"Smearing Joe the Plumber

Posted by John at 10:50 PM

Source Powerlineblog.com 

"Barack Obama reminds me a bit of John Gotti. Obama is no murderer, of course, but here is the analogy: John Gotti (before his incarceration) was a well-dressed, genial, smooth-talking guy. Not a visible threat in sight. But if you crossed him, his thugs were very quickly at your door.

Likewise with Barack Obama. He is always at pains to seem high-minded, but his tactics are anything but. If you cross him, his goons, too, are sure to retaliate, albeit in less deadly fashion than Gotti's.

The case of Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher is an object lesson in how Obama and his supporters try to destroy anyone who even inadvertently gets in their way. Once Wurzelbacher was thrust into the limelight after Obama approached him in his driveway, Democrats swung into action to try to discredit the plumber by ransacking records on file with the State of Ohio. These efforts--the ones that have come to light so far--are recounted in the Columbus Dispatch:

Authorities in Toledo and Cleveland confirmed today that workers accessed Wurzelbacher's driving record and vehicle information through state computer systems in checks uncovered by The Dispatch. ...

The Toledo Police Department announced that a records clerk improperly pulled Wurzelbacher's information on behalf of a reporter for a Toledo television station the day after the Oct. 15 presidential debate. ...

Altogether, the Dispatch identifies four separate violations of Wurzelbacher's privacy by Democrats in Ohio's state bureaucracy who improperly accessed his records, hoping to find information helpful to the Obama campaign. This is the worst one:

Inspector General Thomas P. Charles also is investigating why the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services approved a check on Wurzelbacher through the state's child-support computer system.

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said that after a "team meeting," she OK'd the check because the department often runs inquiries to check for unpaid child support on people thrust into "the public spotlight."

Is that disgusting, or what? They actually held a "team meeting" to decide to spy on Wurzelbacher on Obama's behalf. As it happens, Wurzelbacher doesn't pay child support, but they apparently thought there was no harm in checking. The Director of the Department of Job and Family Services denies that she was trying to help Obama:

Jones-Kelley said there were no political motivations behind the check. The Democratic appointee has contributed the maximum $2,300 to the Obama campaign this year, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Democrats often purport to be concerned about privacy rights, but those claims are about as credible as their claim to be tax-cutters. "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021908.php

"Did The "Chicago Way" Work for Obama in Hawaii?

Joan Swirsky

Source Right Side News

"As I speculated in a recent article, Obama had a dual purpose in leaving his campaign for Hawaii. And whaddaya know? His plane had barely touched down from his trip to Honolulu - ostensibly to visit his ailing granny - when the Republican governor of the Aloha State, Linda Lingle, placed his birth certificate under seal, directed the state's Department of Health to bar access of the document to the press, and declared that the only people eligible to obtain it were the person born or someone acting on his behalf, a relative, or a legal guardian.

So did Obama request the document, the better to resolve the question of his eligibility to be president? With less than a week to go before the election - and with attorney Philip J. Berg's lawsuit questioning that eligibility on the way to the Supreme Court - we still haven't seen Obama's birth certificate!

The peculiar events of the last week leave more questions than answers.

If Lingle sealed Obama's birth certificate, then there is indeed a record of his birth in Hawaii. But as The Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi writes, there is still no answer about "whether the original document...was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth." In other words, we still don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii or on foreign soil.

Corsi says that in Honolulu's downtown library, he found a published notice in the Honolulu Advertiser: August 13, 1961..."Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4." But the notice "does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby." Further, Corsi was told by government authorities in Kenya that "all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4."

We have to wonder what took place between Lingle and Obama, and/or one of his representatives, to compel her at this late date to seal a document that is the very prerequisite of eligibility to be President of the United States.

The Chicago Way?

Was Lingle on the receiving end of "gentle persuasion"? You know the kind, where a political operative "suggests" that damning information will be kept under wraps for, say, a little bit of "cooperation."

Did Jimmy Hoffa's name come up?

Or did the Obama camp simply appeal to Lingle's sense of "decorum" and "decency"? You know the kind, where the revelation of a deep-dark secret could "embarrass my family, so let's not go there."

Suffice it to say that whatever "way" Obama had with Lingle, it did the trick. Like an operative on his payroll, she walked the walk and talked the talk he wanted her to.

What Is He Hiding?

Here's one plausible scenario, maybe to be revealed in the third of Obama's seemingly endless autobiographies. Obama learns - perhaps in his youth, perhaps later - that his mother's marriage to B. H. Obama, Sr., was unhappy. She has an affair with longtime family friend, Frank Marshall Davis, and gets pregnant. But she's afraid to tell her volatile husband and, besides, Marshall has five children. But Obama Sr. suspects something anyway and so whisks his wife away to his family in Kenya, where his son is born in Mombasa Hospital, a birth his Kenyan grandmother is alleged to have said she attended.

In Barack Obama's 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, he affectionately mentions an early mentor and influence, "Frank" - no last name, but later verified as Davis - who was a prolific writer, political activist in Chicago, Atlanta and - tada - Honolulu, longtime member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and self-admitted pervert..

Interestingly, several bloggers have recently circulated pictures of Obama, Obama Sr., and Davis, allowing viewers to note the resemblance between Obama and Davis and the distinct non-resemblance between Obama and his "birth father."

Obama's birth father vanished after his 18-year-old wife had given birth, just as he had vanished while his first 18-year-old wife was pregnant. His mother subsequently met and married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro, and moved to Indonesia, where Barack Hussein Obama Jr. became Barry Soetoro.

Here the plot thickens. In August, Smithfiles.com reported that an AP story from January 2007 revealed Obama's school registration in Jakarta. The AP caption read:  "This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam. (AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)."

See the document here  or here: http://smithfiles.com/2008/08/14/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-obama-indonesian-citizen-muslim-religion.

According to Smithfiles.com, this revelation means that:

1.    Barack Obama had Indonesian citizenship.

2.    Barack Obama had the legal name Barry Soetoro.

3.    Barack Obama was a Muslim, despite his "fight the smears" claim that he never has been.

4.    Barack Obama apparently lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney's Registration Record.

Further, the website asks:

5.    Did Barack Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport?

6.    Does his birth certificate say Barry Soetoro?

7.    Did he ever legally change his name from Soetoro to Obama?

8.    Is the correct name on the ballot?

What is intriguing here is that the Indonesian document affirms Obama's birth in Hawaii, which you would think would make him rush to prove this fact to the public. But it also reveals a Muslim-Islam past he has vigorously denied. Which leaves us to ask: is Obama, as some have alleged, an out-and-out fraud or a pathological liar or someone infinitely more nefarious and untrustworthy than his slick persona suggests?

The Chutzpah Factor

Unanswered questions and suspect legalities aside, what equips Obama to be president? When the Illinois senator took office in November 2004, he spent a total of 143 days "on the job" - the number of days the senate was actually in session and working -before beginning his campaign for President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of America's Armed Forces, and the most powerful man in the world.

Here is what he could never become after 143 days of experience: District Manager at McDonald's, Chief of Surgery, Superintendent of Schools, a Colonel in the Army, or a nightly news anchor. Yet he and his acolytes think he's ready! As, of course, does his wife Michelle, who is perfectly in sync with her husband's campaign in taking every opportunity to ignite racial dissension.

Speaking to African Press International (API), which is based in Norway, Michelle Obama disclaimed: ""My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband's adoption by his step father."

Writes the editor of Canada Free Press Judi McLeod, "In other words, according to the overzealous, you're-all-racists wife of candidate for presidency Barack Hussein Obama, the fix is already in." 

"With an arrogance that can only be described as stunning," McLeod continues, "Michelle Obama said API would earn an invite to hubby's upcoming inauguration ceremony when he will be installed as the next President of the United States of America next year, if only they wrote a `good' story. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that without a single vote having been cast for her husband...Michelle is already off choosing her gown for his inauguration ball."

The Elephant In The Living Room

Was Obama born in Hawaii?

Was Obama born in Kenya?

Was Obama born in Indonesia?

Curious people and those who revere the United States Constitution want to know. But as lawyers, judges, investigators, journalists, and political operatives dance around those questions, the real elephant in the living room - the subject Obama and his supporters want to avoid like the plague - is the whereabouts of his birth certificate.

So, Mr. Obama, are you ready to come clean with the American people? "

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200810282366/editorial/did-the-chicago-way-work-for-obama-in-hawaii.html

Gold prices were referenced in this article.  Kitco has short term readings to short and long term charts.  http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html

_________________

"Obama Billionaire Supporters Are Causing Market Headwinds

By Jason Schwarz

Source Seeking Alpha

"Market turmoil gets Barack Obama elected.  He knows this and more importantly, so do his supporters. A survey released by Prince and Associates, shows that 75% of voters worth $1 million to $10 million are favoring John McCain, but of those voters worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Obama.  It's no secret that the majority of uber rich individuals despise the current administration and are willing to do whatever they can to get new blood into the White House; even if it comes under conditions of an economic collapse.

These Obama billionaires, led by famed market manipulator George Soros,  would love to kill two birds with one stone.  If they can get their man into the White House and buy back into the stock market at a once-in-a-generation low on November 5th they will be able to declare a double victory. 

While the billionaire's club lacks the actual resources to completely move the broad market, they definitely have the resources to start a snowball effect.  In 2005, George Soros convened with his group of 70 super-rich liberal donors in Phoenix to evaluate why their efforts to defeat President Bush had failed. They came away from that meeting with a plan to push even harder for a victory in 2008.  The recent overreaction in equity prices has been attributed to the hedge fund/mutual fund redemption crisis that caused record amounts of money to exit the market during the first half of October.  Could it be that the big money had something to do with the panic?

October 3rd was an especially vulnerable moment for the market, it was the day that the $700 billion bailout bill was passed.  As the market looked for direction on that pivotal day, the Dow rose to 10,844 but was pushed down in the last hour of trading to 10,325.  The downhill market snowball had begun even though a solution to the financial crisis had been passed.  We haven’t seen Dow 10,000 since.  But we have seen a lot of manipulation occur during the last ten minutes of trading on multiple days since October 3rd. 

The media went wild with predictions of another Black Monday mixed in with a feeling of doom and gloom like we haven’t seen since the Great Depression.  What for?  The government had just taken the systematic threat of bank failure off the table.  Conditions were vastly improved but the market still panicked and Obama slowly assured himself of a November 4th victory. 

Perhaps the most clear indication of market manipulation has been the price of gold.  If the market truly believed all of the doom and gloom that the media is preaching, that the Great Depression is upon us, gold would have quickly eclipsed its 52-week high of $1028.  Remarkably it has gone down; yesterday it closed at $742.  This price action indicates that the wild volatility we have experienced in the broad market may have been started from a small minority of wealthy players.   

So how should investors play this underlying market tussle?  You’ll want to own the ‘babies that have been thrown out with the bath water’.  There is a select group of stocks with pristine balance sheets and solid growth prospects who have been beaten down for no good reason.  I will be averaging into many of these stocks after the (unknown and usually incorrect) initial GDP report is released on October 30th in anticipation that big money will be getting back into the market post election. "

http://seekingalpha.com/article/101952-obama-billionaire-supporters-are-causing-market-headwinds

"Obama is Changing America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59EygF6SLtY

The Hon. James David Manning, PhD

James David Manning is the energetic and visionary pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church located in ATLAH, New York. He has founded three schools and developed a national church ministry.  He holds a PhD in philosophy, the author of The Oblation Hour book, a former Marketing Executive with  Proctor and Gamble and the Ford Motor Company.

http://atlah.org/

"If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first "gay" president. No, I don't mean he'll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he'll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He's very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual "Human Rights Campaign" and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.

In the wake of the current economic crisis, neither presidential candidate is talking much about social issues. But in the months and years preceding this election cycle, Obama did plenty of talking. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what he's said. If the mainstream media would do its job, quit shilling for their ideological messiah and objectively report on Obama's unwavering fidelity to extremist homosexual pressure groups, many of his unsuspecting supporters might kick him to the curb. Hence – radio silence.

You may have heard the term "San Francisco values" bandied about from time to time. These values do not so much derive from a geographical locale as they do from a shared, deeply engrained "progressive" worldview – a worldview marbled throughout in murky tones of secular humanism and moral relativism. Central to San Francisco values is the notion that the only thing immoral is to reckon there are things immoral.

While Barack Obama may hail from Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya or wherever, his set of core principles – his values – discernibly stem from the underbelly of San Francisco's hyper-sexualized Castro District. The very San Francisco values that brought you the behaviorally driven homosexual AIDS epidemic, San Francisco's public Folsom Street orgy and the preposterous and oxymoronic notion of "gay marriage" are the same values embraced by both homosexual activists and Obama, the latest politico to make 'em light in their loafers.

Still, don't take my word for it. Obama's own words betray his veiled extremism. Despite a series of utterly hollow and politically expedient platitudes to the contrary, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that Barack Obama fully endorses the postmodern concept of "same-sex marriage." He's promised homosexual activists – in hushed tones – that if elected, he'll do everything possible to make it happen.

The only thing keeping counterfeit "gay marriage" from spreading state-to-state is the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Due to the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause – which requires that states respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states – "gay marriage," without DOMA, becomes a communicable social malady. DOMA is a boost of penicillin in America's arm. It inoculates states from being forced to recognize counterfeit marriages from other states like California, Massachusetts or Connecticut.

In 2004, Obama called DOMA an "abhorrent law" and said, "The repeal of DOMA is essential. … For the record," he continued, "I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying." Obama also came out earlier this year in favor of the May 15 California Supreme Court decision that unilaterally redefined natural marriage in that state to include same-sex duos. "I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks," Obama gushed. Despite assurances otherwise, these are not the words or policies of a man who opposes "same-sex marriage."

But Obama's contempt for the sanctity of natural marriage is only the beginning. As a candidate for the highest office in the land, his hostility toward the tens of millions of Americans who respect traditional sexual morality is unprecedented. He has enthusiastically signed off on every demand of militant homosexual pressure groups. Said Obama, "We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize – equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' military policy."

So, let's break it down. If elected, Obama has promised to sign radical thought-crimes legislation into law, effectively criminalizing respect for biblical morality. These laws would punish those who oppose sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have coldly rejected.

ENDA and "hate-crimes" legislation will unconstitutionally compel Christians and other people with traditional values to abandon those beliefs and adopt – under penalty of law – the postmodern "anything goes" view of human sexuality. Such "sexual orientation" laws have been the precursor to even more oppressive "hate-speech" laws in Canada, Great Britain and throughout Europe. But as Obama has signaled, these laws will not remain confined to his beloved Europe. There is little doubt that such laws will be similarly enforced here in the U.S under his administration. If you happen to believe that God created human sexuality to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage, you'd better not say so or you'll suffer very real consequences.

Still, Obama's loyalty to America's sexual anarchists doesn't stop there. He's additionally sworn to turn the U.S. military into a cultural petri dish. Having no military experience of his own, he would nonetheless arrogantly disregard the vast majority of our military leaders and allow open homosexuals and cross-dressers to infiltrate the ranks of the armed forces – during a time of war – thereby disrupting military readiness and unit cohesion. To use the armed forces for such radical social experimentation is both dangerous and gravely irresponsible.

Finally, Obama's promise to require "gay" adoption in all 50 states is particularly troubling. Here, his blind arrogance billows over. Once again he and his homosexual activist cohorts presume to know better than both God and science. As if common sense weren't enough, studies have firmly established that children are best served with both a mother and a father. Although it's not always possible, mom and dad each provide unique qualities vital in healthy child development. To selfishly place untold thousands of children in intentionally motherless or fatherless homes so that Chad and Thad can dress up and play house represents the height of narcissism.

So yes, if elected, Barack Obama – the "change candidate" – will undoubtedly live up to his name. He will certainly institute sweeping change over the next four to eight years. But as you walk into that voting booth on Nov. 4, consider whether Obama's brand of change is change America can afford. Because isn't change – for the mere sake of change – really just chump change?"

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/10/27/obamas_agenda_is_so_gay?page=full&comments=true

"The election is now eight days way.  If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help.  And if you’re voting for Obama, clearly you need help.   I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here.  Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging.  Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff.  It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live. 

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media.  The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight.  Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth. 

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place.  This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes.  What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut." 

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare.  Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution.  Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury.  These checks will be called "tax cuts." 

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you’ll be getting from The Chosen One.  I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words  "tax credit" with the word "payment."  That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth.  Here are your goodies; come and get ‘em:

• A $500 "make work pay" payment.
• A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
• A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
• A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car."  By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
• Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts."  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it.  Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good.  Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get.  Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure.  He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes. 

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them. 

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument.  Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if  the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses.  So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick.  Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison.  Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200.  Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers.  If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel?  You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone.  Quite a deal, huh.  Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees.  Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn’t going to take the time to explain it to you.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do.  The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties.  You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way.  That would leave some key votes for you to consider.  The Congressional Research Service did the work.  They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues.  The results?  Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time.  John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time.  Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one.  Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.   

"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story.  Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance.  Your brother has to buy his own.  Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance.  Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance.  In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy.  Not fair.  There's a reason for this.  For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer.  This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care.  The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's.  Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy.  To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line.  Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not.  So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance.  There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it? 

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember.  You're a racist.  There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman.  Just so you know.  You’re going to have that on your conscience.  "

http://townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2008/10/27/decoding_barack

  Go Sarah!!!!!!  Thrift stores have some awesome clothes at equally awesome prices.

________________

"Palin makes lemonade out of wardrobe lemons

Source Chicagotribune.com
The Swamp reports:

Since bloggers have taken over reporting the news like the video below I posted earlier, the pajamas media has relegated the lamestream media to that of sub-tabloid. 

Very interesting perspective of one journalist from his position in the middle of the muck.

________________

"2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT"  Drudgereport.com 

"Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

______________

"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense … indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes … and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the <snip>pit of power … only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News. "

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000. " 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

"I don't think there is any precedent in our history for the shameful manner in which the Left has treated Sarah Palin. Left-winger Andrew Sullivan gleefully posted a particularly disgusting example of the phenomenon today; it's a YouTube video titled "Red, White and MILF." Watch it only if you have a strong stomach. If you don't know what "MILF" means--I'm sure most of our readers don't--Google it.

I can remember when Sullivan was a respected journalist, not a gutter smear merchant and borderline pornographer. His descent exemplifies the Left's decline in recent years to a baboon-like level of discourse. The vileness of much of what passes for political "argument" on the Left has to be seen to be believed. The worst impulses of human nature have been not just unleashed, but rewarded. If you haven't looked at web sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, you have no idea what the phrase "gutter politics" really means.

Nowhere has the vileness of the Left been more sickening than in its treatment of Governor Palin. It is interesting to contemplate what a semi-pornographic video about Barack Obama, playing on the same sort of prejudices and stereotypes that are so disgustingly on display in Sullivan's video, would look like. Frankly, I can't imagine such a video being made, let alone featured on the web site of the once-proud Atlantic magazine. But on the Left, anything goes--the more slimy and disgusting, the better.

I think this represents, in part, a conscious effort to drive decent people out of politics. How many Republican women, observing the vicious treatment to which Sarah Palin has been subjected, will decide to steer clear of public life? More than a few, I suspect.

Barack Obama can't be blamed for all of his followers' vile actions, but, like it or not, he trails in his wake a howling mob of barbarians. If he is elected, these bottom-feeders will have achieved their goal, and some of them, at least, will be rewarded for doing their leader's dirty work. This is not, folks, your father's Democratic Party. "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021890.php

Interesting information.  Highlighted bold emphasis mine.

Copy of referenced letter below article.  Did not copy in correct paragraph form but content intact.

____________________

" The Real Obama—From Someone Who Knows   Friday, October 24, 2008  

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's TRUE History in the Illinois Senate 

"We've repeatedly warned readers not to believe Barack Obama when he claims to support our Second Amendment rights.  We have told you the truth--that Barack Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history!  Hands down. No question.  Barack Obama opposes the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, freedom-loving, American firearm owners. 

We've given the facts, and provided the documentation.  But if you know someone who's still not convinced, you'll want to share with them a recent, open letter to our nation's gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen, written by Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) Executive Director Richard Pearson.  Pearson's credentials include deep involvement in the firearm rights movement for more than 40 years.  He's been the chief lobbyist for the ISRA for the past 15 years.  And, most importantly, because of his personal experience, he knows Barack Obama's true stance on the Second Amendment. 

In his letter, Mr. Pearson says, "I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator.  As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone.  The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama." 

Mr. Pearson goes on to describe just some of Obama's anti-gun voting record, saying, "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens.  That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns."  Obama also voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would protect a homeowner who use a firearm in defense of home and family! 

It doesn't get much plainer than that, folks.  This letter is a must-read for every pro-freedom, pro-self-defense, pro-Second Amendment American. 

To read the entire letter, please click here.  Then be sure to forward the link to every Second Amendment supporter you know.  The truth about Obama's stance on firearms and the Second Amendment needs to be told—again!  "

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4221

______________

"Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate CHICAGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 The following is the textof an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today byIllinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman, Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearmrights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served inthe Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois StateRifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois StateSenator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes towardguns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my yearsin the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt forthe law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, hisvoting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every huntingrifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same billwould authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forciblyconfiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut downlaw-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite,Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of thelaw abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to bea friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm indefense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abidinggun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the companythey keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - arenegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shopowners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, themayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros -the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's internationaleffort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people'smoney to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a boardmember of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tensof millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as theIllinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abidinggun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from anorganization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)"talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2ndAmendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to takeyour guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says aboutObama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitistswho subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a stateof affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthyupper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. TheAHSA is not your friend, never will be. In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gonenose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot evenbegin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I knowsees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox whois easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. TheObama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting whathe wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know. The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful andresponsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has representedthe interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-15-2008/0004904149&EDATE=

Via Drudge "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

"Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Allow me to preface my statements by stating I'm not Jewish by blood or conversion so the following is not based on that bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but have been given to undersand that Jews are a very ancient race of people, not just a religion.

That being true .... provided the following quotes from this article are accurate ... it gives a chilling insight into Obama's key advisors who will likely have a place in his administration.  Racist statements???  Decide for yourself.

"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’. "

______________

"Is America really going to do this?

By Melanie Phillips

"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. TheNew 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

Bringing forward a post by Jarasan below my article following expands a bit farther on the same subject.

Live links.

_______________

"Obama Would Fail Security Clearance
By  Daniel Pipes "

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25078&b=p

______________

"How do Muslims see Barack Hussein Obama? They have three choices: either as he presents himself – someone who has "never been a Muslim" and has "always been a Christian"; or as a fellow Muslim; or as an apostate from Islam.

Reports suggests that while Americans generally view the Democratic candidate having had no religion before converting at Reverend Jeremiah Wrights's hands at age 27, Muslims the world over rarely see him as Christian but usually as either Muslim or ex-Muslim.

Lee Smith of the Hudson Institute explains why: "Barack Obama's father was Muslim and therefore, according to Islamic law, so is the candidate. In spite of the Quranic verses explaining that there is no compulsion in religion, a Muslim child takes the religion of his or her father. … for Muslims around the world, non-American Muslims at any rate, they can only ever see Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim." In addition, his school record from Indonesia lists him as a Muslim

Thus, an Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm, refers to his "Muslim origins." Libyan ruler Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi referred to Obama as "a Muslim" and a person with an "African and Islamic identity." One Al-Jazeera analysis calls him a "non-Christian man," a second refers to his "Muslim Kenyan" father, and a third, by Naseem Jamali, notes that "Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own."

A conversation in Beirut, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, captures the puzzlement. "He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim," observed a grocer. "He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian," replied a customer. Retorted the grocer: "He can't be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein." Arabic discussions of Obama sometimes mention his middle name as a code, with no further comment needed.

"The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia," reports Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution from a U.S.-Muslim conference in Qatar, "that certainly speaks to Muslims abroad." Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times found that Egyptians "don't really understand Obama's family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name ‘Hussein,' it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations."

Some American Muslim leaders also perceive Obama as Muslim. The president of the Islamic Society of North America, Sayyid M. Syeed, told Muslims at a conference in Houston that whether Obama wins or loses, his candidacy will reinforce that Muslim children can "become the presidents of this country." The Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan called Obama "the hope of the entire world" and compared him to his religion's founder, Fard Muhammad.

But this excitement also has a dark side – suspicions that Obama is a traitor to his birth religion, an apostate (murtadd) from Islam. Al-Qaeda has prominently featured Obama's stating "I am not a Muslim" and one analyst, Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, sees Obama as "bin Laden's dream candidate." Should he become U.S. commander in chief, she believes, Al-Qaeda would likely "exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror … to galvanize sympathizers into action."

Mainstream Muslims tend to tiptoe around this topic. An Egyptian supporter of Obama, Yasser Khalil, reports that many Muslims react "with bewilderment and curiosity" when Obama is described as a Muslim apostate; Josie Delap and Robert Lane Greene of the Economist even claim that the Obama-as-apostate theme "has been notably absent" among Arabic-language columnists and editorialists.

That latter claim is inaccurate, for the topic is indeed discussed. At least one Arabic-language newspaper published Burki's article. Kuwait's Al-Watan referred to Obama as "a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity." Writing in the Arab Times, Syrian liberal Nidal Na‘isa repeatedly called Obama an "apostate Muslim."

In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama's present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named "Hussein" began life a Muslim. Should Obama become president, differences in Muslim and American views of religious affiliation will create problems.  "

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5845

Please refer to one of my previous blog posts below for Obama's strategy

"AN OBAMA PANIC?MARKETS FEAR HIS POLICIES

Last updated: 1:45 pm
October 15, 2008
Posted: 4:09 am
October 13, 2008

"Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens.

See Gasparino Talk About Obama's Economics on CNBC.

Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years.

The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

To be fair, McCain hardly instills confidence among the Wall Streeters I speak to. Why has his campaign spent the last week focusing on Obama's friendship with former terrorist William Ayers - when it should be hitting Obama's blind loyalty to policies that bring together the worst elements of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter?

Recently, Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades.

Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token $500 welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else.

This is clearly the wrong way to go in the wake of an economic meltdown - yet Obama, for all his talk of how willing he is to compromise, of how he'd bring people together, is sticking to his tax guns.

I know at least one top Wall Street executive, an Obama supporter from the start of his campaign, who has recently urged Obama to rethink his tax plan - and that was before last week's record losses on the Dow.

But if Obama is rethinking, he's not saying. As his running mate, Joe Biden tells us that it's patriotic to pay higher taxes, Obama remains committed to squeezing businesses even if the recession grows.

The closest evidence I could find of compromise from Obama on taxes came in a June interview with CNBC, when he said: "Some of those [tax hikes] you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important."

It's easy to understand why so many of my colleagues in the media have fallen head over heels for Obama. He's smart, ambitious and cool under pressure. But what is he really like under the surface?

Some reckon that a President Obama won't go through with his plans. They look at his (thin) record and see a wimp who's never taken a firm stand on much of anything, much less enacting tax hikes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow.

And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it.

No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington."

Charles Gasparino is on-air editor at CNBC and author ....."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm