A great catch from Patterico at Hot Air- one that deserves spreading.
Remember Obama's oft-repeated lie line that his campaign contributions come from "the people"? Well, not so much-
George W. Bush in 2004 had a higher percentage of contributions of $200 or less than Barack Obama has had in this campaign.
Surprised?
Lost in the attention given to Obama’s Internet surge is that only a quarter of the $600 million he has raised has come from donors who made contributions of $200 or less, according to a review of his FEC reports. That is actually slightly less, as a percentage, than President Bush raised in small donations during his 2004 race…
So, bigger donors own a bigger piece of Obama than previously thought. But hey, that doesn't worry you when it comes to a Chicago machine politician, does it? I mean, it's not like this guy's a blank page with no legislative history suddenly thrust into the most powerful position on Earth. Right? And anyway, it's not like he's a glutton for public funds funnelled towards political backers and friends. Oh, well, let's move swiftly on...
While Obama says he does not accept contributions from Washington lobbyists, that’s not much of a distinction these days. He has been accepting huge amounts from corporations, unions and endless special-interest groups. The influence of big-money donors in a possible Obama administration could create a political backlash if he doesn’t find a way to resist the enormous pressure that will be brought to bear.
And the conclusion?
MacDonald’s article explores the question whether Obama is going to be the first guy in history to take scads of money from people and not let it affect the way he governs.
Now there is a proposition that I’m willing to put big money on.
The Obama campaign is certainly becoming more audacious as election day draws near-
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states — and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
It looks like they were not sufficiently obsequious towards "Dear Leader". Upstart journalists exercising their freedom of expression- how dare they!
Now it just looks like vindictiveness, and perhaps even worse. Obama and his supporters have gotten vicious with reporters who ask questions and do research that put Obama in a bad light, and this adds to the general pattern we’ve seen since the primaries.
It also looks a little self-indulgent. Obama’s clearing room on the plane for — what? Documentarians who will produce hagiographies about his historic importance. That fits into another pattern we’ve seen for months, one marked with fake presidential seals, The Barackopolis, and infomercials. In the coming Age of Obama, only the worshipers will get front-row seats to history.
If this is the way Obama treats journalists now, just imagine what it's going to be like if he gets into the White House and, as Joe Biden points out, their favourability ratings drop.
Do you think the press is starting to show some buyer's remorse yet- or will that only happen when Obama-approved stooges reporters get access to the administration?
Politico has an article up on the "nastiest rumours" of the campaign. One of them is the Obama-Odinga story.
A third popular Obama "tip" has to do with RailaOdinga, the Kenyan prime minister and former opposition leader who claimed that Obama was a distant cousin. The reports surfaced after a political crisis in Kenya in which many international observers believed the vote was stolen from Odinga. As the international community rallied behind the opposition, Obama spoke to Odinga briefly on the telephone. The media has ignored stories about the relationship between the two men because there's no real evidence that one exists. But the story, which comes in many varieties, suggests that Obama campaigned for Odinga and funneled money to his campaign and that they're close allies. In a particularly resonant twist, the story also subjects Odinga to the same sort of rumor that afflicts Obama: that despite Odinga's professed Christian faith (the Kenyan prime minister is an Anglican), the two men are conspiring to institute Muslim law…in Kenya.
There's a minor problem with this conclusion- and that's that it is incorrect. Here's CBS on the Obama visit to Kenya, written in 2006.
There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obamaand African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.
But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.
At the University of Nairobitwo hours later, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he's done almost every day since arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President MwaiKibakiis beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader RailaOdinga.
A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.
"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from," said government spokesman Dr. Alfred Mutua. "Just because somebody, somewhere wants to run for president and is using Sen. Obama as his stooge, as his puppet to be able to get to where he wants to get to."
The article is, of course, accompanied by this photograph of Obama and Odinga appearing together- Another report on the Obama visit notes-
Kibera loves Obama's outspoken anti-corruption crusade, as does most of Kenya. It's one reason he's getting a hero's welcome wherever he goes.
Barack Obama's forays into diplomacy have touched on Kenya, most recently on Monday when he spoke with RailaOdinga for about five minutes from New Hampshire, asking the opposition leader to meet directly with President MwaiKibaki, said the U.S. politician's spokesman.
"He urged an end to violence and that Mr. Odinga sit down, without preconditions, with President Kibaki to resolve this issue peacefully," said the spokesman, Bill Burton.
On his last visit to Kenya, in August, Obama made a speech that was televised live in which he touched on themes not normally debated openly in Kenya, criticizing the high-level corruption and the tribal politics that have dominated the country since its 1963 independence from Britain. Both issues have played a role in the postelection violence.
As for the cousin point, it was RailaOdinga who made that claim to the BBC.
Finally there's the claim that Christian Odinga is conspiring with Muslims in Kenya, something Politico seems to dismiss out of hand. This is, of course, perfectly true. Odinga signed an agreement with Sheik AbdullahiAbdi, the leader of a Kenyan Muslim group. In return for his support, Odinga would institute policy changes favourable to Muslims in Kenya. The dispute which arises is not about the agreement between the two men but about the exact details of it. A document was published in Kenya speaking of installing Sharia law in Muslim-dominated areas of the country for example. Another document was later released after considerable pressure from the public. The demands in this document were not quite so extreme but its validity has been called into question.
A quick aside- the post-election violence committed by Odinga supporters targeted an awful lot of Christians and churches. No mosques were damaged. Also, Muslims in Kenya were also pushing for Sharia law back in 2005 too.
You can watch a TV report about the agreement- freely admitted to by Ahbdi. Note that Abdi's primary concern is the topic of rendition.
Finally we have the Washington Times report on the story. In it they note Obama's campaigning for Odinga (covered in local media) and also some interesting background on Odinga himself-
Like his father, JaramogiOgingaOdinga, the main opposition leader in the 1960s and 1970s, RailaOdinga is a Marxist. He graduated from East Germany's Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship provided by the East German government. He named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.
RailaOdinga was implicated in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 against then-President Daniel Arap Moi, a close ally of the United States. Kenya has been one of the most stable democracies in Africa since the 1960s. The ethnic cleansing earlier this year was the worst violence in Kenya since that 1982 coup attempt.
Obama having close links with another Marxist? I guess that must be another of those distractions we keep hearing about- and not more evidence of a pattern of behaviour on Obama's part.
Now, can someone please explain to me how this story ended up in Politico's "worst rumours" section?
From the HillBuzz blog, a video of Obama himself and his supporters coming up blank when asked about his accomplishments. Heck, even Michelle Obama says "he hasn't done anything yet".
I wrote not so long ago about the connections between Barack Obama, his anti-apartheid activism while at Columbia and the startling coincidence that Ayers was studying close by- while the last of the Weather Underground were also involved in anti-apartheid protesting.
What I do know is that Obama had the same political interests as the final remnants of the Weather Underground at the exact same time in the exact same place. That as an adult he was living in the same city where and when they conducted their second-to-last terror attack, which was a protest against the Apartheid polices of South Africa -- the very topic to which Obama has said he was devoted at that time. So because of all this, Obama must have known about the Weather Underground and their tactics while he was still in college. So when he met Weather Underground founder William Ayers 13 years later, Obama certainly had to have known exactly who Ayers was and what he had done.
The point is also made that while Obama claims to have only been 8 years old when the WU started, he was 20 years old when they conducted one of their last act of terrorism. That sure does change the story and it reveals again his dissembling tactics when confronted with controversy and scandal.
The ties between Obama and Ayers/Weather Underground begin when he got involved in protesting S. Africa and gave his first political speech- a speech he delivered to the SDS, forerunner of the Weather Underground itself.
Zombie goes into great detail about Obama's time at Columbia, noting the discrepancies between Obama's scant details of that period with actual evidence. While he claims, for instance, to have constantly moved from place to place, Zombie has discovered that phone books from the time list him as being static from '82-'85.
There's much more information there and I strongly recommend reading it all. The reason Obama isn't talking about Columbia- and when he does he contradicts himself and the other available evidence- could be that he was involved in more radical behaviour than he wants the American electorate to know about.
Any attempts at ensuring that US elections are fair and just (i.e. eliminating voter fraud) are generally met with preposterous cries of racism and disenfranchisement. Providing proof of who you are to vote, so that your vote counts and is not negated by a fraudulent one disenfranchises who exactly?
Thus far critics of fair voting have relied on the claim that the supposed burden of having an ID will negatively impact the poor because they can't afford it and don't have it to begin with.
Purple stain on your thumb when you vote- a positive way to make sure that you cannot vote twice and which, more importantly, places no economic burden on the voter.
So come on Dems- you the ones always wailing about fair elections. Why not step up to the plate and make sure that each person gets to vote once and once only? It certainly wouldn't do any harm either for some Republicans to see if they could get this passed into law. With park benches now qualifying as addresses, some method of making sure people don't vote more than one is definitely required.
Purple dye isn't going to disenfranchise anyone- so how could you possibly be opposed to it?
The audacity of Barack Obama- when a crisis rears its ugly head, you can be sure he will leap into action and vote presentwrite a letter!
Mr. Obama replied that he “never promoted Fannie Mae” and that “two years ago I said that we’ve got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.” And that’s not all. “I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it,” said the Illinois Senator.
There’s more. Mr. Obama’s March 2007 letter included a stirring call to “assess options” and boldly suggested that the two men “facilitate a serious conversation” about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that “the relevant private sector entities and regulators” might be able to provide “targeted responses.” Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to “consider” best practices in mortgage lending.
Hot Air gives us the conclusion to this exciting tale of extraordinary inaction-
Obama didn’t take that role [US Senator] seriously enough to take real action — like introducing legislation or sponsoring another Senator’s bill that attempted to stop the meltdown before it occurred.
John McCain, on the other hand, did take action. He co-sponsored Chuck Hagel’s bill that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to adhere to responsible lending practices and loan-to-value standards. Obama, after writing his magnum opus to Henry Paulson, never bothered to support Hagel’s bill or introduce another for the purpose of reforming the GSEs. Instead, Obama took their money, becoming the second-highest recipient of Fannie/Freddie contributions in the Senate in the last 20 years — having only served less than four of those.
And the polls show the race almost neck and neck? It's unreal. Studying politics in America now is like peering through the looking glass into a wonderland where there logic is dashed hard to find.
Obama made the enemy combatants' defense his personal cause, the lawyers said: "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo."
A looming financial meltdown and Barack writes a letter.
Enemy combatants being held so that they do not return to the battlefield to kill American soldiers or commit terrorist acts aimed at civilians- and Barack works hard to provide them with legal protections. He makes that his personal cause.
LGF posts a video of an Obama interview from a few years ago in which he praises Rev. "God damn America" Wright- he's a "wonderful man".
What struck me most though was that he referred to his church as being specifically an African-American one- he says Wright is “the best of what the black church has to offer.”
Remember this too- Barack Obama said his longtime pastor “has been like family to me.” Obama said he could “no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”
In his memoirs, Obama recounted his first meeting with Wright. Obama remembered a Trinity brochure urging parishioners to “become black Christian activists, soldiers for black freedom.” It contained “guiding principles — a ‘Black Value System’ — that the congregation had adopted in 1979.”
These included a “commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethics and a pledge to make all fruits of developing acquired skills available to the black community.” Obama wrote that these and other black-oriented views comprised “a sensible, heartfelt list.”
That's some church for a man who declares himself to be "post-racial". Before he threw Wright under the bus, Obama must have been aware of Wright's own book-
In his 1995 book "Africans Who Shaped Our Faith" Wright wrote, “Modern reasoning tries to avoid the issue of race and pretend that race really doesn’t matter. That is a lie. Race does matter. Race is a reality that one cannot ignore. America was founded on racism. America lives and breathes racism. In this country, racism is as natural as motherhood, apple pie and the fourth of July. Many black people have been deluded into thinking that our BMWs, Lexuses, Porsches, Benzes, titles, heavily mortgaged condos, and living environments can influence people who are fundamentally immoral.”
And yet, despite this- not to mention the other controversial statements Wright made and which Obama just happened to be unaware of- Obama did not speak out and declare that these notions run counter to what he really believes- or at least, that he tells voters he believes. Did he not read the book of his spiritual mentor and friend?
After all, if Obama did not agree with Wright's persistent America-hating and racism, why did he bring his children to that church to hear those things being said?
Not so long ago my taste in firearms, aesthetically speaking, included the likes of HK's G11, the FAMAS, the Steyr AUG and the much-maligned L85. They spoke to me of the future of arms design, one that hasn't really come to pass. Funny how designs going back to the '70s can seem to look to futuristic even today.
Times change though, and as the grey hairs become more prominent, I find myself growing in appreciation for the classics. The sleek lines of the Garand, the utilitarian appeal of the SMLE and the simple elegance that is the Sharps. Function most certainly has its place, but good grief, surely there's room for a little form too? The SCAR might be the bees knees when it comes to putting holes in terrorists but it sure is ugly. I admire the likes of the F2000 for example but, given the choice, I'd probably opt for a Mosin-Nagant instead.
Which brings me to this- among traditional designs the Colt Peacemaker has been one whose allure I've been immune to for some time. Something about it just didn't click with me. Well, and I can't rule out the effect of a greying beard on this, I've seen the light. Just the other day I was watching a neat zombie film called Dance of the Dead (fun, gory, recommended to all horror fans) when one of the characters brandished a Colt- and suddenly I got it. I can see now the mistake I've made in not appreciating it.
How on earth did I not see the beauty in the likes of this tremendous Nettleton from US Firearms? You really should check out their website for more marvellous work.
Okay, folks, a little tech help is required. For some reason the monitor power option is my "display properties" keeps changing the "turn off monitor" setting. No matter how many times I keep changing it (and saving my own power scheme profile) something keeps turning it back to the default "turn off after 20 mins".
Obama's years at Columbia are pretty much a blank page but he himself does mention one aspect of it- whom he chose as friends.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Youthful cluelessness? Well, not so much-
Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist whoin 2002proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."
The pattern of Obama's associations with radicals is well defined- his entire adult life he has chosen to immerse himself in radical company- his friendly dinners with PLO-spokesman Khalidi, his years-long work with terrorist Ayers and his decades long service at racist Wright's church.
On the grubby little racket of his online credit card fraud, Senator Obama merely has to run out the clock now. If it's not exposed before Tuesday, no one is going to have any appetite for investigating it once he's won.
First of all let's have a look at where it all fits in-
The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
But it's purely coincidental that the Obama campaign disabled every security check on their website, allowing fake names and addresses and even overseas donations. And as Steyn notes, claims that Obama's people are catching the fraudulent and illegal donations are pure bunk.
Almost every fraudulent donation sails through, and real money leaves real accounts. To give to Obama his fellow "citizens of the world" don't even have to pretend to be American. As detailed yesterday, Mr A Hitler of Berlin, Germany is only the most obvious fake donor to make a contribution and receive shortly afterwards a Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome email thanking him for joining the active community of community activists.
And here's another pertinent point-
this is part of a long pattern of behavior by Obama in which the noble ends of the Messiah's triumph justify any means.
I certainly recommend reading this too. For all his inexperience he certainly learned how politics in Chicago works.
At this stage it can certainly not have escaped his notice that his new brand of transparent politics is being accused of massive fraud- and yet the security features remain disabled and the campaign still refuses to release the names of donors giving less than $200. At the end of the day, he's the one claiming that running his campaign is proof positive of his ability to lead America- he should also realise then that, as the man in charge, the ultimate responsibility for this rests not with his staff but with him personally.
So Microsoft is releasing a new version of Windows to replace Vista. I've got that operating system installed on my laptop and I have grown quite used to it. I particularly like the ease of browsing through My Documents and other folders. However, after a hard drive crash I bought a replacement desktop machine- and put XP onto it. Apart from not being quite so easy to flick from folder to folder, it's a much more stable system. Vista gives me more hiccups than XP. Not only is it a system hog but it thrashes hard drives pretty hard too
Hardly an improvement. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop a lean, rock-steady OS, that takes full advantage of the processing power available these days? You know, an OS that you can rely on to keep on ticking while allowing your fast processor, gigs of RAM and super-powered graphics cards to be put to use running applications rather than the background system.
Now that another OS is on the way it seems that Vista might be another Windows Me.
I honestly don't know what to make of the Obama birth certificate rumours. On the one hand, LGF points out that Phillip Berg, the Clinton supporter who brought this issue to court, is a 9/11 Truther. On the other, given the continual rumours about the issue, it seems incredibly bizarre that the Obama camp has not simply released the original birth certificate.
WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.
The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.
Strange, no?
In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Stranger still, is this-
In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.
What possible difference could it make? In the unlikely case that it emerges that he is not eligible to be President does anyone seriously suppose that this fact will be ignored? Are they hoping that simply winning will be enough to avoid the actual law?
I just don't get why his campaign- why he- is refusing to allow the original birth certificate (or registration of birth) to be revealed to the public. The Senate met to discuss John McCain's circumstances but Obama is allowed to avoid releasing original documents. If nothing else, it goes to show the curious double-standard applied to the two candidates.
If anyone wants to weigh in- I have not followed the issue too closely- feel free.
UPDATE - The jury is in and the result is, NON-issue. Check the comments for more.
The Chicago Public Radio archives are turning up some telling comments from Barack Obama.
“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”
Yep, a candidate for President of the United States of America, compared that nation to Nazi Germany.
In the words of Senator Barack Obama, the “Obama for America Campaign is a different type of campaign”. For the first time in campaign history, children ages 12 and under, have a place to go and actually vote—through their voice. What a great way to be introduced to politics and to express your support for Senator Obama.
His campaign is using its resources to target kids under 12- but why? Well, this might have something to do with it-
Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama.
When it comes to your family, you are Barack's most effective advocate. There are less than two weeks left in this election. If you haven't already talked to your family, now is the time.
If you've already talked to your parents and grandparents about Barack and what's at stake in this election, let us know how it went, and what advice you would offer fellow supporters who are thinking about having the talk themselves.
As for "the talk", they even offer specific tips for children to use-
Approaching your parents about who they are voting for can be intimidating if you’ve never talked about politics with them before.
Don’t worry about knowing everything about policy positions before you have this conversation
Don’t wait until the last minute -- it might take a few conversations for you to convince them, so start as early as possible;
In short, he's using children to try and influence not just their parents but their grandparents. I don't know what's worse, aiming this propaganda at children who aren't even close to voting age and who don't understand politics, or the fact that they think emotional blackmail is just fine and dandy so long as they get a vote out of it.
When the President of France couches your policy towards Iran in these terms you know there's a problem.
But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."
Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.
Despite Obama's many protestations to the contrary that is actually what he said he would do-
And then there's this news-
The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.
President Obama and a nuclear Iran. Not the a combination that inspires confidence.
A quick update on the revelations about Obama's view of the Constitution. In short, he thinks it gets in the way of his plans for redistributing wealth. So-called "economic justice".
A commenter at Hot Air noted that a Chicago law professor, Cass Sunstein, was in favour of a Second Bill of Rights. This would guarantee the right to a decent home, to earning a decent wage, to health care, etc. Based upon the FDR speech, he seems to think that, rather than try to effect these things through policy, that it would actually be a better plan to actually amend the Constitution.
And who is going to pay for everbody's right to a decent home and a decent living wage? Where's the money for that going to come from if not through a massive redistribution of wealth?
Unsurprisingly, he's not just a former colleague of Barack Obama but a friend and advisor.
Quite possibly an insight into the kind of Supreme Court justice that Obama has in mind? We can't be sure of course but given Obama's own proclivities towards spreading the wealth around, we can imagine.
Remember, Obama has already admitted that he doesn't want Supreme Court justices who will make rulings based on the actual Constitution, but on what they believe is "fair".
What one man calls fair, of course, another man calls Marxism.
Thanks to the discovery of a radio interview from 2001, the true intent of Barack Obama- who has tried desperately to obfuscate his "spread the wealth" slip to Joe the Plumber- comes out.
Not only is he radically in favour of a redistribution of wealth but he sees the Constitution as an obstacle to achieving his aims.
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.
I'll let Bill Whittle run with this one for he does it so well-
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.
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.
Much has been written in the past few weeks about an Obama administration transforming America into something else entirely, about his Presidency bringing the US to a point of no return. Well, the new evidence is in and those predictions seem to be absolutely and positively correct.
“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 generallythe 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.
Remember, if he's elected President then he will decide on nominations to the Supreme Court- and it's abundantly clear what that will mean. Note too that while there have been differences between Democrat and Republican before about interpreting the Constitution, none thus far have been as radical as the change Obama wants to see. For him the Constitution is something that gets in the way of the government doing what he thinks it should.
Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama’s vision.
There is a reason that so many people around the world pay so much attention to the US election- because as the last remaining superpower, the policies of the United States can affect everyone. The US economy affects the world's economy, and US foreign policy obviously has an impact on the rest of us.
Fearing a US strike on Iran during President George W. Bush's last months in office, a senior Iranian official has suggested the Islamic regime should target London to deter such an attack.
In an article on the Iranian Web site Aftab last week - translated by the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute - the head of the Europe and US Department in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Wahid Karimi, said that an attack on London would deter the US from attacking Teheran.
Given the remarkable focus on the economy- and the startling misinformation surrounding which party and which candidates are actually culpable for it- it bears repeating that the world is a dangerous place.
Admitting that previous Iranian warnings to paralyze "the Jerusalem-occupying regime" to deter "American adventurism" has not worked, Karimi said that "the most appropriate means of deterrence" for Iran would be to attack London.
With a rogue nation on the verge of obtaining a nuclear device and threatening to attack London and to wipe Israel off the map, the choice made by US voters this November could affect us all.
ALMOST a quarter of young Muslims support suicide bombings, according to a shock new poll on an internet website.
Radicalised youths from the Midlands are among those to have posted messages backing terrorists on the www.ummah.com forum.
One member had started the survey by asking users: “Do you agree with suicide bombings?”
Of those who responded, an alarming 24 per cent said they supported suicide attacks like the 7/7 tube bombings in London and the 9/11 atrocity in America.
So Joe Biden was asked a few questions on TV- and he didn't like the upstart journalist's attitude.
She didn't deliver the usual fawning softballs the Obama campaign is used to. Displaying a tone of incredulity which would have had Palin forever ridiculed had she chosen to use it, Biden brushed off the legitimate questions- and the Obama campaign promptly cancelled the channel's interview with his wife.
In a statement Friday, Adrianne Marsh, Florida spokeswoman for Obama’s campaign, said the station, in talking with Sen. Biden, was “both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts.”
How dare a journalist have the temerity to ask combative questions of a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the USA!
Funnily enough, the spokeswoman makes no mention of the fact that Joe Biden was woefully uninformed about the Obama campaign's links with ACORN. He denied the links altogether, paricularly the "get out the vote" effort. You know, this one-
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.
But you won't hear the Obama campaign correcting the blatant lie mistake that Joe Biden made.
Now, just for a moment imagine that Palin had delivered this Biden performance- and that the McCain campaign had petulantly cancelled another interview. Do you suppose that story might be played just a little differently by the MSM?
Billed as the McCain ad you'll never see. Fort Dix was where a dance party was to be held that Bill Ayers planned to bomb, killing off-duty American soldiers and their dates.
So where are those legions of Republican 527s that Obama was so worried about he broke his promise to accept public financing?
Despite the unsettled science on global warming cooling, um, climate change, the rush to biofuels has continued- exacerbated in many cases by government subsidies. Using a food product for fuel has led inevitably to a rise in food prices, a rise that has affected the poorest most strongly.
The price of the flat corn bread, the main source of calories for many poor Mexicans, recently rose by over 400%.
And now we have a report on the impact of biofuel- and the outlook is not good-
With many developing nations experiencing deep shocks and citizen unrest due to rising food and fuel prices, plenaries and breakout sessions during the Program of Seminars addressed causes, effects and solutions.
Commitments by members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to reduce carbon emissions through alternative fuels development, while well meaning, have exacerbated the global food crisis and contributed to world-wide water shortages, said Nestle chief executive Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
The resulting drop in agricultural productivity has led to price increases, he said. “Water scarcity will be the most constraining element,” to additional production, he predicted. Replacing fuel with biofuel is “a very, very bad idea.”
Replacing even 6 percent of total fuel usage with biofuel would require doubling agricultural production to maintain current output. “Where are you going to get the land and the water for this? This is irresponsible policy,” Brabeck-Letmathe said. If the US alone would reverse its policy to replace fuel with biofuels, food prices would stabilize, he stated.
Obama is, of course, a big proponent of biofuels, supporting subsidies for its production.
he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
So much for change and fighting against all those special interest groups, eh? Well, to be fair, it's worth noting that Obama disappeared references to biofuel from his website over the summer. Trying to hide his stance from voters or is he reneging on the promises he made during the primaries? With Obama, you never can tell.
A stark reminder that in the world of US politics, the sum paid to outfit Sarah Palin, a politician who is neither rich nor had the time herself to accrue such a wardrobe, is not excessive. And to be sure- if she wasn't professionally turned out, we'd be hearing about how terribly she dresses 24/7.
Is anyone really surprised that in today's image conscious times that the RNC thought it was a worthwhile investment to dress her at least as well as the TV anchors who interview her?
Anyway, onto the main point. While the Republicans are accused of wasteful spending on Palin, let's just take a moment to compare that spending to the Obama budget.
Convention expenses paid by the committee included $14.1 million for construction costs, including the stage and lighting, at the Pepsi Center and $5.3 million at Invesco Field.
So Barack Obama wasted $5.3 million dollars taking his acceptance speech to Invesco, an act of the purest vanity, rather than using the perfectly adequate convention centre- which the campaign had already paid over $14 million dollars on. Now, that's wasteful spending. Kind of puts Palin's $150,000 into perspective- and that will last her for the length of the campaign, not just one night.
So he could buy nearly two sets of Palin wardrobes every hour, 24 hours a day for 15 days running.
I've never in my life seen such petty coverage of a political figure as that which Sarah Palin is subjected to. What makes it even worse is that while the media wastes time on her clothes and so on, it ignores genuine stories about the Democratic candidate.
We get headlines about Palin's shoes but Barack Obama declares he wants to create a civilian defence force funded as well as the Army and...the blogs cover it.
It's simply astonishing how the media has betrayed even the appearance of objectivity this election cycle.
In addition to Obama's plan for a private army- a "civilian national security" organisation in his words- one he imagines will be as well funded as the US Army- Democrats also hope to create another massive new government entity- the Department of Peace and Non-Violence.
Am I the only one who feels a shudder at the somewhat Orwellian name?
This new organisation will consist of the following sections-
the Office of Peace Education & Training, the Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the Office of International Peace Activities, the Office of Technology for Peace, the Office of Arms Control and Disarmament, the Office of Peaceful Co-Existence and Non-Violent Conflict Resolution, and the Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights.
Among the stated purposes of the new DoP is this-
analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns.
Proposed by Dennis Kucinich, the bill has 70 co-sponsors.
What piques my curiosity in the bill too is the creation of a Peace Academy which will
(A) be modeled after the military service academies; (B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution.
Then there's this-
The Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities shall--
(1) provide for the training and deployment of all Peace Academy graduates and other nonmilitary conflict prevention and peacemaking personnel;
(3) advocate the creation of a multinational nonviolent peace force.
All this on top of Obama's private civilian security force, plus his mandatory volunteer scheme- not to mention his Global Poverty Tax. Democrats certainly plan for a busy and expensive next few years.
After the astonished revelations about the horrific intent of the Weather Underground the other day, more evidence has emerged.
First, LGF links to video of the Grathwohl account of the WU discussing the genocide of 25 million American citizens, innocent people who the group knew would not go along with their communist dictatorship. For those of you late to the story, Bill Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn were both leaders of the terrorist group- and neither of them has shown an ounce of regret for what they did and intended to do. In fact, Ayers' views don't seem to have changed at all.
Next, blogger Zombie posts a detailed account of Ayers and Dohrn's book Prairie Fire, a Weather Underground manifesto. One important thing to note is that while the media characterises the group- and Ayers in particular- as being of the Sixties-era and anti-Vietnam War this is demonstrably false.
Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links), Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings -- their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," in Ayers' own words.
Thus, Obama's assertion that he was only 8 years old when the Weather Underground was formed is shown to be preposterous. The group was active for years after its formation and, while Obama worked alongside him, Bill Ayers had neither renounced the bombings he engaged in nor the ideology that underpinned it.
This is the leader of a group which not only wanted to destroy the US government and to see the USA divided up between communist nations but which also discussed the mass murder of US citizens who opposed their ideology.
Given Ayers' radical nature and his desire to see the USA destroyed, it's not unreasonable to ask why he sought to promote Obama's career. What does a man who holds these views- who to this day remains a radical communist- see in a candidate who portrays himself not as a fellow radical but as a post-partisan moderate?
Warnings have already been given that if Obama wins the White House with a Democrat majority at his back, America could be irrevocably changed. The policies, laws, Supreme Court justices, etc, could make such a difference to the political landscape that the USA as we know it may never be the same again.
Here's someone more eloquent than myself making this very point-
"There is such a thing as a point of no return," Sowell says. If Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in the House and Senate, they will intervene in the economy and redistribute wealth. Yet their economic policies "will pale by comparison to what they will do in permitting countries to acquire nuclear weapons and turn them over to terrorists. Once that happens, we're at the point of no return. The next generation will live under that threat as far out as the eye can see."
"The...vision [of Barack Obama] is really an elitist vision," Sowell explains. "This man [Obama] really does believe that he can change the world. And people like that are infinitely more dangerous than mere crooked politicians."
As the race nears the end, shouldn't McCain be reminding voters that the economy isn't the major issue at hand? There are numerous dangers around the globe facing America and, as Biden himself admits, not only will Obama be tested by those who believe he is weak, but the Presidency doesn't lend itself to on-the-job training.
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
"...I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," Obama said. Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004
There's more there- given his deceitful identification as being pro-Second Amendment, it's important to promulgate hard facts like this; because too many people are taken in by the lies he uses to promote his career.
What part of the Second Amendment does this so-called Constitutional law expert not understand?
Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment, but that there is plenty of room for added gun regulations. "There is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation," he said.
"I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.," he said. "I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution."
All of it apparently. The Constitution, in Obama's view, can be usurped by whichever part of the country wants to infringe on the inalienable rights of its citizens. And given that he intends to nominate Supreme Court justices who value their own sense of "fairness" rather than the Constitution itself, it would appear that he would have their backing when it comes to doing so.
If Obama really believed that the DC gun ban “went too far”, as he said last week, then why did he vote against SB2165, which didn’t even go as far as Heller in its scope? Protecting a citizen who successfully defended his home against a criminal who could have done great harm to his family seems like a reasonable, moderate position to take — especially for someone who now professes opposition to outright gun bans such as the one in Wilmette. Instead, Obama voted to allow victims like DeMar to get victimized a second time by a criminal-justice system more interested in disarming law-abiding citizens than in prosecuting the real perpetrators of crime in the community.
Barack Obama’s record looks clear on guns. He not only supported gun bans, but he supported prosecuting acts of self-defense.
Despite his rhetoric- and as we've seen before he thinks nothing of telling a group of voters one thing while privately reassuring others that it's all lies- the evidence shows that Obama is no friend of the Second Amendment or of the right to defend yourself against criminals who actually break into your home.
The Iranian regime tells the world who they want in the White House-
“We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much,” Larijani said at a press conference during a visit to Bahrain…
One of the best reasons to vote for John McCain, surely, is to not do what the "Death to America" crowd wants.
Here’s what you need to know. Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.
To be clear, as it seems always necessary to repeat when Obamaniacs, in their best Saul Alinsky tradition, shout down the opposition: This is not about guilt by association. The issue is not that Obama knows Klonsky … or Ayers … or Dohrn … or Wright … or Rashid Khalidi … The issue is that Obama promotedand collaborated with these anti-American radicals. The issue is that he shared their ideology.
And that's the point really, isn't it? It's no accident that Barack Obama has spent his entire adult life in the company of some of the most radical people in the US.
As Klonsky has explained, “My own support for Obama is … a recognition that the Obama campaign has become a rallying point for young activists and offers hope for rebuilding the civil rights and antiwar coalitions that have potential to become a real critical force in society.”
So get ready for Klonsky’s “social justice.” It’s what Barack Obama calls “change.”
This didn't fit in the last piece about Larry Grathwohl and his insight into William Ayers' Weather Underground, but I found it so disturbing that I wanted to post it-
Planning a bombing required a "political struggle" session, usually at night, in which members debated tactics. Often the sessions evolved into heated and bitter "criticism-self-criticism" marathons, a Maoist technique to solidify political beliefs and reaffirm revolutionary commitments. Grathwohl was once badgered by other cell members for 16 straight hours for not showing enough interest in becoming a leader of the cell. Another time, cell members pressured a young mother to give away her four-year-old daughter because they thought that she interfered with her work. Was the woman into maternity or was she into revolution? Recalls Grathwohl: "She was weeping, the child was crying. But the next day she gave her up."
I find this just incredible. What kind of people were they? And to discuss it in front of the child- to demand that of a mother- and then for her to give in to that demand?
Dr. Sanity has an absolutely shocking post up featuring an interview with Larry Grathwohl. He was an undercover law enforcement agent who not only infiltrated the Weather Underground but was also responsible for averting some of their terrorist atrocities by tipping off the authorities in advance.
What's interesting about this interview though, is his revelation about just what the Weather Underground people planned for America. They weren't simply content with stopping the Vietnam War or the like- despite continued media misrepresentations that they were a '60s anti-war outfit, most of their activities took place after the war was over throughout the 1970s and into the early '80s. Grathwohl makes clear that the Weather Underground terrorists had much grander plans- plans to actually overthrow the US government and usher in their own communist regime in its place.
Grathwohl: I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we become responsible for administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans, the North Vietnamese, the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education in the Southwest where we would take all of the people who needed to be re‑educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, "Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't re‑educate, that are die-hard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated and when I pursued this further, they estimated that they'd have to eliminate 25 million people in these re‑education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.
The Weather Underground is the organisation in which William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn held leadership positions. Grathwohl was there when Dohrn made her infamous remarks praising the Manson Family-
During the next six months, he met many of the radical organization's top members. He recalls one memorable strategy session in Flint, Mich., when Bernardine Dohrn exulted over the grisly details of the murders committed by the Manson family. At one point, she exclaimed: "Not only did they kill those pigs, they shoved a fork in [Sharon] Tate's stomach and then sat down and ate dinner there." Dohrn's details were wrong—it was Leno LaBianca who was stabbed with a fork—but her enthusiasm was catching. Says Grathwohl: "For the next several days, we all went around giving a sign of three fingers extended. It was to symbolize the fork."
Larry Grathwohl, an undercover FBI agent who infiltrated Weatherman, later testified that Ayers had identified Bernadine Dohrn as the person who bombed a San Francisco police station in February 1970, killing one officer and injuring two others. The agent also said that Ayers had constructed a bomb made from 13 sticks of dynamite that the group placed in a Detroit police officers' association building. The agent contacted the police, who cleared the area, but the bomb failed to explode. Ayers' murderous intent was clear enough, however. According to the FBI agent, "Bill said that we should plan our bombing to coincide with the time when there would be the most people in those buildings."
Obama's history with Ayers goes back much further than he has originally admitted and it's little wonder he wants to minimise the relationship. The worrying thing here though, is not simply that Obama thought it was fine to associate with Ayers and to work alongside him. What should be of the utmost concern is how much of the hateful ideology of Ayers that Obama shares.
For all of his adult life he has surrounded himself with radicals- and he appears to have spent most of his professional life linked in one way or another to the unrepentant William Ayers. That Obama wanted to associate with Ayers is one thing-but we have to ask ourselves, why on earth would a terrorist bomber like Ayers not only associate with Barack Obama but use his influence to promote his career?
Why would a man who carried out bombings in the United States of America, whose group once planned a genocide of American citizens, a man who says that "America makes me want to puke" use his largesse to benefit Barack Obama?
What is it that he sees in Barack Obama- because it sure isn't the hope and change that's being sold to the American people.
The press corps discovers just how highly Obama values them.
The best-funded political campaign in American history says news organizations will have to pay—in some cases almost $2,000 each—if they want to cover Barack Obama’s election-night celebration in Chicago.
The only free admissions are for a “general media” area. But, the memo says, “Please note that the general media area is outdoors, unassigned and may have obstructed views . . . standing room only.”
The area also does not include access to top Obama campaign officials, whose statements likely are to be in hot demand on Election Night. They apparently will be available only in the “press file” tent, to which an additional admission fee of $935 per person is being imposed.
I can just imagine the howls of outrage if the McCain campaign informed the media that they would have to pay top dollar to cover his election night- and add extra for the privilege of actually speaking to a campaign official.
Do you wonder if there's even the faintest inkling among the press that they might have backed the wrong horse in this race? Are any of them having second thoughts about not vetting Obama way back when in the primaries?
Clayton Cramer makes a very pertinent point on the topic of the shared Obama-Ayers address-
In my experience, when an office has as its address an entire floor, not a suite number, it usually indicates that you have the entire floor. When multiple organizations share the same address, including an entire floor, let's just say that it is implausible that these organizations didn't have substantial overlap in staff and personnel. Imagine if the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the Small Schools Workshop, and ten or fifteen other organizations had no connection to each other except that they all had offices on the 3rd floor--with no suite numbers to differentiate them. Would you find that likely? No, I didn't think so.
Now, you might think that the press would smell a story here and think to track down people who worked there at the time. Perhaps even go so far as to ask them if there were two separate offices or if the two groups simply shared the floor. Well, you would think that if the press weren't "just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party".
Environmentalism is not science so much as it is ideology. Don't get the results you want from a study? Well then, just hush them up! Never let little things like facts get in the way- even if the thing you're supporting actually causes more environmental damage. By trying to hide the results of this study the government is essentially admitting that this isn't about the environment so much as it is about the appearance of doing things the politically correct way.
A government report that found old-fashioned reusable nappies damage the environment more than disposables has been hushed up because ministers are embarrassed by its findings.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has instructed civil servants not to publicise the conclusions of the £50,000 nappy research project and to adopt a “defensive” stance towards its conclusions.
Restricted Whitehall documents, seen by The Sunday Times, show that the government is so concerned by the “negative laundry options” outlined in the report, it has told its media managers not to give its conclusions any publicity.
