16
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
3DHS / Obama's sliding tax scale
« on: November 03, 2008, 07:33:42 PM »[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNnHvXUlA0&NR=1[/youtube]
18
3DHS / The theme song Obama should have used....
« on: November 03, 2008, 06:43:52 PM »[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0hyExZ9Dfo[/youtube]
For those who don't know, that's from A Mighty Wind, one of Christopher Guest's excellent mockumentaries...it follows the televised reunion of three 'beloved' folk singing groups. The songs were all written by cast members, who also sang and played the instruments. As with Guest's other movies (This Is Spinal Tap, Return of Spinal Tap, Best In Show, Waiting For Guffman, and For Your Consideration), the movies are unscripted; Guest and Eugene Levy write a basic plot along with character outlines which are given to the actors, but beyond that, all of the dialogue is improvised. In Waiting For Guffman, Guest's character is casting parts for Blaine, Missouri's 150th celebration. When he filmed the audition sequence, he had purposely waited until the actual filming to see the performances of the various hopefuls, and his reactions to them are hilarious. I definitely recommend all of these movies - and make sure to listen to the comment tracks by Guest and Levy, too.
19
3DHS / How Many Laws Can One Break?
« on: November 03, 2008, 12:46:44 AM »
Victor Davis Hanson
Mr. Obama's Aunt Zeituni will not be a major campaign issue?compared to other last minute disclosures such as Obama's frightening boast about coal that now produces half of our nation's electricity: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Yet in retrospect Aunt Zeituni will prove emblematic and raise a few disturbing questions (aside from the ethical matter of someone who was highlighted in a cameo fashion in his memoir as proof of his strong family ties, subsequently languishing as an illegal alien, in violation of a deportation order, in a public housing project a hour's flight from Chicago). Everyone has relatives that one is not responsible for, but given her symbolic appearance in Dreams from my Father, and at the Obama swearing in in 2005, Auntie Zeituni seems more in the Roger Clinton/Donald Nixon/Billy Carter category.
1) More proof of media bias: The press story is somehow now about who 'leaked' information that his aunt had defied a deportation order and was in the country illegally rather than yet another sign that US immigration law is made a mockery of, and its enforcement is a joke, to the rather limited extent the law is even applied. And if one wants to know the extent of government intrusion into the lives of peripheral political figures, the media should at least worry why agencies were put onto Joe the Plumber, who is a US citizen.
2) More of the double standard. David Axlerod is suddenly worried about supposed Axlerod-like leaks of government documents? Aside from Joe the Plumber, he should ask why and how the sealed divorce records of both Obama's Democratic primary rival and his general election Republican opponent were leaked, imploding both campaigns and ensuring the election of Obama in 2004 to the Senate.
3) Obama's has offered the defense that his historical rejection of campaign finance (after a promise to abide by the law), and subsequent creation of a $600 million war-chest should not cause worry because so many of the donors were "small". Hence any questions about fake names, addresses, lack of compliance with identifying donors by name, foreign contributors, and prepaid credit cards were essentially nit-picking or worse, given the historical lift Obama had given the American electoral process.
But if the Obama campaign cannot even guarantee that his own aunt followed the law (it is illegal for foreigners to contribute to US presidential campaigns), what does that say about the millions of others who, we are supposed to believe, on the now dubious assurance of Obama himself were supposedly legitimate and lawful donors? And as a sidelight, how ethical is it for someone who is in violation of immigration law, and receiving some sort of public subsidy, to then donate money, illegally again, to a campaign? Message: defy immigration law; ignore a deporation order; obtain, again illegally, public assistance; donate illegally to a presidential campagin; and then count on the press attacking those who worry about such serial flouting of the law.
4) Here we are within a few hours before the election, and we get yet another reminder that we have little idea who Barack Obama is; and the media, rather than enlightening us about his background, consistency in thought, past behavior, aassociates, and character, instead turns on anyone and anything that stand in the way of his ascension.
5) The only mystery? Whether we get (1) this is not the Aunt Zeituni I remember....; (2) I was only 43 when she was ordered deported and only 47 when she donated illegally; (3) I could no more disown Aunt Zeituni than...; (4) "they" are going to get "ugly" and go after my funny-sounding name and the fact I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bill.
Can't we hope this time for? 'As I have written, I have admired my aunt in the past and value her familial ties to me, and will now make sure that all US laws are followed in her case, and determine to what extent they were not and why, and ensure that this doesn't happen again.'
Mr. Obama's Aunt Zeituni will not be a major campaign issue?compared to other last minute disclosures such as Obama's frightening boast about coal that now produces half of our nation's electricity: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Yet in retrospect Aunt Zeituni will prove emblematic and raise a few disturbing questions (aside from the ethical matter of someone who was highlighted in a cameo fashion in his memoir as proof of his strong family ties, subsequently languishing as an illegal alien, in violation of a deportation order, in a public housing project a hour's flight from Chicago). Everyone has relatives that one is not responsible for, but given her symbolic appearance in Dreams from my Father, and at the Obama swearing in in 2005, Auntie Zeituni seems more in the Roger Clinton/Donald Nixon/Billy Carter category.
1) More proof of media bias: The press story is somehow now about who 'leaked' information that his aunt had defied a deportation order and was in the country illegally rather than yet another sign that US immigration law is made a mockery of, and its enforcement is a joke, to the rather limited extent the law is even applied. And if one wants to know the extent of government intrusion into the lives of peripheral political figures, the media should at least worry why agencies were put onto Joe the Plumber, who is a US citizen.
2) More of the double standard. David Axlerod is suddenly worried about supposed Axlerod-like leaks of government documents? Aside from Joe the Plumber, he should ask why and how the sealed divorce records of both Obama's Democratic primary rival and his general election Republican opponent were leaked, imploding both campaigns and ensuring the election of Obama in 2004 to the Senate.
3) Obama's has offered the defense that his historical rejection of campaign finance (after a promise to abide by the law), and subsequent creation of a $600 million war-chest should not cause worry because so many of the donors were "small". Hence any questions about fake names, addresses, lack of compliance with identifying donors by name, foreign contributors, and prepaid credit cards were essentially nit-picking or worse, given the historical lift Obama had given the American electoral process.
But if the Obama campaign cannot even guarantee that his own aunt followed the law (it is illegal for foreigners to contribute to US presidential campaigns), what does that say about the millions of others who, we are supposed to believe, on the now dubious assurance of Obama himself were supposedly legitimate and lawful donors? And as a sidelight, how ethical is it for someone who is in violation of immigration law, and receiving some sort of public subsidy, to then donate money, illegally again, to a campaign? Message: defy immigration law; ignore a deporation order; obtain, again illegally, public assistance; donate illegally to a presidential campagin; and then count on the press attacking those who worry about such serial flouting of the law.
4) Here we are within a few hours before the election, and we get yet another reminder that we have little idea who Barack Obama is; and the media, rather than enlightening us about his background, consistency in thought, past behavior, aassociates, and character, instead turns on anyone and anything that stand in the way of his ascension.
5) The only mystery? Whether we get (1) this is not the Aunt Zeituni I remember....; (2) I was only 43 when she was ordered deported and only 47 when she donated illegally; (3) I could no more disown Aunt Zeituni than...; (4) "they" are going to get "ugly" and go after my funny-sounding name and the fact I don't look like the presidents on the dollar bill.
Can't we hope this time for? 'As I have written, I have admired my aunt in the past and value her familial ties to me, and will now make sure that all US laws are followed in her case, and determine to what extent they were not and why, and ensure that this doesn't happen again.'
20
3DHS / Preparing for the aftermath
« on: November 02, 2008, 11:26:06 PM »
Police prepare for unrest
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation?s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
?Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,? said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
?I think it is a big deal ? you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,? he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. ?Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.?
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama?s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP?s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
?What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?? said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
?On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,? said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from ?police states.?
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry?s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines.
Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 ?would be very small to what would happen in 2008? if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that ?it would be very, very, very dramatic out there? if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
?A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,? said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day ?the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there?s going to be enormous turnout.?
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
?If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,? said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. ?If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him?.. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.?
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
?We?ve seen it on the Internet and we?ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]? said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. ?We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.?
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit?s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
?Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,? Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
?We?re prepared for the best-case scenario, we?re prepared for the worst-case scenario,? he said. ?The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.?
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
?The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,? said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would ?spill right over to the election.?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008-10-21.html
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation?s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
?Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,? said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
?I think it is a big deal ? you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,? he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. ?Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.?
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama?s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP?s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
?What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?? said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
?On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,? said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from ?police states.?
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry?s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines.
Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 ?would be very small to what would happen in 2008? if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that ?it would be very, very, very dramatic out there? if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
?A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,? said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day ?the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there?s going to be enormous turnout.?
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
?If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,? said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. ?If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him?.. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.?
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
?We?ve seen it on the Internet and we?ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]? said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. ?We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.?
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit?s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
?Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,? Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
?We?re prepared for the best-case scenario, we?re prepared for the worst-case scenario,? he said. ?The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.?
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
?The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,? said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would ?spill right over to the election.?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008-10-21.html
21
3DHS / Dems for McCain: Why John McCain will win Pennsylvania
« on: November 01, 2008, 01:02:30 AM »
Breaking: Here?s what we know about Pennsylvania right now
October 28, 2008
Tonight we spoke with a friend from Hillary Clinton?s campaign who is now working for McCain/Palin ? and is specifically working with Democrats for McCain in Pennsylvania. We worked with her in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for Hillary and have spent many LONG hours with her in the trenches in all of those states. She?s smart, doesn?t BS, and never lies.
She says the same thing we do: John McCain will win Pennsylvania.
On November 4th, the news networks are going to be spinning and sputtering and playing catchup, but everything we see on the ground in PA is what we saw during the primaries: Obama has no shot of winning the Keystone State.
Here is specifically what we talked about tonight: never in any of our careers have any of us ever seen members of one party switching sides and voting for the other party as we see in this election with Democrats for McCain. There has never been anything like it. Not even the ?Reagan Democrats? who voted for Reagan over Carter, for the simple fact that these ?Reagan Democrats? weren?t identified and labeled until AFTER the election.
No, Democrats for McCain are real, are voting for McCain right now, and are open and organized, as well as self-identifying. Lynn Rothschild might be our poster gal, as one of the most prominent of our ranks, but it?s telling that everyone from Team Hillary that we know now works for McCain. ALL OF US. Whether they are open about it, like we are, or are working quietly behind the scenes, we can?t think of a single person we worked with on a daily basis for Hillary who is now working on behalf of Obama.
We all truly believe that John McCain will work more closely with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and make it a priority to team up with her on legislation than Obama ever would. We also believe Obama winning this election means his supporters would actively seek to eliminate all Clinton loyalists from the Democratic Party, to consolidate his power base and purge anyone who is not 100% loyal to him. For obvious reasons, those of us loyal to the Clintons will not let that happen without a fight.
But, this is all talking about leadership, and those of us who have invested two years of our lives in all of this ? and have, in all honesty, spent every cent we had on this campaign. What about the regular voters?
Union members repeatedly tell all of us that they are lying to pollsters because the unions have been polling these people ? and the unions will threaten people?s jobs if they don?t tow the union line. So, the people lie when asked whom they are supporting. But, the unions can?t control who they vote for on Election Day. And that?s when things are going to get interesting.
We do not believe Obama will carry Pittsburgh or Harrisburg in PA. He?ll win Philly, but not by the large margin he needs to take the state. You?ve heard Governor Ed Rendell is ?worried? about Obama?s chances in Pennsylvania. That is an understatement. Obama will lose a state that hasn?t gone red in generations.
What?s happening here that?s not being reported is that ?Reagan Democrats? who vote Republican whenever they feel that Democrats are out of touch, socialist, or too liberal are voting for McCain?and these people are being joined by PUMAs, DeMcCrats for McCain, Hillocrats, whatever you want to call them, who don?t like or trust Obama and who believe McCain/Palin would address the wants and needs of centrist Democrats much better than Obama ever would.
We personally believe this here at HillBuzz. That?s why we are doing this. We do not believe Obama will put the best interests of Americans first ? instead, Obama will do what is best for Obama, the way he has always done. We do not trust this man or his socialist Kool-Aid and want no part of him.
In Pennsylvania, we are not alone.
The same people who ran the board for us in the primary ? who assured us daily that the polls the media was pushing were wrong in claiming Obama would beat Clinton in PA ? tell us on a daily basis that McCain is going to win Pennsylvania. There?s a damn good chance this won?t even be close, if what people are seeing on the ground right now holds, and is indicative of the whole state.
DEMOCRATS are staffing McCain offices across the state. DEMOCRATS are phone banking and canvassing for McCain. DEMOCRATS are raising large sums to fund this last week of campaigning.
DEMOCRATS.
This has NEVER happened before ? and the media is ignoring it. The media consistently claims that Obama enjoys the support of 85% of Democrats, versus only 80% of Republicans who supposedly are supporting McCain. We call BS on all of this ? we?d say 90% of Republicans are supporting McCain, and 65-70% of Democrats are actually supporting Obama. At least that?s the case in Pennsylvania, and in Ohio too. Our mission this next week is to reach out to every Democrat we can and let them know it?s okay to vote Republican this year ? because the Republican is the better choice.
There are two things Hillary Clinton and John McCain have in common that we?re thinking about right now: (1) both love America more than anything and truly want what?s best for the country, and not themselves and (2) Clinton has a framed photo of McCain in her office, while McCain has a similar photo of Clinton in his.
Clinton and McCain are friends for a reason ? and we know they will work well together these next four years. We?re going to face some tough challenges in McCain?s administration, and we sincerely do pledge to all Republicans reading this that the bipartisan spirit we?ve fostered during this campaign working together with Republicans to elect McCain will continue in these next 4 years, because America needs us working together.
We are all Americans right now ? working together to stop a socialist from becoming president and taking all of us down a very dangerous path. Hillary?s Army is strong and mobilized, and is working its heart out for McCain/Palin. If you Republicans can match our enthusiasm and dedication, we will win this, and not just in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but all across the country.
We have the potential to make this a crippling loss not just for Obama, but for the far-left liberal wing of the Democratic party and the liberal elite media itself. We have the potential to wipe all of these kooks and loons off the political landscape with a loud, resounding loss for all of them on November 4th.
What we have learned about the state of Pennsylvania tells us our continued efforts are paying off ? and that we just need to stay focused and keep working hard the next 7 days to win this for McCain/Palin and, in all honesty, win this for AMERICA too.
It?s an honor to be in this fight with all of you ? if we work hard, we will indeed win.
Hillbuzz
October 28, 2008
Tonight we spoke with a friend from Hillary Clinton?s campaign who is now working for McCain/Palin ? and is specifically working with Democrats for McCain in Pennsylvania. We worked with her in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for Hillary and have spent many LONG hours with her in the trenches in all of those states. She?s smart, doesn?t BS, and never lies.
She says the same thing we do: John McCain will win Pennsylvania.
On November 4th, the news networks are going to be spinning and sputtering and playing catchup, but everything we see on the ground in PA is what we saw during the primaries: Obama has no shot of winning the Keystone State.
Here is specifically what we talked about tonight: never in any of our careers have any of us ever seen members of one party switching sides and voting for the other party as we see in this election with Democrats for McCain. There has never been anything like it. Not even the ?Reagan Democrats? who voted for Reagan over Carter, for the simple fact that these ?Reagan Democrats? weren?t identified and labeled until AFTER the election.
No, Democrats for McCain are real, are voting for McCain right now, and are open and organized, as well as self-identifying. Lynn Rothschild might be our poster gal, as one of the most prominent of our ranks, but it?s telling that everyone from Team Hillary that we know now works for McCain. ALL OF US. Whether they are open about it, like we are, or are working quietly behind the scenes, we can?t think of a single person we worked with on a daily basis for Hillary who is now working on behalf of Obama.
We all truly believe that John McCain will work more closely with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and make it a priority to team up with her on legislation than Obama ever would. We also believe Obama winning this election means his supporters would actively seek to eliminate all Clinton loyalists from the Democratic Party, to consolidate his power base and purge anyone who is not 100% loyal to him. For obvious reasons, those of us loyal to the Clintons will not let that happen without a fight.
But, this is all talking about leadership, and those of us who have invested two years of our lives in all of this ? and have, in all honesty, spent every cent we had on this campaign. What about the regular voters?
Union members repeatedly tell all of us that they are lying to pollsters because the unions have been polling these people ? and the unions will threaten people?s jobs if they don?t tow the union line. So, the people lie when asked whom they are supporting. But, the unions can?t control who they vote for on Election Day. And that?s when things are going to get interesting.
We do not believe Obama will carry Pittsburgh or Harrisburg in PA. He?ll win Philly, but not by the large margin he needs to take the state. You?ve heard Governor Ed Rendell is ?worried? about Obama?s chances in Pennsylvania. That is an understatement. Obama will lose a state that hasn?t gone red in generations.
What?s happening here that?s not being reported is that ?Reagan Democrats? who vote Republican whenever they feel that Democrats are out of touch, socialist, or too liberal are voting for McCain?and these people are being joined by PUMAs, DeMcCrats for McCain, Hillocrats, whatever you want to call them, who don?t like or trust Obama and who believe McCain/Palin would address the wants and needs of centrist Democrats much better than Obama ever would.
We personally believe this here at HillBuzz. That?s why we are doing this. We do not believe Obama will put the best interests of Americans first ? instead, Obama will do what is best for Obama, the way he has always done. We do not trust this man or his socialist Kool-Aid and want no part of him.
In Pennsylvania, we are not alone.
The same people who ran the board for us in the primary ? who assured us daily that the polls the media was pushing were wrong in claiming Obama would beat Clinton in PA ? tell us on a daily basis that McCain is going to win Pennsylvania. There?s a damn good chance this won?t even be close, if what people are seeing on the ground right now holds, and is indicative of the whole state.
DEMOCRATS are staffing McCain offices across the state. DEMOCRATS are phone banking and canvassing for McCain. DEMOCRATS are raising large sums to fund this last week of campaigning.
DEMOCRATS.
This has NEVER happened before ? and the media is ignoring it. The media consistently claims that Obama enjoys the support of 85% of Democrats, versus only 80% of Republicans who supposedly are supporting McCain. We call BS on all of this ? we?d say 90% of Republicans are supporting McCain, and 65-70% of Democrats are actually supporting Obama. At least that?s the case in Pennsylvania, and in Ohio too. Our mission this next week is to reach out to every Democrat we can and let them know it?s okay to vote Republican this year ? because the Republican is the better choice.
There are two things Hillary Clinton and John McCain have in common that we?re thinking about right now: (1) both love America more than anything and truly want what?s best for the country, and not themselves and (2) Clinton has a framed photo of McCain in her office, while McCain has a similar photo of Clinton in his.
Clinton and McCain are friends for a reason ? and we know they will work well together these next four years. We?re going to face some tough challenges in McCain?s administration, and we sincerely do pledge to all Republicans reading this that the bipartisan spirit we?ve fostered during this campaign working together with Republicans to elect McCain will continue in these next 4 years, because America needs us working together.
We are all Americans right now ? working together to stop a socialist from becoming president and taking all of us down a very dangerous path. Hillary?s Army is strong and mobilized, and is working its heart out for McCain/Palin. If you Republicans can match our enthusiasm and dedication, we will win this, and not just in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but all across the country.
We have the potential to make this a crippling loss not just for Obama, but for the far-left liberal wing of the Democratic party and the liberal elite media itself. We have the potential to wipe all of these kooks and loons off the political landscape with a loud, resounding loss for all of them on November 4th.
What we have learned about the state of Pennsylvania tells us our continued efforts are paying off ? and that we just need to stay focused and keep working hard the next 7 days to win this for McCain/Palin and, in all honesty, win this for AMERICA too.
It?s an honor to be in this fight with all of you ? if we work hard, we will indeed win.
Hillbuzz
22
3DHS / A Joke And What It Reveals
« on: October 31, 2008, 01:24:31 AM »
John Hood - The Corner
Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:
McCain has ?called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,? Obama said. ?I don?t know what?s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.?
Ha ha.
Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).
Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
Speaking in front of a huge audience at downtown Raleigh rally yesterday, Barack Obama threw off a humorous line about John McCain's accusation that the Obama tax plan is redistributionist:
McCain has ?called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,? Obama said. ?I don?t know what?s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.?
Ha ha.
Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).
Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
23
3DHS / Letting the Homeless Vote
« on: October 30, 2008, 04:15:40 AM »
By Lisa Schiffren
Try as I might, I cannot really understand how even a minimum standard of voting security can be maintained when, as an Ohio judge did yesterday, you decide to let the homeless vote. If there is no address ? how do you check whether someone has voted before or whether they are using a real name? I get that the judge is attempting to enable fraud on behalf of his campaign ? but how does this pass even a minimum test of reasonableness?
Remember how Obama won all of those caucuses, starting with Iowa, where Hillary had been running ahead in polls? According to a bunch of eyewitnesses (see story below), including former candidate Joseph Biden, many Iowa caucuses were won on the strength of voters bused in from Illinois. I hold it against Hillary that she didn't protest at the time. Now, of course, there is no protection to be had. These Chicago Obama supporters can vote in their own district, then get on busses to Ohio where they are now free to cite a given park bench or doorway as their residence, and vote again. I guess that's easier than bringing out the dead, which was the traditional Chicago practice. Although I'm sure they'll be voting too.
Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: ?I told you so.?
Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.
Obama?s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama?s victory in Iowa and in twelve other caucus states was no miracle. ?It was fraud,? she told Newsmax.
Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.
?After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,? she said.
In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. ?The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,? Long said.
In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their name was on the list of Obama supporters.
In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party alleging massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign?s actions ?amount to criminal violations? and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.
In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn?t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine, where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.
Obama?s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.
Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Hillary Clinton would be the Democrats? nominee running against John McCain.
Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, ?there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,? Long said.
Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.
ACORN involvement
The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,00 for ?voter turnout? work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on ?staging, sound and light? and ?advance work.?
State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter-registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of ?Mickey Mouse,? and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice ? once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.
A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name ?Princess Nudelman? in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, ?This person is a dead fish."
ACORN was known for its ?intimidation tactics,? said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. who has researched Obama?s long-standing ties to the group.
Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are now believed to be illegitimate.
Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.
Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.
?From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,? he said.
That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.
?My mind began to feel victory for my lady,? he said. ?THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,? he said.
Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.
After it was over, ?a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back? to Illinois, Jeff said.
Obama?s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden ? today his running mate, then his rival ? pointed it out at the time.
At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden ?said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ?Hello Iowa!? and then turned to Barack?s crowd and shouted, ?and Hello Chicago!?? another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.
Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.
Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out ?i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals? to students and people in homeless shelters,? according to eyewitness reports collected by Dr. Long.
In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after Obama campaign workers recruited them.
2,000 complaints in Texas
In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year?s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho and Texas. ?But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,? Dr. Long told Newsmax. ?The others didn?t count the primary at all, calling it a ?beauty contest.??
Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.
?There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,? Long said. ?Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don?t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can?t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can?t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,? she said.
But Obama?s victories in the caucuses weren?t the result of better organization, Long insists. ?It was fraud.?
In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.
The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota.
A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33. But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.
?No poll is that far off,? Long told Newsmax.
Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.
In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-to-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.
In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.
This year?s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.
?Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,? said Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.
In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama?s strong-arm tactics.
One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston?s new film, ?We Will Not Be Silenced,? says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. ?People called me a whore and a skank,? she said.
John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, "Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.?
Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. ?You?re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out ? this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.?
Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.
?I couldn?t believe this was happening,? one woman said in the film. ?I thought this only happened in Third World countries.?
On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media largely ignored.
?The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,? she wrote. ?This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.?
She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.
The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that ?the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,? she wrote.
?There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,? she added.
But no one seemed to care.
Despite Clinton?s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary ? 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent ? Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38 to 29 advantage in delegates.
Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.
When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, ?I could see that something was wrong,? Hayes said.
Hayes said she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.
?Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.? And yet, their votes were counted.
In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself ?Pacific John? described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.
?On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,? he wrote.
?We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 a.m.?
The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses ? and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination ? is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the November 4 presidential election, which is already under way.
It?s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.
NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama?s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.
?Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,? Fletcher wrote.
Obama?s election to the U.S. Senate ?was even more curious,? conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.
Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.
Then in the general election, ?lightning struck again,? Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.
Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican Party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.
?Mr. Obama?s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,? Blankley wrote, while ?the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.?
Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.
Try as I might, I cannot really understand how even a minimum standard of voting security can be maintained when, as an Ohio judge did yesterday, you decide to let the homeless vote. If there is no address ? how do you check whether someone has voted before or whether they are using a real name? I get that the judge is attempting to enable fraud on behalf of his campaign ? but how does this pass even a minimum test of reasonableness?
Remember how Obama won all of those caucuses, starting with Iowa, where Hillary had been running ahead in polls? According to a bunch of eyewitnesses (see story below), including former candidate Joseph Biden, many Iowa caucuses were won on the strength of voters bused in from Illinois. I hold it against Hillary that she didn't protest at the time. Now, of course, there is no protection to be had. These Chicago Obama supporters can vote in their own district, then get on busses to Ohio where they are now free to cite a given park bench or doorway as their residence, and vote again. I guess that's easier than bringing out the dead, which was the traditional Chicago practice. Although I'm sure they'll be voting too.
Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: ?I told you so.?
Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.
Obama?s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md., who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama?s victory in Iowa and in twelve other caucus states was no miracle. ?It was fraud,? she told Newsmax.
Long has spent several months studying the caucus and primary results.
?After studying the procedures and results from all 14 caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process,? she said.
In Hawaii, for example, the caucus organizers ran out of ballots, so Obama operatives created more from Post-its and scraps of paper and dumped them into ice cream buckets. ?The caucuses ended up with more ballots than participants, a sure sign of voter fraud,? Long said.
In Nevada, Obama supporters upturned a wheelchair-bound woman who wanted to caucus for Hillary, flushed Clinton ballots down the toilets, and told union members they could vote only if their name was on the list of Obama supporters.
In Texas, more than 2,000 Clinton and Edwards supporters filed complaints with the state Democratic Party alleging massive fraud. The party acknowledged that the Obama campaign?s actions ?amount to criminal violations? and ordered them to be reported to state and federal law enforcement, but nothing happened.
In caucus after caucus, Obama bused in supporters from out of state, intimidated elderly voters and women, and stole election packets so Hillary supporters couldn?t vote. Thanks to these and other strong-arm tactics, Obama won victories in all but one of the caucuses, even in states such as Maine, where Hillary had been leading by double digits in the polls.
Obama?s win in the caucuses, which were smaller events than the primaries and were run by the party, not the states, gave him the margin of victory he needed to win a razor-thin majority in the delegate count going into the Democratic National Convention.
Without these caucus wins, which Long and others claim were based on fraud, Hillary Clinton would be the Democrats? nominee running against John McCain.
Citing a detailed report on the voting results and delegate accounts by accountant Piniel Cronin, ?there were only four pledged delegates between Hillary and Obama once you discount caucus fraud,? Long said.
Long has compiled many of these eyewitness reports from the 14 caucus states in a 98-page, single-spaced report and in an interactive Web site: www.caucusanalysis.org.
ACORN involvement
The Obama campaign recently admitted that it paid an affiliate of ACORN, the controversial community organizer that Obama represented in Chicago, more than $832,00 for ?voter turnout? work during the primaries. The campaign initially claimed the money had been spent on ?staging, sound and light? and ?advance work.?
State and federal law enforcement in 11 states are investigating allegations of voter-registration fraud against the Obama campaign. ACORN workers repeatedly registered voters in the name of ?Mickey Mouse,? and registered the entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys twice ? once in Nevada, and again in Minnesota.
A group that has worked with ACORN in the past registered a dead goldfish under the name ?Princess Nudelman? in Illinois. When reporters informed Beth Nudelman, a Democrat, that her former pet was a registered voter, she said, ?This person is a dead fish."
ACORN was known for its ?intimidation tactics,? said independent scholar Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. who has researched Obama?s long-standing ties to the group.
Fully 30 percent of 1.3 million new voters ACORN claims to have registered this year are now believed to be illegitimate.
Long shared with Newsmax some of the emails and sworn affidavits she received from Hillary supporters who witnessed first-hand the thuggish tactics employed by Obama campaign operatives in Iowa and elsewhere.
Jeff, a precinct captain for Clinton from Davenport, Iowa, thought his caucus was in the bag for his candidate, until just minutes before the voting actually began.
?From 6-6:30 p.m., it appeared as I had expected. Young, old males, females, Hispanics, whites, gay and lesbian friends arriving. Very heavily for Ms. Clinton, a fair amount for Edwards and some stragglers for Obama,? he said.
That makeup corresponded to what he had witnessed from many precinct walks he had made through local neighborhoods.
?My mind began to feel victory for my lady,? he said. ?THEN: at 6:50 p.m., over 75 people of African-American descent came walking in, passed the tables and sat in the Obama section. I knew one of them from my canvassing. I knew another one who did not live in this precinct. And aside from four or five families that live on Hillandale Road, there are no other black people in this unusually white precinct. And one of those black couples were in my Hillary section,? he said.
Thanks to the last-minute influx of unknown Obama supporters, Obama won twice the number of delegates from the precinct as Hillary Clinton.
After it was over, ?a very large bus was seen in the parking lot afterwards carrying these folks back? to Illinois, Jeff said.
Obama?s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden ? today his running mate, then his rival ? pointed it out at the time.
At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden ?said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ?Hello Iowa!? and then turned to Barack?s crowd and shouted, ?and Hello Chicago!?? another precinct captain for Hillary told Long.
Thanks to Illinois campaign workers bused across the border into Iowa, all the precincts in eastern Iowa went for Obama, guaranteeing his win in the caucuses, Long said.
Obama supporters were also bused into northeast Iowa from Omaha, Nebraska, where Obama campaign workers were seen handing out ?i-pods and free stuff: T-shirts, clothes, shoes, and free meals? to students and people in homeless shelters,? according to eyewitness reports collected by Dr. Long.
In Iowa City, red and white chartered buses with Illinois license plates arrived from Illinois packed with boisterous African-American high school students, who came to caucus for Obama in Iowa after Obama campaign workers recruited them.
2,000 complaints in Texas
In a change in the Democratic National Committee rules for this year?s election season, four states had caucuses and primaries: Washington, Nebraska, Idaho and Texas. ?But Texas is the only one that counted both the caucus result and the primary result,? Dr. Long told Newsmax. ?The others didn?t count the primary at all, calling it a ?beauty contest.??
Because caucuses are more informal, and can last hours, they tend to favor candidates with a strong ground operation or whose supporters use strong-arm tactics to intimidate their rivals.
?There is inherent voter disenfranchisement in the caucuses,? Long said. ?Women are less likely to go to caucuses than men, because they don?t like the public nature of the caucus. The elderly are less likely to go to a caucus. People who work shifts can?t go if they work the night shift. And parents with young children can?t go out for four hours on a week night. All these people are traditionally Clinton supporters,? she said.
But Obama?s victories in the caucuses weren?t the result of better organization, Long insists. ?It was fraud.?
In state after state, Hillary was leading Obama in the polls right up until the last minute, when Obama won a landslide victory in the caucuses.
The discrepancies between the polls and the caucus results were stunning, Long told Newsmax. The most flagrant example was Minnesota.
A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll just one week before the Feb. 5 caucus gave Hillary a 7-point lead over Obama, 40-33. But when the Minnesota caucus results were counted, Obama won by a landslide, with 66.39 percent to just 32.23 percent for Hillary, giving him 48 delegates, compared with 24 for Clinton.
?No poll is that far off,? Long told Newsmax.
Similar disparities occurred in 13 of 14 caucus states.
In Colorado and Idaho, Obama had a 2-point edge over Hillary Clinton in the polls, but won by more than 2-to-1 in the caucuses, sweeping most delegates.
In Kansas, Hillary had a slight edge over Obama in the polls, but Obama won 74 percent of the votes in the caucus and most of the delegates. In nearly every state, he bested the pre-caucus polls by anywhere from 12 percent to more than 30 percent.
This year?s primary rules for the Democrats favored the caucus states over the primary states.
?Caucus states made up only 1.1 million (3 percent) of all Democratic votes, but selected 626 (15 percent) of the delegates,? said Gigi Gaston, a filmmaker who has made a documentary on the caucus fraud.
In Texas alone, she says, there were more than 2,000 complaints from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supporters of Obama?s strong-arm tactics.
One Hillary supporter, who appears in Gaston?s new film, ?We Will Not Be Silenced,? says she received death threats from Obama supporters after they saw her address in an online video she made to document fraud during the Texas caucus. ?People called me a whore and a skank,? she said.
John Siegel, El Paso Area Captain for Hillary, said, "Some people saw outright cheating. Other people just saw strong-arm tactics. I saw fraud.?
Another woman, who was not identified in the film, described the sign-in process. ?You?re supposed to sign your names on these sheets. The sheets are supposed to be controlled, and passed out ? this is kind of how you maintain order. None of that was done. The sheets were just flying all over the place. You could put in your own names. You could add your own sheets or anything. It was just filled with fraud.?
Other witnesses described how Obama supporters went through the crowds at the caucus telling Hillary supporters they could go home because their votes had been counted, when in fact no vote count had yet taken place.
?I couldn?t believe this was happening,? one woman said in the film. ?I thought this only happened in Third World countries.?
On election day in Texas, Clinton campaign lawyer Lyn Utrecht issued a news release that the national media largely ignored.
?The campaign legal hot line has been flooded with calls containing specific accusations of irregularities and voter intimidation against the Obama campaign,? she wrote. ?This activity is undemocratic, probably illegal, and reflects a wanton disregard for the caucus process.?
She identified 18 separate precincts where Obama operatives had removed voting packets before the Clinton voters could arrive, despite a written warning from the state party not to remove them.
The hot line also received numerous calls during the day that ?the Obama campaign has taken over caucus sites and locked the doors, excluding Clinton campaign supporters from participating in the caucus,? she wrote.
?There are numerous instances of Obama supporters filing out precinct convention sign-in sheets during the day and submitting them as completed vote totals at caucus. This is expressly against the rules,? she added.
But no one seemed to care.
Despite Clinton?s three-and-a-half point win in the Texas primary ? 50.87 percent to 47.39 percent ? Obama beat her in the caucus the same day by 56 to 43.7 percent, giving him a 38 to 29 advantage in delegates.
Linda Hayes investigated the results at the precinct level in three state Senate districts. Under the rules of the Texas Democratic Party, participants in the caucuses had to reside in the precinct where they were caucusing and had to have voted in the Democratic primary that same day.
When she began to see the results coming in from the precincts that were wildly at variance with the primary results, ?I could see that something was wrong,? Hayes said.
Hayes said she found numerous anomalies as she went through the precinct sign-in sheets.
?Many, many, many Obama people either came to the wrong precinct, they did not sign in properly, they did not show ID, or they did not vote that day.? And yet, their votes were counted.
In a letter to Rep. Lois Capps, a Clinton supporter calling himself ?Pacific John? described the fraud he had witnessed during the caucuses.
?On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see,? he wrote.
?We saw stolen precincts where Obama organizers fabricated counts, made false entries on sign-in sheets, suppressed delegate counts, and suppressed caucus voters. We saw patterns such as missing electronic access code sheets and precinct packets taken before the legal time, like elsewhere in the state. Obama volunteers illegally took convention materials state-wide, with attempts as early as 6:30 a.m.?
The story of how Obama stole the Democratic Party caucuses ? and consequently, the Democratic Party nomination ? is important not just because it prefigures potential voter fraud in the November 4 presidential election, which is already under way.
It?s important because it fits a pattern that Chicago journalists and a few national and international commentators have noticed in all of the elections Obama has won in his career.
NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher described Obama?s first election victory, for the Illinois state Senate, in a recent commentary that appeared in the London Telegraph.
?Mr. Obama won a seat in the state Senate in 1996 by the unorthodox means of having surrogates successfully challenge the hundreds of nomination signatures that candidates submit. His Democratic rivals, including Alice Palmer, the incumbent, were all disqualified,? Fletcher wrote.
Obama?s election to the U.S. Senate ?was even more curious,? conservative columnist Tony Blankley wrote in The Washington Times.
Citing an account that appeared in The Times of London, Blankley described how Obama managed to squeeze out his main Democratic rival, Blair Hull, after divorce papers revealed allegations that Hull had allegedly made a death threat to his former wife.
Then in the general election, ?lightning struck again,? Blankley wrote, when his Republican opponent, wealthy businessman Jack Ryan, was forced to withdraw in extremis after his divorce papers revealed details of his sexual life with his former wife.
Just weeks before the election, the Illinois Republican Party called on Alan Keyes of Maryland to challenge Obama in the general election. Obama won a landslide victory.
?Mr. Obama?s elections are pregnant with the implications that he has so far gamed every office he has sought by underhanded and sordid means,? Blankley wrote, while ?the American media has let these extraordinary events simply pass without significant comment.?
Hillary Clinton supporters, belatedly, now agree.
24
3DHS / A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on why she?s voting McCain.
« on: October 30, 2008, 03:23:53 AM »
So Long, Democrats
by Wendy Button
Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I?m a woman writing in the election of 2008, ?very emotional.?
When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read ?Millie Worker.? When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, ?That makes you like my parent.? He went on to say, ?Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what?s coming up.? I sat in John and Elizabeth?s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.
I didn?t hear from anyone for three weeks.
When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, ?Go away.? That happens. It?s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, ?Start right away? I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.
When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn?t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for ?The South Beach Diet? and he snapped, ?Oh so you read People magazine.? He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.
I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn?t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn?t in it anymore.
See campaigns get complicated when you?ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton?s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a ?good looking? man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it?s family. Now, it doesn?t even feel like a distant cousin.
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton?s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn?t ?a real plumber,? and ?They?re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,? and the patronizing, ?I?ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.?
Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as ?hooker lines??a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they?re reporting meaningful news.
As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with ?erratic? and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It?s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: ?I didn?t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.?
The party I believed in wouldn?t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don?t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems?big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies?is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
That?s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton ?dishonest.? They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over ?Bros before Hoes? or ?Iron My Shirt.? Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She?s human.
But here we are about a week out and it?s d?j? vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin?s wardrobe? Where?s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there?s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank?s.
Here we are discussing Governor Palin?s clothes?oh wait, now we?re on to the make-up?not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn?t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.
Governor Palin and I don?t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can?t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot?that?s a sign of both humor and humanity.
Has she made mistakes? Of course, she?s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama?s ?57 states? remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, ?There?s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man?s thoughts.?
But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don?t understand the details about Senator Obama?s plan with Iraq. When he says, ?all combat troops,? he?s not talking about all troops?it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That?s not ending the war; that?s half a war.
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can?t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It?s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party?s talking points?that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he?s President Bush?are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument?doesn?t mean they?re true. After all, he is the only one who?s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I?ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with ?D?s.?
Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, ?Maybe for you. But I lost my home.?
The Daily Beast
by Wendy Button
Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I?m a woman writing in the election of 2008, ?very emotional.?
When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read ?Millie Worker.? When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, ?That makes you like my parent.? He went on to say, ?Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what?s coming up.? I sat in John and Elizabeth?s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.
I didn?t hear from anyone for three weeks.
When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, ?Go away.? That happens. It?s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, ?Start right away? I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.
When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn?t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for ?The South Beach Diet? and he snapped, ?Oh so you read People magazine.? He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.
I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn?t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn?t in it anymore.
See campaigns get complicated when you?ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton?s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a ?good looking? man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it?s family. Now, it doesn?t even feel like a distant cousin.
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton?s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn?t ?a real plumber,? and ?They?re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,? and the patronizing, ?I?ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.?
Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as ?hooker lines??a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they?re reporting meaningful news.
As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with ?erratic? and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It?s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: ?I didn?t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.?
The party I believed in wouldn?t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don?t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems?big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies?is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
That?s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton ?dishonest.? They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over ?Bros before Hoes? or ?Iron My Shirt.? Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She?s human.
But here we are about a week out and it?s d?j? vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin?s wardrobe? Where?s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there?s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank?s.
Here we are discussing Governor Palin?s clothes?oh wait, now we?re on to the make-up?not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn?t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.
Governor Palin and I don?t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can?t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot?that?s a sign of both humor and humanity.
Has she made mistakes? Of course, she?s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama?s ?57 states? remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, ?There?s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man?s thoughts.?
But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don?t understand the details about Senator Obama?s plan with Iraq. When he says, ?all combat troops,? he?s not talking about all troops?it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That?s not ending the war; that?s half a war.
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can?t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It?s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party?s talking points?that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he?s President Bush?are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument?doesn?t mean they?re true. After all, he is the only one who?s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I?ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with ?D?s.?
Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, ?Maybe for you. But I lost my home.?
The Daily Beast
25
3DHS / Days of rage: There's something happening here
« on: October 27, 2008, 08:54:16 PM »
by David Reinhard, The Oregonian
What is happening to us? What explains the boorishness, hate and even violence that increasingly mark our politics?
No, this isn't another prissy commentary on "negative" ads -- another high-sounding homily on how we ought to focus on "the issues," by which the writer means "the issues that I think voters should focus on." Nor is this a screed against demonstrations, however boisterous, or some young fools' lawn-sign stealing. There's no interest here in trampling on free-speech rights or spitting into the wind of what must be a rite of passage.
What troubles me -- what should trouble us all -- is the outbreak of largely liberal intolerance we've seen over the last few elections, and especially this one.
Something's happening here, and it's getting scary.
We've had two 23-year-old males here tossing Molotov cocktails to burn down Gene Scrutton's John McCain sign in the Sellwood neighborhood.
In Minnesota, graffiti messages ("u r a criminal resign or else") were spray-painted on the garage of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's St. Paul home.
A 23-year-old Michigan man, a Democrat, has admitted to plotting to detonate a homemade bomb in the tunnels near the Republican convention.
In the Washington, D.C., suburbs, a motel with a McCain sign on its lawn received threatening calls and a McCain-signed pumpkin patch was vandalized.
In central Florida, the Republican headquarters manager told police he believed that his home with two McCain signs was shot up because of his support for McCain.
It doesn't involve physical violence, threatened or real, but "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart's "[expletive] you" to Sarah Palin in a recent comedy (?) act suggests how far we've gone in the age of the unhinged.
Yes, I know this stuff runs both ways. Here in Oregon, we had the hanging of an Obama cut-out at Newberg's George Fox University. The Washington Post reports that Obama signs in Alexandria, Va., were painted with racist epithets. We learned Friday that a McCain campaign worker's claim that she was beaten up and had the letter "B" cut into her face because her car had a McCain sticker was a hoax. Such deranged doings are just as appalling when it comes from the right, though my sense is that this hate-filled intolerance more often comes out of left field.
I also know we're a big country, and a few goof-balls do not a national trend make. But I don't think I'm committing sociology based on a few incidents. We're talking about more than a few beer-addled goofballs here.
A young friend of mine was working for the Bush campaign in 2004. One weekend he left his car outside a friend's Eugene house for safekeeping while he was out of town. Upon returning, he noticed the "W" sticker had been removed from his car. Hey, buddy, you were supposed to take care of my car, he said to his friend. Oh, yeah, his friend said, my father did that when he was here this weekend. He couldn't stand a student having a Bush sticker on his car.
Now, mind you, this wasn't a practical joke. The father was dead serious, and he wasn't some ne'er-do-well with a six-pack of beer aboard. He was an immaculately credentialed Portland professional who also headed a major community organization.
I love politics and public policy, but the ugliness, the anger, the coarseness and even the threats of violence I've experienced as a conservative opinion-writer in achingly "tolerant" Portland have contributed to my decision to leave the business after this election. My heart was starting to harden -- do we conservatives not have hearts, do we not bleed? -- and I didn't want that to happen.
I joked at first about some of it. When a reader sent me my column covered with dried feces, I looked on the bright side. He could have said he wouldn't .... on my column. I took comfort in the fact law officers visited the Iraq War foe (a peace advocate!) and the liberal critic (a Portland public school teacher!) who threatened my family. But the constant expletive-laced rants, the nifty Nazi-Hitler-German references, the holier-than-thou hate for any opposing view from the half-informed -- well, it's not what our public discourse should be about. It wasn't in a better age. If I sometimes responded in kind (and I did), forgive me.
What accounts for this rage? Maybe it's that so many feel the White House was stolen from them eight years ago. Maybe they just feel entitled to rule. (Dude, where's my country?) Maybe it's the Iraq War. Or George Bush, though many lefties have worked themselves into the same derangement syndrome over Palin. Maybe the cause is deeper. I don't know. I only know it's not a good thing for civil society.
Obama's not my candidate -- McCain is -- but, if he's elected on Nov. 4, Obama will be my president and I'll be happy to cheer two things. One, the fact that the United States has, at long last, elected an African-American president. Two, the possibility that Obama's election might deliver us from this nastiness. I think it's called the audacity of hope.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf/2008/10/days_of_rage_theres_something.html
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
-- Buffalo Springfield
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
-- Buffalo Springfield
What is happening to us? What explains the boorishness, hate and even violence that increasingly mark our politics?
No, this isn't another prissy commentary on "negative" ads -- another high-sounding homily on how we ought to focus on "the issues," by which the writer means "the issues that I think voters should focus on." Nor is this a screed against demonstrations, however boisterous, or some young fools' lawn-sign stealing. There's no interest here in trampling on free-speech rights or spitting into the wind of what must be a rite of passage.
What troubles me -- what should trouble us all -- is the outbreak of largely liberal intolerance we've seen over the last few elections, and especially this one.
Something's happening here, and it's getting scary.
We've had two 23-year-old males here tossing Molotov cocktails to burn down Gene Scrutton's John McCain sign in the Sellwood neighborhood.
In Minnesota, graffiti messages ("u r a criminal resign or else") were spray-painted on the garage of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's St. Paul home.
A 23-year-old Michigan man, a Democrat, has admitted to plotting to detonate a homemade bomb in the tunnels near the Republican convention.
In the Washington, D.C., suburbs, a motel with a McCain sign on its lawn received threatening calls and a McCain-signed pumpkin patch was vandalized.
In central Florida, the Republican headquarters manager told police he believed that his home with two McCain signs was shot up because of his support for McCain.
It doesn't involve physical violence, threatened or real, but "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart's "[expletive] you" to Sarah Palin in a recent comedy (?) act suggests how far we've gone in the age of the unhinged.
Yes, I know this stuff runs both ways. Here in Oregon, we had the hanging of an Obama cut-out at Newberg's George Fox University. The Washington Post reports that Obama signs in Alexandria, Va., were painted with racist epithets. We learned Friday that a McCain campaign worker's claim that she was beaten up and had the letter "B" cut into her face because her car had a McCain sticker was a hoax. Such deranged doings are just as appalling when it comes from the right, though my sense is that this hate-filled intolerance more often comes out of left field.
I also know we're a big country, and a few goof-balls do not a national trend make. But I don't think I'm committing sociology based on a few incidents. We're talking about more than a few beer-addled goofballs here.
A young friend of mine was working for the Bush campaign in 2004. One weekend he left his car outside a friend's Eugene house for safekeeping while he was out of town. Upon returning, he noticed the "W" sticker had been removed from his car. Hey, buddy, you were supposed to take care of my car, he said to his friend. Oh, yeah, his friend said, my father did that when he was here this weekend. He couldn't stand a student having a Bush sticker on his car.
Now, mind you, this wasn't a practical joke. The father was dead serious, and he wasn't some ne'er-do-well with a six-pack of beer aboard. He was an immaculately credentialed Portland professional who also headed a major community organization.
I love politics and public policy, but the ugliness, the anger, the coarseness and even the threats of violence I've experienced as a conservative opinion-writer in achingly "tolerant" Portland have contributed to my decision to leave the business after this election. My heart was starting to harden -- do we conservatives not have hearts, do we not bleed? -- and I didn't want that to happen.
I joked at first about some of it. When a reader sent me my column covered with dried feces, I looked on the bright side. He could have said he wouldn't .... on my column. I took comfort in the fact law officers visited the Iraq War foe (a peace advocate!) and the liberal critic (a Portland public school teacher!) who threatened my family. But the constant expletive-laced rants, the nifty Nazi-Hitler-German references, the holier-than-thou hate for any opposing view from the half-informed -- well, it's not what our public discourse should be about. It wasn't in a better age. If I sometimes responded in kind (and I did), forgive me.
What accounts for this rage? Maybe it's that so many feel the White House was stolen from them eight years ago. Maybe they just feel entitled to rule. (Dude, where's my country?) Maybe it's the Iraq War. Or George Bush, though many lefties have worked themselves into the same derangement syndrome over Palin. Maybe the cause is deeper. I don't know. I only know it's not a good thing for civil society.
Obama's not my candidate -- McCain is -- but, if he's elected on Nov. 4, Obama will be my president and I'll be happy to cheer two things. One, the fact that the United States has, at long last, elected an African-American president. Two, the possibility that Obama's election might deliver us from this nastiness. I think it's called the audacity of hope.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf/2008/10/days_of_rage_theres_something.html
26
3DHS / Yeah...I thought that, too.
« on: October 27, 2008, 08:44:28 PM »
Liberals let loose on Palin and Joe the Plumber
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- I thought liberals were supposed to be good-hearted, open-minded and non-judgmental.
Tell that to the angry Left's favorite pi?ata, Sarah Palin. As far as liberals are concerned, Palin can do no right just as Barack Obama and Joe Biden can do no wrong. In fact, Biden is catching more passes than an NFL wide receiver.
As Palin herself pointed out in a recent CNN interview, imagine if she had been the one to imply that electing Obama would invite calamity. Biden does it, and the media shrug.
I also thought the Democratic Party was supposed to go to bat for the little guy, the everyday Joe the Plumber.
Tell that to Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio resident who got his 15 minutes -- and 40 lashes -- because he dared question Obama about his tax plan. Obama insists that the plan would raise taxes only on those Americans earning more than $250,000 per year. It was then Obama made his clumsy "spread the wealth" comment.
What was Joe thinking: that we live in a democracy where everyday Americans who pay the salaries of elected officials can dare question their policies? That just isn't done.
To prove it, the elites who run the Democratic Party -- along with their surrogates in the media and organized labor -- went after the plumber.
We now know that Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher owes back taxes, doesn't have a plumbing license (he told the Associated Press he doesn't need one because he works for someone else's company), and may not be registered to vote.
Commenting on a CNN.com story, one condescending reader wrote that Joe the Plumber should pipe down and "get back in my bathroom and unclog the toilet."
Even Biden and Obama got in a few licks. Biden quipped to Jay Leno that Democrats wanted to take care of "Joe-the-real-plumber-with-a-license," and Obama sarcastically asked supporters, "how many plumbers do you know making $250,000 a year?" The implication being that Joe the Plumber isn't who he pretends to be.
What worries me is that the Democrats aren't what they pretend to be.
Obama supporters like to talk about how the Democratic presidential nominee has lived the American Dream. So why is it to so hard for them to conceive of a situation where someone dreams of earning more money a few years from now than they earn today. Has Barack Obama consumed all the social mobility this country has to offer, so there isn't any left for the rest of us?
Now, the Obama-Biden boosters have refocused their attention on their earlier irritant, Sarah Palin.
The latest media template is that the vice presidential nominee is a drag on the GOP ticket. Pundits detect a backlash, not just among Democrats who love to hate Sarah Palin but also among women, independents and seniors. They cite polls showing Palin with an unfavorable rating of 50 percent.
So what? We're in the post-Clinton, post-Bush era of polarization where any politician with a pulse -- Sorry, Joe Biden -- will be loved by half the country and hated by the other half.
It's surreal. Before McCain put Palin on the ticket, he was getting 200 people at campaign rallies, and now, when he appears when Palin, he gets 20,000. Yes, definitely a drag. iReport.com: Rock star welcome for Palin in Ohio
McCain oversold it when he said Palin was the most qualified vice presidential candidate in recent history. Better than Dick Cheney? Could she be worse? Obama might have paid Biden the same compliment if his running mate hadn't already told supporters that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice.
Then there is the faux-scandal that the Republican National Committee shelled out $150,000 in the past several weeks on Palin and her family for campaign wardrobe, accessories, makeup, etc.
Many Americans don't see why it's a story. Fellow hockey mom Page Growney of New Canaan, Conn., asked The Associated Press, "What did you want to see her in, a turtleneck from L.L. Bean?"
Still, we're told, this tempest in a Gucci bag has some Republicans worrying that shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue might undermine Palin's everywoman image. To think, just last month, the criticism was that Sarah the Moose Hunter wasn't sufficiently sophisticated or glamorous. Now her wardrobe signals the hockey mom is high-maintenance.
Just how many more caricatures -- some of them contradictory -- can we expect the left to throw at Sarah Palin before time runs out on this election?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/navarrette.liberals/index.html
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- I thought liberals were supposed to be good-hearted, open-minded and non-judgmental.
Tell that to the angry Left's favorite pi?ata, Sarah Palin. As far as liberals are concerned, Palin can do no right just as Barack Obama and Joe Biden can do no wrong. In fact, Biden is catching more passes than an NFL wide receiver.
As Palin herself pointed out in a recent CNN interview, imagine if she had been the one to imply that electing Obama would invite calamity. Biden does it, and the media shrug.
I also thought the Democratic Party was supposed to go to bat for the little guy, the everyday Joe the Plumber.
Tell that to Joe Wurzelbacher, the Ohio resident who got his 15 minutes -- and 40 lashes -- because he dared question Obama about his tax plan. Obama insists that the plan would raise taxes only on those Americans earning more than $250,000 per year. It was then Obama made his clumsy "spread the wealth" comment.
What was Joe thinking: that we live in a democracy where everyday Americans who pay the salaries of elected officials can dare question their policies? That just isn't done.
To prove it, the elites who run the Democratic Party -- along with their surrogates in the media and organized labor -- went after the plumber.
We now know that Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher owes back taxes, doesn't have a plumbing license (he told the Associated Press he doesn't need one because he works for someone else's company), and may not be registered to vote.
Commenting on a CNN.com story, one condescending reader wrote that Joe the Plumber should pipe down and "get back in my bathroom and unclog the toilet."
Even Biden and Obama got in a few licks. Biden quipped to Jay Leno that Democrats wanted to take care of "Joe-the-real-plumber-with-a-license," and Obama sarcastically asked supporters, "how many plumbers do you know making $250,000 a year?" The implication being that Joe the Plumber isn't who he pretends to be.
What worries me is that the Democrats aren't what they pretend to be.
Obama supporters like to talk about how the Democratic presidential nominee has lived the American Dream. So why is it to so hard for them to conceive of a situation where someone dreams of earning more money a few years from now than they earn today. Has Barack Obama consumed all the social mobility this country has to offer, so there isn't any left for the rest of us?
Now, the Obama-Biden boosters have refocused their attention on their earlier irritant, Sarah Palin.
The latest media template is that the vice presidential nominee is a drag on the GOP ticket. Pundits detect a backlash, not just among Democrats who love to hate Sarah Palin but also among women, independents and seniors. They cite polls showing Palin with an unfavorable rating of 50 percent.
So what? We're in the post-Clinton, post-Bush era of polarization where any politician with a pulse -- Sorry, Joe Biden -- will be loved by half the country and hated by the other half.
It's surreal. Before McCain put Palin on the ticket, he was getting 200 people at campaign rallies, and now, when he appears when Palin, he gets 20,000. Yes, definitely a drag. iReport.com: Rock star welcome for Palin in Ohio
McCain oversold it when he said Palin was the most qualified vice presidential candidate in recent history. Better than Dick Cheney? Could she be worse? Obama might have paid Biden the same compliment if his running mate hadn't already told supporters that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice.
Then there is the faux-scandal that the Republican National Committee shelled out $150,000 in the past several weeks on Palin and her family for campaign wardrobe, accessories, makeup, etc.
Many Americans don't see why it's a story. Fellow hockey mom Page Growney of New Canaan, Conn., asked The Associated Press, "What did you want to see her in, a turtleneck from L.L. Bean?"
Still, we're told, this tempest in a Gucci bag has some Republicans worrying that shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue might undermine Palin's everywoman image. To think, just last month, the criticism was that Sarah the Moose Hunter wasn't sufficiently sophisticated or glamorous. Now her wardrobe signals the hockey mom is high-maintenance.
Just how many more caricatures -- some of them contradictory -- can we expect the left to throw at Sarah Palin before time runs out on this election?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/navarrette.liberals/index.html
27
3DHS / Shame, Cubed
« on: October 27, 2008, 05:37:51 PM »
Three separate reasons to be appalled, each more disgusting than the last.
By Bill Whittle
The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.
Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American ? or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man?s beliefs and affiliations.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I?d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn?t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
A caller then helpfully asks: ?The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn?t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)? my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place??
Obama replies:
You know, I?m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn?t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it?s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.?
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
From the top: ??The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical.?
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama?s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of ?political and economic justice.? We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides ?deserve? it.
This redistribution of wealth, he states, ?essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.? It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Now that?s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers? I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: ?And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
The United States of America ? five percent of the world?s population ? leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally ? and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due ? due entirely ? to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: ??One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.?
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context ? the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you ? regardless of your political affiliation ? then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, ?a righteous wind at our backs.?
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
We?re just getting started.
THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information ? who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That?s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He?s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby?s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone ? even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.
There is a special hell for you ?journalists? out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.
That hell ? your own personal hell ? is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
You?ve earned it.
THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
What will be left of my friend, and my friend?s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?
? Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.
By Bill Whittle
The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.
Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American ? or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man?s beliefs and affiliations.
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I?d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn?t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
A caller then helpfully asks: ?The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn?t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)? my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place??
Obama replies:
You know, I?m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn?t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it?s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.?
THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.
From the top: ??The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical.?
If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama?s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of ?political and economic justice.? We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides ?deserve? it.
This redistribution of wealth, he states, ?essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.? It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.
Now that?s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers? I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: ?And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn?t that radical. It didn?t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution ? at least as it?s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can?t do to you, says what the federal government can?t do to you, but it doesn?t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
The United States of America ? five percent of the world?s population ? leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally ? and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due ? due entirely ? to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.
Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: ??One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.?
There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context ? the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.
We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.
If this does not frighten you ? regardless of your political affiliation ? then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, ?a righteous wind at our backs.?
That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.
We?re just getting started.
THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.
I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information ? who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.
I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That?s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He?s at the end of the line now.
I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby?s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.
We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone ? even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.
Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.
There is a special hell for you ?journalists? out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.
That hell ? your own personal hell ? is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.
You?ve earned it.
THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.
What will be left of my friend, and my friend?s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck[/youtube]
? Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.
28
3DHS / Is America really going to do this?
« on: October 27, 2008, 01:16:27 AM »
The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.
Personally, I don?t give any credence to the ?support? for one candidate over the other that has been expressed by the enemies of civilisation (Iran and Hamas ?support? Obama, while an al Qaeda blogger ?supports? McCain). Their agenda is simply to sow confusion and promote American recriminations and disarray. Nor do I set much store by many of the remarks made by either candidate during the latter stages of this election campaign, since under this kind of pressure both will now say pretty much anything to win it. The New York Times has run a useful analysis of the candidates? foreign policy campaign statements which shows how Obama has carefully tacked to the ?hard power? agenda while McCain has in turn nodded towards ?soft power?.
No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and ? perhaps most crucially of all ? the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.
Here?s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America?s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west?s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That?s why he believes in ?soft power? ? diplomacy, aid, rectifying ?grievances? (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America?s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ?cut investments in unproven missile defense systems?; he will ?not weaponize space?; he will ?slow our development of future combat systems?; and he will also ?not develop nuclear weapons,? pledging to seek ?deep cuts? in America?s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America?s fault. ?A lot of evil?s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,? he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ?legitimate grievances?. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ?grievances? are legitimate?
To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.
McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.
Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel ? particularly through the ?settlements? ? is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders ? actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ?Auschwitz borders?.
Obama would thus speak to Iran?s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ?Zionist? Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel?s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ?surge? in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.
Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists? camp. Daniel Pipes lists Obama?s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:
Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America?s strategic enemy; Obama?s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.
The hatred that these Islamist connections entertain towards Israel is reflected amongst Obama?s own advisers. With one notable exception in Dennis Ross, whose late arrival in Camp Obama suggests a cosmetic exercise designed to allay alarm among Israel supporters, his advisers are overwhelmingly not only hostile to Israel but perpetrate the loathesome canard that Jews have too much power over American policy.
The former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, not only denounced Israel?s war against Hezbollah thus:
I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect? maybe not in intent ? the killing of hostages
but also supports Mearsheimer and Walt?s notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America?s foreign policy in the interests of Israel. Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama?s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ?politician wants to run against? and who he says exercise undue influence on America?s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ?monster? but who says she still expects to be in Obama?s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ?mammoth force? of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ?good for the Jews?.
There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can?t sleep at night.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml
Personally, I don?t give any credence to the ?support? for one candidate over the other that has been expressed by the enemies of civilisation (Iran and Hamas ?support? Obama, while an al Qaeda blogger ?supports? McCain). Their agenda is simply to sow confusion and promote American recriminations and disarray. Nor do I set much store by many of the remarks made by either candidate during the latter stages of this election campaign, since under this kind of pressure both will now say pretty much anything to win it. The New York Times has run a useful analysis of the candidates? foreign policy campaign statements which shows how Obama has carefully tacked to the ?hard power? agenda while McCain has in turn nodded towards ?soft power?.
No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and ? perhaps most crucially of all ? the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.
Here?s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America?s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.
Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west?s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That?s why he believes in ?soft power? ? diplomacy, aid, rectifying ?grievances? (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America?s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ?cut investments in unproven missile defense systems?; he will ?not weaponize space?; he will ?slow our development of future combat systems?; and he will also ?not develop nuclear weapons,? pledging to seek ?deep cuts? in America?s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.
McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America?s fault. ?A lot of evil?s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,? he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ?legitimate grievances?. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ?grievances? are legitimate?
To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.
McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.
Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel ? particularly through the ?settlements? ? is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders ? actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ?Auschwitz borders?.
Obama would thus speak to Iran?s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ?Zionist? Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel?s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ?surge? in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.
Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists? camp. Daniel Pipes lists Obama?s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:
Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America?s strategic enemy; Obama?s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.
The hatred that these Islamist connections entertain towards Israel is reflected amongst Obama?s own advisers. With one notable exception in Dennis Ross, whose late arrival in Camp Obama suggests a cosmetic exercise designed to allay alarm among Israel supporters, his advisers are overwhelmingly not only hostile to Israel but perpetrate the loathesome canard that Jews have too much power over American policy.
The former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, not only denounced Israel?s war against Hezbollah thus:
I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect? maybe not in intent ? the killing of hostages
but also supports Mearsheimer and Walt?s notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America?s foreign policy in the interests of Israel. Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama?s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ?politician wants to run against? and who he says exercise undue influence on America?s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ?monster? but who says she still expects to be in Obama?s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ?mammoth force? of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ?good for the Jews?.
There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can?t sleep at night.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml
29
3DHS / The Truth, the Whole Truth And. . .
« on: October 17, 2008, 04:31:50 PM »
The latest Protect Marriage Yes on 8 television ad in California shows an incredibly cute 8 year old Hispanic girl bringing the book King and King home to her mother saying "Guess what I learned in school today. . . I can marry a princess!"
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not ? were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
?In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.? [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
?There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment?s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one?s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue ? or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.? [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
?Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children?s book?King and King.? [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?action=post;board=1.0
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not ? were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
?In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.? [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
?There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment?s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one?s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue ? or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.? [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
?Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children?s book?King and King.? [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?action=post;board=1.0
30
3DHS / Four Freedoms
« on: October 16, 2008, 11:07:51 PM »
The Corner
Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you've ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family.
Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some, about Joe the Plumber's tax lien, and how he doesn't have a license - which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs for commercial work, not residential work.
This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see. Bristol Palin, Trig Palin, ? hey, it's all fair game. They've got to make an example of them. Show them that this sort of dangerous speech won't be allowed in the New America.
Remember the man in the plaid shirt, standing at the town meeting in one of Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" paintings? He wouldn't recognize this country anymore.
Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you've ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family.
Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some, about Joe the Plumber's tax lien, and how he doesn't have a license - which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs for commercial work, not residential work.
This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see. Bristol Palin, Trig Palin, ? hey, it's all fair game. They've got to make an example of them. Show them that this sort of dangerous speech won't be allowed in the New America.
Remember the man in the plaid shirt, standing at the town meeting in one of Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" paintings? He wouldn't recognize this country anymore.