choice. See below.

As they did last week when Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice presidential choice of running mate, the media is full of stories today about the possibilities and speculation of John McCain's choice. Does news of security details again blow the secret?
John McCain vice presidential watch has evidently already begun for the media and stories are coming out speculating over who the choice would be, what the ramifications of certain choices will be, new political tricks that will be implemented and the possibility of fireworks at the Republican Convention next week.

With the media saying McCain has chosen his pick to be announced on Friday and John McCain playing coy and refuting that assertion and news of a special first-of-it's-kind type of ad prepared with John McCain speaking directly into the camera and issuing a messages expected to be aimed at Barack Obama, to be viewed tonight during the media coverage of Obama's acceptance speech, being announced, a few other stories are floating around the web.

The latest one, from Roll Call, says that sources tell them of some type of security sweep having been performed at Mitt Romney's sister's house by the Secret Service, which is leading to more speculation about whether Mitt Romney is the person who will be announced as John McCain's vice presidential running mate.

Other sources caution it is possible a security sweep would be performed if Romney were not the pick but would be appearing as some sort of surrogate at an event and a McCain campaign stop in Michigan.

Even more sources suggest to Roll Call that Romney has had a new security detail for the last few days, without word on whether the detail was from Secret Service or some other security service.

Via The Politico, it is being reported that John McCain has a new ad, with him speaking directly into the camera, which will be shown during the coverage tonight of Obama's acceptance speech.

Tonight, John McCain will talk directly to his opponent in a television ad his campaign is airing in battleground states, around the time Barack Obama accepts the presidential nomination, McCain's campaign said.

Aides would give few details beyond the fact that McCain will speak directly to the camera, addressing Obama.


Drudge Report suggests that word will leak about McCain's Veep choice, to the media at approximate six p.m. with news outlets receiving "some sort" of confirmation by eight p.m, with Obama scheduled to speak between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m at Invesco Field in Denver. The New York Times and The Politico reports that Democratic officials are concerned about Obama's speech in that type of venue will reinforce McCain's ad messages which compare Obama to a "celebrity".

According to McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker in an appearance on MSNBC, describes the McCain ad as "an historic ad," saying, "I think this is the first of its kind." She goes on to state, "Sen. McCain is going to have an ad that's going to air in battleground states around the time that Sen. Obama is speaking tonight. He's going to be talking directly to his opponent. So, I'm going to leave it there. But it's going be very exciting. I think that a lot of people are going to focus on it."

This has, of course, fueled speculation about whether McCain will announce his vice presidential pick during that ad that will be airing while Obama gives his speech, with some even taking the guessing game to a new level by suggesting that McCain may surprise everyone and announce a female Veep pick.

Last but not least in this segment of the McCain Veep Watch, is the potential for fireworks at the Republican Convention next week if John McCain should pick a a pro-choice candidate, such as Joseph Lieberman or Tom Ridge, with diehard conservatives threatening to cause a floor fight, which is reported on by ABC News.

For political junkies, bloggers and writers, this would a goldmine of writing material, but for the Republican Party itself, it would be a nightmare.

[Update] Fox News just reported that spokesman for McCain, Rick Davis, has just confirmed for them that John McCain has made his final choice on his vice presidential running mate selection.

For some the "McCain Veep Watch," just became a Secret Service and "who is flying to Dayton" for tomorrows announcement watch.

[Update] Pawlenty has been reported by LA Times Top of the Ticket, to have cleared his schedule for today and tomorrow, further adding speculation into the mix that perhaps he was chosen instead of Romney.

Fox News has confirmed that Pawlenty has not canceled his weekly radio show to be conducted from Minneapolis on Friday.

Fox News is also reporting, via television, that unconfirmed reports say that Romney was seen leaving leaving San Diego with a bag and perhaps guarded by Secret Service.


Additional Note- It is also possible that Romney hired his own security as some sort of red herring after having seen how that type of news news tipped reporters off last week about the Obama choice.

.

Obama-Ayers: Failed Chicago Schools Under Ethnic Identity Agenda

Posted: 28 Aug 2008 02:56 PM CDT

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook



Bill Ayers
Chicago Magazine Photo


Angry Obama supporters were asked to contact WGN's 720 Extension radio talk show en masse to encourage the station to drop an interview with Stanley Kurtz, a National Review Online contributor with new information on Barack Obama. The show went on.

No secret now, why the Obama Campaign is desperately trying to silence National Review Online's Stanley Kurtz.

Milt Rosenberg's two-hour interview on WGN Radio last night with Kurtz revealed some of the agenda behind a late 1990's Chicago public school program, of which Barack Obama was at the helm.

When news of the pending interview broke, the Obama campaign sent out emails, detailing talking points, and asking supporters to flood the radio station with calls and email messages, which they did. (The Obama Wire email appears at the end of this article.)

The Obama campaign was offered to participate in the entire two hour interview. According to Rosenberg's producer, after the offer was made, a high-level Obama staffer asked for the name of the station manager and then hung up on the producer.

I have listened to the entire interview. It is available for your listening pleasure here:


Background and my synopsis of the interview:
The University of Illinois released documents yesterday that propelled this conversation forward. Barack Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, who spent a number of years on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List, were the leading powers behind a massive educational reform for the city of Chicago. Then Secretary of Education, William Bennett stated that the Chicago educational system was the worst in the Nation.

William Ayers prepared the proposal that got the seed money for the education reform program that would become the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - some $50M from the Annenberg Foundation, which was then matched by philanthropists and business interests - to total over $100M for Chicago's failing school system.

With the money came the need for a organization - hence the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was formed. The Chairman of the Board was Barack Obama. William Ayers was an ex-officio board member. The two attended meetings together...how often is not yet known.

Obama and Ayers presided over a very powerful political duo: The CAC headed by Obama and The Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.

It allegedly worked like this: "Programs" would apply to the CAC for an educational grant. Some programs were chosen, and others were not. Before the CAC was disbanded, almost all, if not all, of the monies were spent.

Kurtz, reading from yesterday's released documents, gave these examples of who or what received the grants:

Chosen to receive a grant:
The South Shore African Village Collaborative for their "Celebrate African-American Holiday of Juneteenth" (celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation). Some African-Americans celebrate Juneteenth instead of the Fourth of July (a report fromTexas). Kurtz commented that in his reporting of Obama's previous church, Trinity United Church of Christ, some members told him that Juneteenth was their Independence Day, not Fourth of July (Kurtz did not say that all members held this view).

Turned down to receive a grant:
*The Chicago Algebra Project: goal to increase student achievement

*The District 5 Math Initiative: goal to aid Hispanic students in the process of learning English, to further learn math and science.

Kurtz characterized the information he viewed as showing grant preferences for ethnic identity projects. The grants were evidently not given to schools, but rather to "external partners," to which schools sought to attach themselves - such as a South Shore African Village Collaborative.

In the meantime, after "external partners" received millions, ethnic identity didn't help math and science scores. It is interesting to note that this Chairman of the Board position was Obama's first "executive" experience.

There's more: Obama's connections to the Gamaliel Foundation, Kurtz says has a "core point" advocating for a form of" liberation theology." He further states that his research shows that Jeremiah Wright's Black Liberation Theology preaching is not an anomaly.

Kurtz refers to a book written by Dennis A. Jacobsen, Doing Justice - Congregations and Community Organizing. This book, according to Kurtz, embodies the views of the Gamaliel Foundation. Further he asserts that Greg Galluzo, "the most important figure" in the Gamaliel Foundation, approves Jacobsen's book, and is also an Obama mentor. Kurtz believes that Obama was a teacher at the Gamaliel Foundation before Jacobsen wrote the book. Kurtz does not know whether Obama has read the book.

The last portion of the interview was given to callers and emails, most of which were angry that Kurtz was allowed radio time. One emailer confused Kurtz with Weekly Standard editor, Bill Kristol, referring to "the vile traitor Bill Kristol." Another asked about FCC oversight of the "unbalanced" station.

It was striking that few callers had anything to say more than the email's talking points. Some pulled out the constant whine that Obama was only eight years old when the Weathermen were bombing our U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, the State Department building, etc. They further pointed out Obama has "denounced" William Ayers. He did not, however, denounce him until he was forced to for the sake of his political campaign, and he wasn't eight years old when he and Ayers began their educational reform.

Obama Wire email as printed in The Politico.
From: Obama Action Wire
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2008
Subject: Chicago: CALL TONIGHT to fight the latest smear

[Name] —

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of
the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a
forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's
currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00
p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and
University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing
baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of
political discourse.

Call into the "Extension 720" show with Milt Rosenberg at (312) 591-7200

(Show airs from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. tonight)

Then report back on your call at http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards

Kurtz has been using his absurd TV appearances in an awkward and
dishonest attempt to play the terrorism card. His current ploy is to
embellish the relationship between Barack and Ayers.

Just last night on Fox News, Kurtz drastically exaggerated Barack's
connection with Ayers by claiming Ayers had recruited Barack to the
board of the Annenberg Challenge. That is completely false and has
been disproved in numerous press accounts.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character
assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our
public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest
rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

Kurtz is scheduled to appear from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in the Chicago market.

Calling will only take a minute, and it will make a huge difference if
we nip this smear in the bud. Confront Kurtz tonight before this goes
any further:

http://my.barackobama.com/WGNstandards
Please forward this email to everyone you know who can make a call tonight.
Keep fighting the good fight,
Obama Action Wire
Disclaimer: This is my view and my word-processed interpretation of portions of the interview, although I have diligently attempted to represent the conversation closely, if not exactly, as I heard it.

Related:
Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown (Kurtz)
Inside Obama's Acorn (Kurtz)

Obama/Ayers Funnel Funds to Jeremiah Wright and The Arab American Network?

Why the Obama-Ayers Connection Matters

Conflict: The Power of Propaganda trailer

If Mr. Carter had stuck to Habitat for Humanity instead of Inaccurate Boloney, we could admire him and I did. He has lost all credibility due to his ignorance of the truth in the Middle East. What a sad legacy to leave! Some have said that he has consumed too many bad peanuts and it has affected his brain making him nuttier in his old age.

Blacks Held Back - Dr. Walter E Williams

THE NEW GAME: POWER CLING !!!

Obama learned his lesson well


"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky


Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties....

"One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky....Her series, called 'The Orderly Revolution', made Alinsky famous....

"Alinsky’s crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. ...

"Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

"Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." [by Richard Poe, 11-27-07] See also Community Oriented Policing


Quote from Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules for Radicals"

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

The one thing he did not learn is the passion of FREE people to be free! - Press4TRuth

Saul Alinsky - Mentor of Obama

WorldNetDaily

War on Gaza. Whoops!

What Obama DOES NOT Know Can Hurt Us


The Financial Post today carried the following article by Alex Epstein that pretty well sums up the problem with a president with NO economic or business experience.

Obama doesn’t get roots of crisis
Posted: April 07, 2009, 7:04 PM by NP Editor
By Alex Epstein

Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”
Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government. For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behaviour leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government.
Fact This decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets — via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s size and influence.
Fact Through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote home ownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers.
Fact Most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.
How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention and more government housing programs as the solution.
A genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim — and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention — like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?
Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.
But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For it, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, the administration is too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets — which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.
While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, the public should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here — namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls and government make-work projects.
Alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist — ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores — and everyone should seek to understand them. Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to those who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.
Financial Post
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Deciphering Obama in Cairo


Deciphering Obama in Cairo

Center for Security Policy | Jun 05, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

By and large, President Obama's address yesterday in Cairo has been well received in both the so-called "Muslim world" and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood - the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam's theo-political-legal program known as "Shariah" through stealthy means where violence ones are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech.

The Brotherhood has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love freedom - whether or not they recognize the threat Shariah represents to it - have abundant cause for concern about "The Speech," and what it portends for U.S. policy and interests.

Right out of the box, Mr. Obama mischaracterized what is causing a "time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world." He attributed the problem first and foremost to "violent extremists [who] have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." The President never mentioned - not even once - a central reality: The minority in question, including the Muslim Brotherhood, subscribes to the authoritative writings, teachings, traditions and institutions of their faith, namely Shariah. It is the fact that their practice is thus grounded that makes them, whatever their numbers (the exact percentage is a matter of considerable debate), to use Mr. Obama euphemistic term, "potent."

Instead, the President's address characterized the problem as a "cycle of suspicion and discord," a turn of phrase redolent of the moral equivalence so evident in the Mideast peace process with it "cycle of violence." There was not one reference to terrorism, let alone Islamic terrorism. Indeed, any connection between the two is treated as evidence of some popular delusion. "The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust."

Then there was this uplifting, but ultimately meaningless, blather: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."

More often than not, the President portrayed Muslims as the Brotherhood always does: as victims of crimes perpetrated by the West against them - from colonialism to manipulation by Cold War superpowers to the menace of "modernity and globalization that led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam." Again, no mention of the hostility towards the infidel West ingrained in "the traditions of Islam." This fits with the meme of the Shariah-adherent, but not the facts.

Here's the irony: Even as President Obama professed his determination to "speak the truth," he perpetrated a fraud. He falsely portrayed what amounts to authoritative Islam, namely Shariah Islam, as something that is "not exclusive," that "overlaps" and "need not be in competition" with "America. Actually, Shariah is, by its very nature, a program that obliges its adherents to demand submission of all others, Muslims (especially secular and apostate ones) and non-Muslims, alike.

This exclusiveness (read, Islamic supremacism) applies most especially with respect to democratic nations like America, nations founded in the alternative and highly competitive belief that men, not God, should make laws. Ditto nations that stand in the way of the establishment of the Caliphate, the global theocracy that Shariah dictates must impose its medieval agenda worldwide. In practice, Shariah is the very antithesis of Mr. Obama's stated goal of "progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Its "justice" can only be considered by civilized societies to be a kind of codified barbarism.

At least as troubling are what amount to instances of presidential dawa, the Arabic term for Islamic proselytization. For example, Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." It seems unimaginable that he ever would ever use the adjective to describe the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Then, the man now happy to call himself Barack Hussein Obama (in contrast to his attitude during the campaign) boasts of having "known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." An interesting choice of words that, "first revealed." Not "established," "founded" or "invented." The President is, after all, a careful writer, so he must have deliberately eschewed verbs that reflect man's role, in favor of the theological version of events promoted by Islam. Thus, Mr. Obama has gone beyond the kind of "respectful language" he has pledged to use towards Islam. He is employing what amounts to code - bespeaking the kind of submissive attitude Islam demands of all, believers and non-believers alike.

Elsewhere in the speech, Mr. Obama actually declared that "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Note that, although he referred in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict to "vile stereotypes" of Jews, he did not describe it as "part of his responsibility as President" to counter anti-Semitic representations.

Unremarked was the fact that such incitement is daily fare served up by the state media controlled by his host in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, by the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas and by every other despot in the region with whom Mr. Obama seeks to "engage." Worse yet, no mention was made of the fact that some of those "vile stereotypes" - notably, that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" - are to be found in "the Holy Koran," itself.

Perhaps the most stunning bit of dawa of all was a phrase the President employed that, on its face, denies the divinity of Jesus - something surprising from a self-described committed Christian. In connection with his discussion of the "situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs," Mr. Obama said, "...When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

Muslims use the term "peace be upon them" to ask for blessings on deceased holy men. In other words, its use construes all three in the way Islam does - as dead prophets - a treatment wholly at odds with the teachings of Christianity which, of course, holds Jesus as the immortal Son of God.

If Mr. Obama were genuinely ignorant about Islam, such a statement might be ascribed to nothing more than a sop to "interfaith dialogue." For a man who now pridefully boasts of his intimate familiarity with Muslims and their faith, it raises troubling questions about his own religious beliefs. At the very least, it conveys a strongly discordant message to "the Muslim world" about a fundamental tenet of the faith he professes.

Finally, what are we to make of Mr. Obama statements about America and Islam? Since he took office, the President has engaged repeatedly in the sort of hyping of Muslims and their role in the United States that is standard Muslim Brotherhood fare. In his inaugural address, he described our nation as one of "Christians, Muslims and Jews." Shortly thereafter, he further reversed the demographic ordering of these populations by size in his first broadcast interview (with the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network), calling America a country of "Muslims, Christians and Jews."

Yesterday in Cairo, the President declared that "Islam has always been a part of America's story." Now, to be sure, Muslims, like peoples of other faiths, have made contributions to U.S. history. But they have generally done so in the same way others have, namely as Americans - not as some separate community, but as part of the "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one) that Mr. Obama properly extolled in The Speech.

Unfortunately, a pattern is being established whereby President Obama routinely exaggerates the Muslim character of America. For example, at Cairo University, he claimed there are nearly seven million Muslims in this country - a falsehood promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends - when the actual number is well-less than half that. Shortly before The Speech, in an interview with a French network, Mr. Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

Incredible as these statements may seem, even more astounding is their implication for those who adhere to Shariah. The President's remarks about America as a Muslim nation would give rise to its treatment by them as part of dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, as opposed to dar al-harb (i.e., the non-Muslim world).

Were the former to be the case, Shariah requires faithful Muslims to rid the United States of infidel control or occupation. And we know from last year's successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation - a so-called "charity" engaged in money-laundering for one of the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist operations, Hamas - that such an agenda tracks precisely with the Brothers' mission here: "To destroy Western civilization from within America, by its own miserable hand."

This reality makes one of Mr. Obama's promises in Cairo especially chilling. Near the end of his address, the President expressed concern that religious freedom in the United States was being impinged by "rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation." He went on to pledge: "That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

Let us be clear: Muslim charities have run into difficulty with "the rules" because they have been convicted in federal court of using the Muslim obligation to perform zakat (tithing to charity) to funnel money to terrorists. At this writing, it is unclear precisely what Mr. Obama has in mind with respect to this commitment to "ensure [Muslims] can fulfill zakat." But you can bet that the Brotherhood will try to translate it into the release of their imprisoned operatives and new latitude to raise money for their Shariah-promoting, and therefore seditious, activities in America.

I could go on, but you get the point. The Speech contained a number of statements about the laudable qualities of America, the need for freedom in the Muslim world, about women's rights and the desirability of peace. But its preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood's agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West's submission to it.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Newsmax, June 5, 2009.

OBAMA for CHANGE ??? A Stimulating Thought !!!

[As you will see below, even Jackie Mason doesn't think this is funny!] Rahm Emanuel's statement in November, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

Well now we have the proof. I said it before Mr. Obama was elected. The ONLY change that Obama expects to bring to Washington is him in the white house!

Now we have the proof. This "STIMULUS" bill is anything BUT stimulating! Apparently hundreds of phone calls against the bill are coming into government offices. But the government of the people, by the people and for the people has now become the government OVER the people, right by the people and FOR the democratic party in government!

Didn't Mr. Obama say that he wanted to CHANGE the way Washington worked? Ha, well now we know how.

So Mr. Obama has brought CHANGE TO AMERICA... yes CHANGE AS TO WHO GETS THE PORK. - His soundbytes about there being NO PORK in the bill are absolute blatant lies.

The letters and calls to the congress were 100:1 AGAINST this package but that did not thwart the courageous congress from paying back all their supporters AGAINST the will of the people!

However it was that unofficial third party in the U.S. called the left-wing socialist media combined with the fairy-tale elite in Hollywood. who actually elected Mr. Obama.

The so-called "stimulus" bill just passed in the U.S. will stimulate that famous employer, the National Association for the Endowment for the Arts, build Milwaukee schools when 15 are empty with declining enrolment and so on.

It is complete PORK. There may be a few million of the billions here and there which might actually do a little but the stock market tells all as they have been in freefall as the "package" made it's way through the congress.

Yes is it payback time as the hog trough package goes out to all the supporters which the Democrats did not have the power to reward previously.

What Mr. Obama came to the Whitehouse to change was ONE THING ... WHO GET'S THE PORK?

The bill is full of nothing but spending to reward those who elected Mr. Obama and his "Democratic" presidential guards and very little to help the average worker at all.

It is a sad time when telling blatant lies and rewarding those who support you are more important than actually helping people cope with this deep recession.

So much for the country of Abraham Lincoln and a country which was "of the people, by the people, for the people". Unless of course those people are Democratic suckies.

If even comedian Jackie Mason sees this, there perhaps is hope for the American people somewhere.

Obama's Plan for Change

Research Suggests That GOVERNMENT STIMULUS SPENDING May Worsen Situation

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

See original article here.


WHO SAYS A STIMULUS ACTUALLY STIMULATES?

or is it simply temporary VIAGRA for the ECONOMY?

POINTS from article above ...

-"Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

[Doesn't it make you wonder when nobody seems to know what to do but some of the advice of the best researchers suggests that a STIMULUS may actually HARM the economy? Some economic researchers point to FDR and the Great Depression and suggest that FDR actually INCREASED the length of the depression. He was obviously and encourager and inspired hope which is an important factor as we see when the markets fall like bricks. But did his fiscal policy actually make it longer?]

The Stimulus Package

FDR POLICIES Prolonged Depression

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

LSMS368


AIG & Taxes & Free Enterprise

Mr Obama: Please Prove You ARE Non-Partisan

Mr. Obama will now have to prove he is non-partisan.

Editor: If he makes the mistake of believing that he is only the President of the 52% of the population that elected him and of the far-left liberal democrats, and tries to enact laws which the 46% who voted for McCain vehementally oppose, he will create more partisanship than has ever occurred before.

Now is his test. Will he leave failed socialistic policies like the War on Poverty and the Great Society behind, or will he make the same mistakes as his liberal precessors?

So now is the time for Mr. Obama to shine, but shine on the right as well as the left. Shine on the almost half the United States which are part of red states and red counties in blue states. He will become president of both and to be inclusive as an agent of change, he must govern in the best interests of middle America.

This article from the NP reflects some of that concern:

Sharing wealth will drain it

Obamanomics a drag on growth

Jacqueline Thorpe, National Post Published: Thursday, November 06, 2008

As the fervour fades, the world will have to get used to a new word: Obamanomics.

It means tax hikes for the rich, tax cuts for the poor and middle class, a promise to renegotiate NAFTA, greater union power, windfall taxes on oil and gas profits, higher taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends and more comprehensive health care coverage.

Barack Obama's economic plan may deliver the greater income equality Americans have apparently been craving, but also slower growth. Despite the vast tax hikes, it will cost a vast sum and U. S. federal finances, already ravaged by bailouts and recession, will slide deeper into the red.

The plan is not market-friendly but that does not mean the markets will not like an Obama presidency. If he can give the U. S. back its confidence, restore its reputation and sense of optimism, markets will take the bait as they have done with Democratic presidents so often in the past.

If he can become a Clintonstyle pragmatist, resist caving to every whim of a deeply left Congress, and not meddle with the bailouts that seem to be gingerly gaining traction, markets might even run with his presidency. The year from hell for investors could then be nearing an end.

Obamanomics is essentially about taking more money from the rich and giving it to the poor, plain old-fashioned "neighbourliness" as Mr. Obama has described it.

-

Or, as others have remarked, taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Under his income tax plan, Mr. Obama says he will provide tax cuts for 95% of Americans. He will do this by repealing Bush tax cuts -- set to expire in 2010 -- and bumping the top rates back to 36% from 33% and to 39.6% from 35%. Individuals earning over US$200,000 and families over US$250,000 will see sizable tax increases. This includes sole proprietors of businesses such as lawyers, accountants or plumbers called Joe.

Since 38% of Americans currently do not pay federal income taxes, Mr. Obama will provide them with refundable tax credits. Under his plan, 48% of Americans will pay no income tax.

"For the people that don't pay taxes, he is simply going to write them a cheque," says Andy Busch, global foreign exchange strategist at BMO Capital Markets. "That is income redistribution at its worst and produces very little value."

Other plans include raising taxes on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% for families earning more than US$250,000. He plans to leave the corporate tax rate at 35%, which in a world of rapidly falling rates, looks positively anti-business. He will introduce windfall taxes on oil and gas companies but offer US$4-billion in credits to U. S. auto-makers to retool to greener cars.

Much has been made of Mr. Obama's plan to renegotiate NAFTA to make it more labour-friendly, though no one seems to believe he will actually make it more protectionist.

The bottom line is this: Obama's economic plan is likely to be a drag on growth and it will cost money. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates Obama's program would add US$3.5-trillion to U. S. debt over the next 10 years, including interest. His plans for health care-- which may be delayed by financial necessity -- would tack on another US$1.6-trillion.

Read more here.

Obama - Who Are You?

Obama Sued by Democrat to Produce Birth Certificate Obama's Birth Certificate MUST SEE VIDEO Philip Berg, a DEMOCRAT is the man who is suing Barack Obama to hand over his Birth Certificate. The video below gives his Credentials and the Mr. Berg lays out his case in Berg v. Obama, and explains why it is important for the case to be resolved quickly. In his argumentation, Mr. Berg points out that Senator Obama could settle the lawsuit immediately by producing the proper documents to prove Obama is a natural-born citizen as required by our constitution. It is A MUST SEE..MUST PASS AROUND VIDEO!

NOW LA PRESIDENT SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN

Veteran Accuses Senator Obama of Being Wrong

OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN

WHY IT IS WRONG TO CALL IRAQ A MISTAKE

OBAMA Comment by AltMuslim.com

This is an interesting comment by the website AltMuslim.com.
[Editor:Just because his middle name is Hussain does NOT mean he's a Muslim. Just because his church gave Lewis Farakhan last year a Lifetime Achievement award does

NOT mean he is a Muslim. Just because he wore traditional Muslim dress when visiting in Sudan does NOT mean he is a Muslim. So what does it mean? Read what they say for yourself.]
=================================

Friday, April 18, 2008

Obama's Problem with the Truth [David Freddoso]

First the "hundred years" controversy, and now this. Is the man a liar, or are his speechwriters and advisors just that willing to leave him vulnerable to attack?

Obama's Problem
February 07, 2008 01:00 PM EST

The Peculiar Theology of Black Liberation

Spengler, Asia Times (Hong Kong), March 18, 2008

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago’s Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:

Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?

Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question . . .

Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?

Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.

Wright: You haven’t answered—you haven’t answered my question.

Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.

Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says. But that way lies apolitical quicksand.

Since Christianity taught the concept of divine election to the Gentiles, every recalcitrant tribe in Christendom has rebelled against Christian universalism, insisting that it is the “Chosen People” of God—French, English, Russian, Germans and even (through the peculiar doctrine of Mormonism) certain Americans. America remains the only really Christian country in the industrial world, precisely because it transcends ethnicity. One finds ethnocentricity only in odd corners of its religious life; one of these is African-American.

During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors. . . . Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].

In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it. Christianity has no use for the nations, a “drop of the bucket” and “dust on the scales”, in the words of Isaiah. It requires that individuals turn their back on their ethnicity to be reborn into Israel in the spirit. That is much easier for Americans than for the citizens of other nations, for Americans have no ethnicity. But the tribes of the world do not want to abandon their Gentile nature and as individuals join the New Israel. Instead they demand eternal life in their own Gentile flesh, that is, to be the “Chosen People”.

That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology.

Many things that the liberal academy has adopted, though, will horrify most Americans, and not only “black liberation theology” (Queer Studies comes to mind, among other things). It cannot be in Obama’s best interests to appeal to the authority of Cone, whose unapologetic racism must be repugnant to the great majority of Americans, including the majority of black Americans, who for the most part belong to Christian churches that preach mainstream Christian doctrine. Christianity teaches unconditional love for a God whose love for humankind is absolute; it does not teach the repudiation of a God who does not destroy our enemies on the spot.

Whether Obama takes seriously the doctrines that Wright preaches is another matter. It is possible that Obama does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach. Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago’s black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago’s largest and most politically active black church.

Obama views Wright rather at arm’s length: as the New York Times reported on April 30, 2007:

Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.

Obama holds his own views close. But it seems unlikely that he would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s. Obama does not come to the matter with the perspective of an American black, but of the child of a left-wing anthropologist raised in the Third World, as I wrote elsewhere (Obama’s women reveal his secret , Asia Times Online, February 26, 2008). It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is.

Note

1. See William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2008)


Comments

I have mixed feelings about the whole Jeremiah Wright ordeal. On one hand, I understand his feelings. As a white man, I choose to stand with my race just as he chooses to stand with his. Thus, I can’t fault him for his views. On the other hand, I also recognize that Rev. Wright would never attempt to understand my feelings or concerns so why should I try to understand his? The fact is, people like Wright are not intellectually consistent with their beliefs; they preach ethno-centrism and border-line hatred of other races yet would accuse a white man of being “racist” for the slightest perceived insult.

Posted by Conrad R. at 6:03 PM on March 17


VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's Former Pastor - Christian in Name but what???

March 26, 2008

How the Leftist Churches Set a Time Bomb for the Democrats

By James Lewis
Until the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's spiritual mentor in Black Liberation Theology, popped out of the woodwork, I didn't even know about BLT -- Black Liberation Theology. But the doctrines of Black Liberation have been preached since 1966 in black churches, with the enthusiastic support of white churches of the Left, notably the United Church of Christ. The Rev. Wright runs an official UCC church.

Though I am not a professional theologian, I daresay that Jesus would not, repeat not, approve of BLT. Because Black Liberation Theology seems to go straight against every single word in the Sermon on the Mount. Odd that the UCC has never noticed that over the last fifty years.

In fact, the liberal churches have bestowed great influence and prestige on the inventor of Black Liberation Theology, a Dr. James Hal Cone. Writes Dr. Cone, among other things,


* "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him."

* "All white men are responsible for white oppression."

* "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism."

* "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil.""

* "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples."

* "We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."

Apparently liberal religious authorities like those at the United Church of Christ love this preaching so much that they have made Dr. Cone a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, the "Charles Augustus Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology." It is a stamp of official approval for a peddler of race hatred.

What would Jesus say? Well, we may never know that, but in a month we'll know what Pennsylvania Democrats will say. And if they turn thumbs down on that grandchild of Black Liberation Theology, Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. Including the Churches of the Left, which have reveled in rage-mongering radical chic since the Sixties.

If you've ever wondered why black people in America have had such a hard time rising in society, even after slavery ended in 1865, even after the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, even after affirmative action tilted the playing field in their favor, the answer has to be found in the doctrines that have been preached to blacks by their most powerful leaders. If Black Liberation Theology is to be believed, blacks can never make it on their own. They have to rely on a separatist, rage-filled ideology, supported whole-heartedly by white Leftist churches.

The Left has a long, long habit of shafting the very people is purports to love. Instead, the Left only empowers Leftist elites. Look at the history of the Soviet Union, of Maoist China, of Fidel Castro. Who profited from those regimes except the elites, dining on caviar while ordinary people starved? Today Hugo Chavez is squandering Venezuela's oil wealth on his personal ego trips. It is the poor who suffer from Chavez' caudillismo.

What the Church of the Left have done to poor blacks is just like that. Instead of supporting messages of hope and strength, they celebrated the rage demagogues who keep people in thrall. "Black Liberation" is an enslavement of the mind. If you keep black people popping with anger at whites, half a century after the end of Jim Crow, you are not helping them. You are hurting them.

For the Democrats, who have knowingly supported this corruption of the poor for decades, the churches of Left have set a time bomb. Next month we'll see if it explodes.

Maybe it's Divine justice.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/how_the_leftist_churches_set_a.html at March 30, 2008 - 11:06:16 PM EDT

Why is Obama Ducking the Questions? Only One Possible Reason!

[excerpted from http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11541]

March 21, 2008
Dems 2008: McClatchy discovers Black Liberation Theology [Karl]

Given the chain’s general leftward slant, it is all the more notable that McClatchy is perhaps the first establishment media outlet to report some of the specifics of the Black Liberation Theology that is the vision of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church — and to note (as already noted here) that Obama dodged the larger issue:

Obama’s speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright’s inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn’t address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

McClatchy’s Margaret Talev went so far as to interview Dr. James H. Cone, who first presented Black Liberation Theology as a system of thought in the late 1960s. Dr. Cone reaffirmed his prior view that Trinity most embodies his message and opined that he thought the Rev. Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition. (It does seem likely so far.)

Unfortunately, the piece quotes only Dr. Cone and Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago’s divinity school. Apparently, McClatchy could not be bothered to contact neutral theologians or critics of Black Liberation Theology. As a result, Cone and Hopkins get away with softening the harder edges of their theology.

Nevertheless, McClatchy has now done more than most of the establishment media (and certainly more than TIME magazine’s new puff piece or the ignorant and inane ramblings of E.J. Dionne, Jr.) on the underlying issue, even as it hypothesizes Obama’s church membership is one of political convenience rather than reading Obama’s writings on the subject, which are consistent with the theology.

Most important, McClatchy sought answers from the Obama campaign on the issue:

It isn’t clear where Obama’s beliefs and the church’s diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology.

That is the standard response of the Obama campaign to any controversy, as anyone trying to report on Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko will tell you. Obama will not answer press inquiries until the establishment media turns up the heat to the point where he feels compelled to do so. That pattern should trouble people far beyond those concerned about the degree to which Obama susbscribes to Black Liberation Theology.

(h/t Gateway Pundit.)

Update: Allah-lanche!

Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East

Fitna the Movie- Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

Was Tony Blair right? Was George Bush right? Is Geert Wilder right? Check out this video.

VideoBar

This content isn't available over encrypted connections yet.

Sarah Palin - Part 1

Sarah Palin - Part 2

Truth?

Press4Truth contains opinions of various authors and does not necessarily represent the views of Press 4 Truth. They are presented often to challenge the accepted thinking which very often is obtained from soundbytes rather than study of the issues.