Saturday, November 01, 2008

Word missing in Reuters’ Obama “anger” story

Under the headline - "Rare flash of anger from Obama on Halloween night" – a Reuters story today begins - - -

It wasn't quite a Halloween nightmare on Obama street, but journalists on Friday drew a rare flash of anger from the normally unflappable Democratic presidential nominee.

Barack Obama had taken a break from the campaign trail for a few hours of Halloween fun at home with his family four days before the election, but ended up visibly annoyed when news crews dogged their footsteps in their Chicago neighborhood.

"That's enough. You've got a shot. Leave us alone," Obama told reporters as he walked down the block with his 7-year-old daughter Sasha in her costume on the way to a party at a neighbor's home.

Obama, usually cool in public during a campaign that has turned him into the frontrunner for the White House, did not disguise his irritation when his surprise walk caused news photographers and camera crews to scramble for position on the sidewalk. …

Reuters’ story continues here.

Reuters’ sentence,

“Obama, usually cool in public during a campaign that has turned him into the frontrunner for the White House, did not disguise his irritation when his surprise walk caused news photographers and camera crews to scramble for position on the sidewalk,”
has an important word missing.

The sentence should read,
“Obama, usually cool in public during a media campaign that has turned him into the frontrunner for the White House, did not disguise his irritation when his surprise walk caused news photographers and camera crews to scramble for position on the sidewalk.”
What do you think?

And BTW – have any of you heard from Fr. Pfleger or Tony Rezko lately?

Friday, October 31, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 31, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers Note: Devils were once said to roam on Halloween, so it seems appropriate to repost today an "oldie" from 2006. Churchill himself tells a tale with a surprising outcome some claimed could only be an instance of satanic influence.

On the night of October 14, 1940 Churchill was dining at 10 Downing Street when a bombing raid began.

A part of the Treasury Building, not fifty yards from Number 10, suffered a direct hit before Churchill and aides could get to a shelter.

Churchill didm't remain long in the shelter. He soon went to the roof of the building that housed the shelter to witness the raid. He later wrote:

The night was clear and there was a wide view of London. It seemed the greater part of Pall Mall was in flames. [There were] fierce St. James Street and Piccadilly. Farther back over the river in the opposite direction there were many conflagrations. But Pall Mall was the vivid flame-picture
Pall Mall was then as now the location of many of London's private clubs, including the prestigious The Carleton Club, whose membership has traditionally included the leaders and other important members of Churchill's Conservative Party. To this day it refers to itself as "The Conservative Club."

Churchill was given an eye-witness account of the club's destruction by a Member of Parliament:
He was in the club with about two hundred and fifty members and staff. ...

The whole of the facade and the massive coping on the Pall Mall side (fell into) the street obliterating his motor-car. ...

The smoking-room had been full of members, and the whole ceiling had come down upon them. ...

However, by what seemed a miracle, they had all crawled out of the dust, smoke, and rubble, and thought many were injured not a single life was lost.
While to Churchill the survival of his Conservative Party colleagues "seemed a miracle," Laborites had another explanation, which Churchill duly recorded:
(In) Cabinet, our Labour colleagues facetiously remarked, "The Devil looks after his own."
Winston S. Churchill,
Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 346-348)

Obama housing his MSM flacks can't hype

You'll get a good look at it in this less than 3 minute video. You'll also see how Sen. Obama and like-mined politicians spent some of your tax money they want more of after the election.

Hat tip: AC

Obama's attack on free speech

If you've followed the campaign closely, you know about Sen. Obama's attempts to silence his critics.

Jack Tapscott at DC Examiner has the latest "silencer" from the Obama campaign as well as an excellent summary of some of the "silence the opposition" actions Obama and his supporters will implement if they get control of the White House.

Tapscott's prediction: In six months we'll have Caracas on the Potomac.

Tapscott begins - - -

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama gave us another preview this week of how he will deal with critics if he is elected to the White House when he kicked three newspapers that endorsed John McCain off of his press plane. Merely terminating access, however,is likely to look tame compared to what Obama has in store for his critics after he takes the oath of office.

PREDICTION: Within six months of moving into the Oval Office, Obama's multiple moves to silence critics in the media and elsewhere will lead to Washington, D.C. becoming the Caracas on the Potomac.

There were multiple signs before The Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News got the boot.

Hugo Chavez has long used mob intimidation to pressure opposition forces into submission. Obama has made a limited use of the same tactic, as when National Review's Stanley Kurtz began some potentially damaging reporting about the Democratic nominee's long relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bombers William Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn.

In retaliation, the Obama campaign issued a call-to-censor alert to its supporters, especially against Milt Rosenberg, a long-time and highly respected Chicago radio host who invited Kurtz to discuss his reporting on air.

The Obama campaign declined to provide an official to share the program and rebut Kurtz. Instead, hundreds of callers did what they were instructed to do by the Obama campaign - they jammed the station's phone lines with protest calls demanding that Kurtz be silenced and accusing the show's host of lowering journalism standards.

The Obama campaign had done the same thing a few weeks earlier when Rosenberg had as a guest another Obama critic, book author David Freddoso, whose book, "The Case Against Barack Obama," has been lauded as a solid journalistic effort to uncover the rest of the story left out of the Chicago pol's two autobiographies.

Once he is sworn in, expect Obama to move on multiple fronts to intimidate or silence critics. He has expressed opposition to renewal of the Fairness Doctrine, an action that would all but destroy Talk Radio and cripple the expression of conservative dissent.

But he could accomplish much the same effect by imposing ownership caps and other measures, as Jesse Walker pointed out recently:

"There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership."

The conservative non-profit and think tank communities will also be targeted. The Clinton administration used IRS investigations of trumped-up charges of tax exemption abuse to force The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and other other major conservative tanks to spend millions of dollars and countless man-hours defending themselves and their donors.

That diverted millions of dollars worth of resources that could have otherwise been devoted to making the case against Slick Willie's liberal policies.

Expect the same from the IRS under Obama, plus even more aggressive efforts in the form of attempts to impose racial and other quotas on think tanks at their director and management levels, via regulatory changes in tax-exemption administration. Legislation to do this in California at the state level is already progressing in the legislature there, so similar federal efforts are a virtual certainty.

The rest of Tapscott's column's here.

Please read it and remember to vote for McCain-Palin.

Barone on Senate races

An Anon commenter the other day praised Michael Barone’s political astuteness and reminded me to pay more attention to him.

I’ve been a Barone admirer for years, but Anons reminder was welcome, especially now with the election at hand.

Barone posted at his blog last evening: "Election Prediction: Democrats Won't Get a Filibuster-Proof Senate."

He provided thumbnail assessments of each of the senate races considered “in play.”

He concludes his post:

What's my bottom line? If I had to bet $1,000 on each of these races, I would bet on Smith (OR) and Dole (NC) to lose, and Coleman (MN), Chambliss (GA), and McConnell (KY) to win. That, assuming Sununu (NH) doesn't somehow pull it out, would leave the Democrats with 58 seats. (But I could easily be wrong on any or all of these races, and I reserve the right to change my prediction before Tuesday.)

Fifty-eight Democrats would be enough to stop filibusters if they can get a couple of Republicans (and not drop any Democrats) on an issue, but not enough to run the table.

It's a little scary to think that major differences in public policy can be settled by the outcomes in just a few close Senate races. But then, major differences in public policy were settled by George W. Bush's paper-thin victory in 2000.

Our representative democracy gives both parties huge incentives to squeeze just a few more votes out, because they can make a huge difference in the long run.
Here’s Barone’s thumbnail for NC:
In North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole trails Kay Hagan, 46 percent to 44 percent. Hagan made much of the fact that Dole did not spend much time in the state in 2005 and 2006, when she chaired the Senate Republicans' campaign committee, and Dole has not led in any poll since early October. But neither candidate has been ahead by 7 points in any poll since July. This looks like a real nail-biter.
Dole is running very negative ads. When an incumbent does that in the last few days of a campaign, you know it’s a certain sign the candidate’s internal polling is saying she’s in trouble.

Barone's entire post's here.

A few weeks back I posted in response to Barone's column: "The coming Obama thugacracy."

I apologize for being late with this Obama video

I smiled through the whole minute or so of it.


Hat tip: AC

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 30, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The next few sentences you read may surprise, even shock, some of you. They're found on page 65 of Martin Gilbert’s
Churchill and America:

On 10 May 1917, a month after the entry of the United States into the war, the House of Commons went into Secret Session. This procedure enabled Cabinet Ministers and critics of government policy to discuss the war without any newspaper coverage.
Can you believe that? What was the Government thinking? Didn’t it realize there would be many members just itching for the session to end, so they could race out and “spill the beans” to their favorite press contacts?

No, the Government didn’t realize that because they knew that wouldn’t happen. It was considered treasonable in time of war for a member to disclose what went on during a Secret Session of the House. Even in peacetime, a Member who “leaked” from a Secret Session would be considered to have damaged not just the sitting Government, but the House itself.

During WW II Churchill took part in a number of Secret Sessions at which details of strategy and resources were discussed. Information from those sessions would have been invaluable to the Axis nations. But it didn't leak.

We live in a time now when a fair question is: Can any secret vital to America’s national security be kept?

The answer as you all know is: Not if people like the NY Times’ Bill Keller or NBC’s Brian Williams decide it shouldn’t.

Mangum’s Last Dance swindle ignores Brodhead

I’ve just finished reading Duke lacrosse false accuser Crystal Mangum’s latest swindle, The Last Dance for Grace.

Former Chronicle editor David Graham praised its “raw and honest style[.]”

But I agree with Marco at Liestoppers who said:

We cannot recommend reading this book to anyone but the most ardent of the "Something Happened Crowd" because only they would be able to discount the overwhelming amount of exculpatory DNA, medical evidence, and the conclusion of the NC Special Prosecutors, NC State Bar, and even the admission of the former disgraced, disbarred DA Nifong that no sexual assault happened.
I wish I believed The Last Dance for Grace will be the last of the swindles Mangum will foist on the lacrosse players, their families and our community.

But it won’t be.

As The Last Dance for Grace makes so obvious, Mangum’s a swindler who just keeps on swindling.

If you’re determined to expose yourself to The Last Dance, remember that as with any swindle, you need to know what the swindler’s keeping from you in order to understand the swindle.

So, for example, when you come upon Mangum’s repeated presentations of herself as a poor black woman who never received meaningful community support, just say to yourself two words: “Dick Brodhead.”

Mangum doesn’t mention Duke’s President in her swindle, but in Spring 2006 Brodhead was one of her first and arguably her most powerful, persistent and effective enabler with the exception of the Raleigh News & Observer.

It would have been only decent of Mangum to at least have included in The Last Dance some mention of Brodhead, such as the following which I offer in the style of Mangum and with parody intended:

President Brodhead never treated me mean and I was glad that he kept telling those white boys to fess up even after he knew they were cooperating with the police.

And when he issued that apology to me and Kim Roberts after he listened to her phony 911 call, I knew I wanted to meet that man.

But I was due at the Platinum Club and so could only think about him while I danced. That was another big disappointment in my life. But it wasn’t Mr. Brodhead's fault and I know I will heal.

He was so nice when all them Wanted and Vigilante posters were put up at Duke, not like I expected a Duke President to act.

And when he said “whatever they did was bad enough” it really made me feel good because usually only my drivers talk that way.

When I hear people say bad things about Mr. Brodhead throwing the rich white boys under the bus, those things penetrate me and really hurt.

It’s almost as bad as that terrible hurt you feel when 3, 5, maybe 20 lawyers all tell you: “I don’t see how we can collect anything for you.”

Getting back to serious mode.

Folks, you know if Mangum mentioned even some of what Brodhead did to promote the hoax and frame-up attempt, that would've made her latest swindle even more obvious than it is to all of us except editor Graham.

So Mangum made no mention of Brodhead, despite his leading roles in the hoax and frame-up attempt.

More soon about The Last Dance for Grace.

Editor Graham’s Chronicle article’s here; the Liestoppers’ review is here. KC Johnson has also devoted a number of posts to The Last Dance. You can access his summary post here and work back from there.

Palin rally: excitement and exposure of Obama's LA Times

This less than 3 minute video of a Palin rally in Bowling Green, Ohio does a great job of conveying the crowds excitement and Palin's ridicule of the LA Times for its MSM journalism a/k/a protecting our Obama.

Hat tip: AC

Obama supporter OKed Joe the plumber records snoop

Near the end of its story today on the latest government agency snooping on Joe the plumber, the Columbus Dispatch reports:

[Helen] Jones-Kelley[, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services] also has denied any connections between the computer checks on Wurzelbacher and her support for Obama. She donated the maximum $2,500 this year to the Obama campaign.
And, of course, Ohio’s Democratic governor Ted Strickland says there’s no political motivation behind any of the Ohio government snoops into Joe’s confidential records.

Today’s Dispatch story begins - - -

A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on "Joe the Plumber" were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

Harris called the multiple records checks "questionable" and said he awaits more answers. "It's kind of like Big Brother is looking in your pocket," he said.

If state employees run checks on every person listed in newspaper stories as buying a business, "it must take a lot of people a lot of time to run these checks," he said. "Where do you draw the line?"

The checks were run after the news media reported that Wurzelbacher was considering buying a plumbing business with more than $250,000 in annual income, Jones-Kelley wrote.

"Given our understanding that Mr. Wurzelbacher had publicly indicated that he had the means to purchase a substantial business enterprise, ODJFS, consistent with past departmental practice, checked confidential databases ," she wrote. [
It isn’t true the Joe said he had the means to buy the business. That’s clear from the transcript. - - JinC]

"Not surprisingly, when a person behind in child support payments or receiving public assistance is receiving significant media attention which suggests that the person appears to have available financial resources, the Department risks justifiable criticism if it fails to take note and respond," Jones-Kelley wrote.

The results of the searches were not publicly released and remain confidential, she wrote. Wurzelbacher has said he is not involved in a child-support case and has not purchased any business.

Jones-Kelley wrote that the checks were "well-meaning," but misinterpreted amid the heated final weeks of a presidential election. …

The administration of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has said the information was not improperly shared and that there were no political motives behind the checks.

The Dispatch has uncovered four uses of state computer systems to access personal information on Wurzelbacher, including the child-support check authorized by Jones-Kelley.

She said on Monday that her department frequently runs checks for any unpaid child support obligations "when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight."

Republican legislators have challenged Jones-Kelley's reason for checking on Wurzelbacher as "frightening" and flimsy. …

The entire Dispatch story’s here.



For more on the Ohio governments abuse of Joe's privacy, see this post from yesterday -
More Joe the Plumber "record-checking."

Folks, you know if these government snoops were happening to an Obama supporter and terrorism advocate such as Will Ayers, the liberal/leftist MSM would be screaming bloody murder about invasions of privacy, violations of the Constitution and the “frightening specter of a lawless government.”

But, hey, Joe’s a conservative and a McCain-Palin supporter, so the NYT, WaPo, NPR and the rest treat it as no big deal.

The MSM double standard damages America. Most of our media think partisan advantage when they should think and speak what's right in treating a citizen.

When the Dems get a firmer grip on Congress, things will only get worse.

Obama's Kenyan relatives as people and his props

Sen. Obama sure was generous to his racist, anti-American mentor and pastor of almost 20, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

For instance, just a few years ago Obama and his wife contributed over $20,000.00 to Wright’s church, which turned around and built the pastor a 10,000 sq. ft mansion set at the edge of a beautiful golf course.

That was deemed a fitting retirement gift for Wright who Obama’s fawning press corps tell us spent his pastorate “ministering to Chicago’s South Side poor.”

Speaking of the poor.

Obama, a millionaire himself, has a number of poor relatives he uses as props when telling his carefully shaded, highly selective “life story.”

The following is a post from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit. I comment below the star line.

Reynolds’ post - - -


Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama's best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

Funny how you have to go to the British papers -- in this case the London Times -- for this kind of story.

Bob Krumm emails: "The most damning part of the Obama aunt story is that once his campaign found her living in squalor they told her to not talk to the press until after the election, but they didn't try to help her." He has a post here to that effect.

UPDATE: Some thoughts from TigerHawk: " I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family."

Plus this: "He has used these people -- his grandmother, his aunt and uncle, and so forth -- as props in his political narrative. He wants us to measure him in part by his relationship to these Kenyans, but -- and here is the harsh part -- only as that relationship is described by him. What if his characterization of that relationship is misleading? What if it turns out that while he is delighted to cite these people as evidence of his humble beginnings -- that is what I mean by using them as props -- he is not so delighted to consider them as part of his family? Is that not at least a potentially useful insight into the character of this man about whom we know so little?"


On Aug. 21 I posted Has Obama helped his brother in Kenya?” Here’s part of it - - -

As National Review’s Jonah Goldberg noted:

When asked what America’s greatest moral failing was, theological Obama said it was our collective failure to “abide by that basic precept in (the Book of) Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

And in today’s Daily Telegraph:

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."

According to Italy's Vanity Fair his two metre by three metre shack is decorated with football posters of the Italian football giants AC Milan and Inter, as well as a calendar showing exotic beaches of the world. . . .

The entire post's here.


Folks, I’m sure you noticed again that it was British and Italian publications that brought us the news of The One’s shameful neglect of his half-brother.

Obama’s treatment of his family tells us a lot about him. It also tells us a lot about his honesty with us.

As for America’s MSM, who’s surprised our news orgs didn’t break any of the Obama family stories?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 29, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On June 22, 1922 Sir Henry Wilson, a former Chief of the Imperial General Staff and at the time an MP active in efforts to resolve “the Irish Question,” was assassinated by IRA terrorists outside his London home.

Churchill was then Secretary of State for the Colonies and active in trying to resolve Anglo-Irish differences. Naturally, he was at great risk himself of assassination. His principal bodyguard for many years, Detective Inspective Walter Thompson, tells us:

For some weeks Churchill lived like a prisoner in a fortress. I was the senior officer responsible for his safety, and it was a nerve-wracking time. Plain clothes men patrolled Sussex Square day and night and when we went out, it was in an armoured Rolls-Royce. […]

I was alarmed one day when Mr. Churchill said to me that he proposed to walk across from the Colonial Office to the House of Commons. I pointed out to him the dangers of this procedure, particularly as there was no other competent person available to go with him at the time.

My remarks had no effect at all. Mr. Churchill just shot out his chin in that obstinate way of his, and replied, “Righto, you look after my back, Thompson. I’ll attend to the front.”

We reached the House without mishap, but even now I can feel my hand gripping my revolver all the way.
Churchill’s life was often threatened yet he rarely let the threat of assassination interfere with his activities. On those few occasions when he did alter his activities, he did so only in response to pleadings from Clementine or security officers who told him what he was proposing to do would put their own lives in grave danger.

BTW – Merriam-Webster Online defines “righto” as “used to express cheerful concurrence, assent, or understanding.”

What's a dictator like? Bush? Obama?

Jeff Jacoby today in the Boston Globe - - -

IT HAS BEEN a favorite trope of the Bush-bashers: The 43d president's power-lust is so insatiable, his disdain for constitutional checks and balances so complete, that he has fashioned himself into a dictator. …

"In terms of the power he now claims without significant challenge," Michael Kinsley asserted in 2003, "George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world." …

In a recent piece for the Times of London, Andrew Sullivan informs us that "in war and economic crisis, Bush has insisted that there is no alternative to dictatorial rule." …

Bush as a ruthless autocrat? It would be easier to take the idea seriously if it weren't for the omnipresent clamor of voices denouncing the man. Tyrants have a way of squelching public dissent and intimidating their critics. Whatever else may be said about the Bush administration, it has never cowed its opponents into silence.

If anything, the past eight years have set new records in vilifying a sitting president: "Bush = Hitler" signs at protest rallies; Crude "Buck Fush" bumper stickers; a 2006 movie depicting Bush's assassination; The New Republic's cover story on "The Case for Bush Hatred."

The denunciation has been unending and often unhinged, yet Bush has never tried to censor it.

Will we be able to say the same of his successor?

If opinion polls are right, Barack Obama is cruising to victory. As president, would he show the same forbearance as Bush in allowing his opponents to have their say, unmolested? Or would he attempt to suppress the free speech of those whose views he detested?

It is disturbing to contemplate some of the Obama campaign's recent efforts to stifle criticism.

When the National Rifle Association produced a radio ad last month about Obama's shifting position on gun control, the campaign's lawyers sent letters to radio stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, urging them not to run it - and warning of trouble with the Federal Communications Commission if they did.

"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience," Obama's general counsel Bob Bauer wrote. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."

Similar lawyer letters went out in August when the American Issues Project produced a TV spot exploring Obama's strong ties to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

Station managers were warned that running the anti-Obama ad would be a violation of their legal obligation to serve the "public interest."

And in case that wasn't menacing enough, the Obama campaign also urged the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation.

In Missouri, an Obama "truth squad" of prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials vowed to take action against anyone making "character attacks" on the Democratic candidate - a threat, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt later remarked, that had about it the "stench of police state tactics."

Perhaps these efforts to smother political speech are simply the overly aggressive tactics of a campaign in its adrenaline-fueled sprint to the finish. But what if they are the first warning signs of how an Obama administration would deal with its adversaries?

Michael Barone, the esteemed and judicious author of "The Almanac of American Politics," fears the worst. "In this campaign," he writes, "we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy . . . We may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead."

Pray that Barone is wrong. The nation's political life is toxic enough when the president is falsely labeled a dictator. It would be infinitely more poisonous if the label were true.

Jacoby’s entire column’s here.


Is there one fact Jacoby gets wrong?

Is there one concern he has that reasonable people don’t share?

If Bush was a dictator, his critics would be in jail or rotting at the bottom of mine shaft.

Instead, they’re propagandizing in front of college classes, spinning the news left, and telling each other assassination jokes in the Hamptons and Hollywood.

And they’re hoping Obama becomes president so they’ll be part of an even more privileged class than they are now.

We’re being warned.

Obama's racist mentor's mansion cum golf course

Archer05 sends along - - -

Michelle Malkin has a photo of Wright’s home with this caption:
Spread the wealth!

There is also a Fox video tour of his actual house with huge pillars.

The video includes Wright’s infamous phrases, which are ridiculous juxtaposed against his words about “Rich white people.”

Seeing is believing if you have time.

Malkin also writes about the video-

Here’s your wealth-spreading, redistributive change in action.

An Anon sends along the following that left me smiling - - -

Anonymous said...

I can imagine Reverend Wright on his golf course with his Ping putter and bag of Calloway clubs that are worth more than the car I drive.

He steps up to the green, putts, and misses.

He ruminates on how the racists of this country forced him to blow that putt, shakes his Ping at the heavens, and screams "God Damn America."

Obama's "Redistribution" Constitution

Northwestern University professor of law Steven Calabresi says the federal courts are poised for a takeover by the left.

His op-ed in today’s WSJ noted “the most important lower federal court in the country” is the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Calabresi continues - - -

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today).

Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?

Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich."

Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath.

To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Professor Calabrasi’s entire op-ed's here.


Here in Durham NC supporters of the young black woman whose false accusations of gang rape and other crimes against white members of the Duke lacrosse team led to the Duke/Durham frame-up attempt believe she was denied “her day in court” by a white dominated judicial system.

They're hearetened by Sen. Obama’s pledge to appoint judges who’ll take into account the gender preference, race, income status, etc. of parties who’ll come before them.

They’re confident Obama-appointed judges who do that when rendering opinions will, as many members of Duke University’s faculty did in response to the woman’s charges, render more "empathic" judgments than, for example, the one rendered by NC Attorney General Roy Cooper.

In declaring the falsely accused and wrongly indicted lacrosse players innocent, Cooper followed Constitutional precepts of justice. He therefore didn't take the race, gender or class of the accuser or any of the accused into account when weighing the evidence.

Conclusion: Professor Calabresi’s op-ed and the Duke/Durham frame-up attempt are warnings to all of us who value justice.

Public editor slimes Swift Boat Vets, hurts N&O

This past Sunday Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden, “the readers advocate,” tried his best to justify the N&O’s outrageously biased “anything for Obama” campaign “reporting.”

That’s to be expected. Vaden isn’t really “the readers advocate.” He’s an N&O organization man paid to minimize, rationalize, and in other ways obscure the N&O’s most biased and sometimes outright false reporting, while hyping anything decent the paper does.

So I wasn’t surprised Vaden’s column tried to minimize and fog over the N&O’s Obama bias.

But like other readers I was disgusted when Vaden went out of his way to use a false claim to take a cheap shot at a group of veterans who served America with courage and honor.

According to Vaden:

[Political] coverage . . . balancing positive and negative [stories] produces false balances that don't reflect truth -- as when the press gave "balanced" attention to the Swift Boat attacks against John Kerry in 2004.
Vaden’s repeating the standard MSM lie that the Swift Boat veterans smeared Sen. John Kerry.

The truth is what the Swiftees said that could be verified was almost entirely confirmed. For instance, even Kerry today no longer claims he spent that Christmas in Cambodia.

Some things the Swiftees said couldn’t be confirmed because Kerry then as now won’t sign a simple form allowing public access to all his military records, something he’d promised to do well before the campaign began.

The following is from Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project:
The Left created a new verb, “swiftboating,” to represent false political charges that are, again a term endlessly repeated in the media, “unsubstantiated” in reference to the case presented by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth against John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The Swift Boat veterans presented much corroborated evidence and witness reports, and other researchers confirmed many elements. Largely due to the unwillingness of John Kerry to come clean about his record, however, there are elements that have not been firmly tied down. The major media, then till now, have mostly failed to investigate the charges or press Kerry for his claims or records, and some major venues collaborated with Kerry to squelch the charges.

So, that works to leave those still defending John Kerry’s record with leeway and ink to quibble or to besmirch the Swift Boat veterans. But, Kerry dares not to reveal his full records or go into court. Instead, he relies upon allies in the media to evade, obfuscate and to smear. ...
Ted Vaden is no advocate for those who want the N&O to be a paper that provides reliable news reporting as free of bias and falsehoods as possible, and is quick to recognize, admit and correct bias and error when they do occur.

A lot of what Vaden writes makes things harder for those at the N&O trying to stop the steady drift of readers (and advertisers) away from the liberal/leftist N&O to more trustworthy news and commentary sources.

I’ll end this post with a comment by SpocksBrain on the thread of Vaden’s column:
Vaden said "The N&O endorsed Obama last Sunday. Editorial endorsements are made separately from the news coverage, and news reporters and editors don't know in advance whom the paper will endorse."

LOL! Come on, Ted! Everybody in North Carolina knew six months ago who the N&O would endorse for president.

See this is why your circulation keeps going down the toilet. You people actually believe your readers are stupid.

In the same vein, you imply that reporting on Swift Boat "attack" ads was a misguided attempt at fairness. Why is reporting on fact based ads wrong?

Remember, no one has ever collected the $1 million reward for disproving any facts in those ads.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 28, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers Note: With polls showing the press is held in very low esteem by Americans, I thought you might find this Series "oldie" timely and amusing.


In the fall of 1929 Churchill sailed for America to begin a speaking tour. He had just served five years as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Threats on his life had been made by Indian extremists. Therefore, the British government arranged for Churchill to be accompanied by a Scotland Yard bodyguard, even though he was no longer in office.

To Churchill’s delight the man chosen to guard him was Detective-Inspector Walter Thompson, who'd been his bodyguard when he was in office.

In those days, when a liner was due to arrive in New York, the press would charter a tug and go down the harbor to meet the ship; then go on board to interview celebrities and statesmen before the ship docked.

Thompson tells us what happened when the New York press came aboard Churchill’s liner and demanded to see our hero:

When we arrived in New York, I had my first experience of the American press. The ship had not docked but at dawn one morning my cabin was besieged by a crowd of men and women making a most fearful row. I thought that the Indian terrorists must be at hand!

They were shouting for Mr. Churchill. I stepped out and asked them who they were and what they wanted.

“Newspapermen,” they replied, as though that explained everything. “We must see Churchill.”

I replied that I was astonished at their behaviour, and told them bluntly that I had no intention at all of letting them interview the British statesman at this ridiculous hour.

This led to further uproar
Who doubts it did?

Eventually everything worked out. The press went to a lounge where a short while later Churchill joined the reporters for an interview. Thompson added:
Those whom I met that day were by no means the worst representatives of the American press against whom I have protected Mr. Churchill.
Thompson’s remarks put me in mind of something. Churchill no doubt had his opinions about how the American press compared with the British press. But I can’t bring to mind anytime he ever expressed them. I’m sure he did. Can anyone shed light on this matter?

Thompson, Walter - Beside the Bulldog: The Intimate Memoirs of Churchill’s Bodyguard Ex- Detective Inspector Walter Thompson. (p. 71)

See Wright's house the Obama's helped build

President-presumptive Barack Obama and his wife Michelle took their children to the anti-white, anti-American Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for religious instruction.

That tells us how much the Obamas admire and agree with Wright except when he says Barack Obama doesn't believe the things he says about disagreeing with Wright because Obama is "just another politician. "
Now from a news org that's not part of Obama's MSM Tank Corps - Fox News - we see and learn about the luxury house the Obamas' money has helped build for the hate spewing Wright. Four garages, Greek columns (what else), and right on the golf course. are just part of the tour.

Government confiscation

We would’ve been better off if instead of letting ourselves be conned into calling them “subprime” mortgages, we’d have insisted on calling them what they are: “high risk mortgages.”

In the same way, instead of talking about Sen. Obama's “income redistribution,” we should be talking about “government confiscation.”

In terms of what Sen. Obama wants to do, it’s money the government would confiscate.

If those chosen to have their money confiscated can’t produce all the money the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Frank-Rangel government will demand, then those targeted people will have their property, including in some cases even their homes, confiscated by the agency acting on behalf of Obama’s government: the IRS.

As for income distribution, that can only happen after income confiscation by the government.

Often the income is not distributed fairly. Read up on the trial of Obama’s longtime close associate and convicted felon Tony Rezko to get an idea of how government confiscated money is distributed not to the needy but to those politically connected to the Chicago political machine that’s produced Sen. Obama.

Obama Judges & Duke lacrosse

In his most recent column Hoover Institution senior fellow Thomas Sowell says - - -

… One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants— those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think— and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?

The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are? …

Sowell’s entire column’s here.

Sowell was among first pundits to question and expose the Duke/Durham frame-up attempt targeting three clearly innocent members of Duke’s lacrosse team.

From Sowell’s Apr. 25, 2006 column - - -

… Media irresponsibility is one thing. Irresponsibility by an agent of the law is something else — and much more dangerous.

Prosecutors are not just supposed to prosecute. They are supposed to prosecute the right people in the right way. In this case, prosecutor Michael Nifong has proceeded in the wrong way. …

If the young men accused of rape are in fact guilty, they need to be proved guilty because they are guilty, not because an election is coming up or there is racial hype in the media or a legally stacked deck.

More important, we need to know that the rule of law is there for all of us, regardless of who we are or who our accuser might be.

Even beyond this case, we are increasingly becoming a society in which some people are allowed to impose high costs on other people at little or no cost to themselves. This sets the stage for extortion, not only of money but also of legal plea-bargains extorted by ambitious prosecutors.

The stripper, for example, does not even pay the price of having her name known, while the names and pictures of the accused young men are all over the media. Even if they are acquitted, or the charges thrown out of court, this case will follow them and they will be under a cloud for the rest of their lives …

Sowell’s entire 4/25/06 column’s here. It’s titled "Law or Lynch Law."


Reliance on race-blind, gender-blind, class-blind treatment is the goal of our law-enforcement and justice systems.

Nifong, his co-framers and their enablers ignored that. Instead they invoked race, gender and class prejudices to advance and justify their frame-up attempt. Let the poor black woman have her chance to present her case in court against those white, wealthy males.

It’s disturbing here in Durham to read and hear from so many of the very people who enabled the frame-up attempt and justified its appeal to prejudices their enthusiastic endorsements of Sen. Obama because, among other reasons, they say he shares their ideas of “law enforcement” and “justice.”

Even more disturbing is learning from newspaper accounts and those people themselves that Obama has promised them the kind of judges and justices they want.

And it’s not only here in North Carolina that Obama’s making that promise.

Obama’s promise to appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old" is now an applause line in his standard stump speech.

My thanks go to Thomas Sowell for letting us know what we’re in for if Obama gets to appoint federal judges and justices during the next for years.

More Joe the Plumber “record-checking”

The Columbus Dispatch today with my comments below the star line.

The Dispatch reports - - -

Ohio's inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the child-support computer system for information on "Joe the Plumber."

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed yesterday that she OK'd the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher after the Oct. 15 presidential debate, in which he was mentioned repeatedly by Republican Sen. John McCain.

Amid questions from the media and others about "Joe the Plumber," Jones-Kelley said she approved a check through the Support Enforcement Tracking System to determine whether he was current on any ordered child-support payments. She said the check was not politically motivated. [My goodness. Did anyeone think her agency’s search was politically motivated? - - JinC]

It is unclear whether Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case, and Jones-Kelley said such information cannot be publicly shared. Reports state that he lives with a 13-year-old son in suburban Toledo. …

Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles confirmed that he is investigating the incident to determine whether the check on "Joe" was proper.

The use of a state computer system to search for information on Wurzelbacher is the fourth uncovered by The Dispatch.

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, is satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher, a spokesman said.

"Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee," said Keith Dailey, Strickland's press secretary. …

At least four state computer checks on Wurzelbacher were conducted shortly after McCain brought up "Joe the Plumber" during his final presidential debate with Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Oct. 15. State and local investigators are checking whether the computer systems were illegally accessed.

Republicans have suggested that the checks were politically motivated invasions of Wurzelbacher's privacy and attempts to dig up dirt to discredit the man. Obama's campaign says it has nothing to do with the incidents and joined Republicans in calling for investigations. …

The Dispatch reported on Saturday that authorities are investigating why driver's license and vehicle registration information on "Joe" was pulled from Bureau of Motor Vehicles computers.

BMV information on Wurzelbacher also was obtained through accounts assigned to the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
Both checks are under investigation.

The entire Dispatch story’s here.


Joe’s problem is he’s on the wrong side of the political divide doing the wrong kind of work and supporting the wrong candidate.

If Joe were a leftist and former graduate student of Will Ayers now doing community organizing for ACORN and Sen. Obama, does anyone believe these various government agencies and reporters would be searching confidential records and publishing anything they find that might embarrass him?

And if somehow he’d been talking to a terrorist and was overheard by a government monitor and that became public imagine the uproars about “invasion of privacy” and “spying on citizens” we’d hear from Sens. Obama and Biden and all their reporters and news organizations.

A big hat tip goes to the Columbus Dispatch for digging and reporting on the government/media abuses of Joe’s privacy.

The Dispatch has reminded us how important newspapers can be.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hat tip: Instapundit

Monday, October 27, 2008

The Churchill Series - Oct. 27, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In Winston Churchill and His Inner Circle, Sir John “Jock” Colville, Churchill’s private secretary during both his premierships and trusted friend afterwards, writes about a remarkable woman who fell in love with Churchill shortly after he entered Parliament in 1902. Churchill did not reciprocate her love, but they formed a friendship that lasted until his death in 1965.:

”Another woman who had been in love with Churchill before he married, though he was never physically in love with her, was Violet, daughter of the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith. She had her father’s intellectual gifts and was hard to match as a public speaker.

She was an eager conversationalist: some thought too eager, for she tended to feel so strongly in the cause she happened to be advocating that she would advance on her prey unrelentingly and drive him or her back into the fireplace. I myself once had the back of my trouser legs badly singed.

There were those who thought that in his early days as a Cabinet minister Churchill used her affection somewhat unscrupulously in order to maintain access to her father, the current fount of power. No doubt Churchill did find the association useful, but he was genuinely enthused by the vigor of Violets’ mind, even thought, at any rate in later years, he seldom agreed with her views.

Nobody interested in politics could fail to find her fascinating. Churchill saw much of her toward the end of his fife and the friendship which had begun in early youth endured untainted until extreme old age. Nor has a more truthful and perceptive book been written about him than Winston Churchill as I Knew Him, be Lady Violet Bonham Carter. (pg. 145)
I’ve read Winston Churchill as I Knew Him. It’s an excellent book.

More Obama warnings

They come from JinC Regular Jack in Silver Springs and are shared by many of us - - -

Link #1: Democrats may eliminate tax benefits of 401k - here is the link:

Link #2: Obama's Socialist Roots (in the New Party [NB Beware of anything that says, New]):

Link #3: Obama's radio interview in 2001 advocating income redistribution (audio only) [and previously posted at JinC but not to be missed if you care about the capitalist system.]

Given the polls at this time, I think we are in for a rough future.


Thanks, Jack.

Millions are doing what they can to prove the polls wrong.

Who wants in America the system that failed in Russia and East Germany, and is now failing in North Korea and Cuba?

Even Rev. Wright won't want it if he has to give up his 10, 000 sq. ft. retirement home on that golf course.

Obama crowd cheers Ayers

The NY Daily News reports - - -

… William Ayers . . . told a Manhattan panel discussion audience he was tired of being used as cannon fodder in America's political wars. …

Ayers, a University of Illinois education professor in Chicago, has mostly kept a low profile since McCain started using him as a poster boy for Obama's supposed left-wing leanings.

He kept quiet as Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," a dig at the fact that Ayers and Obama once served on a charity board together. [The Daily News is minimizing to the point of significant distortion when all it says is “Ayers and Obama once served on a charity board together. - - JinC]

The press was barred from the discussion yesterday at the Stella Adler Studio of Acting near Gramercy Park, but a Daily News reporter managed to get inside.

The former member of the Weather Underground beamed at the attention paid by the audience of about 60 people, many of whom were decked out in Obama gear.

The crowd gave Ayers a warm welcome, guffawed at jokes about "redistributing the wealth" and nodded at his complaints about the "Republican revolution."

After the talk was over, event organizers attempted to sneak Ayers out a back door to avoid the media. . . .

The entire Daily News story’s here.


Sixty is a small crowd in terms of presidential politics, but I think if you a had crowd of 60,000, most of whom were decked in Obama gear and/or wearing Obama buttons, and they thought the press wasn’t there, Ayers would get would cheers.

Do any of you know one person who’s said: “When I learned about Obama’s relationship with Ayers, and that Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist, I was disgusted to think I was considering voting for Obama?”

Two AP stories:it's easy to connect the dots

At the Asheville Citizens-Times site this morning are two AP stories.

#1 dot – “McCain derisive of Obama in battleground states” – begins:

Republican John McCain increasingly is focusing his campaign's message on an institution that may be even less popular than President Bush and one he's been a part of most of his adult life: Congress.

Sweeping through key battleground states, the senator from Arizona directed about as much criticism at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as he aimed at Democratic rival Barack Obama. ….

Yes, indeed, that "derisive" John McCain. What a contrast to the AP's candidate, the "brilliant" "exciting" "histor-making" but never "derisive" Barack Obama.

And now the other story - - -

#2 dot – “Newspapers see 4.6 pct circulation drop” - which begins:

Newspapers are seeing a sharper drop in circulation.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations says average daily circulation is down 4.6 percent in the April-September period, compared with last year.

Last year's drop was only 2.6 percent among the papers reporting comparable circulation totals. ...

Folks, the AP still insists its a serious news organization serving much of MSM which strives to bring you the news without favoring either major political party or their presentential candidates.

That's bosh, of course, and I'll bet almost all of you can look at these two stories and connect the dots.

Why is DOJ tanking on vote fraud activities?

The WSJ’s short answer: The Department of Justice are under pressure to ignore voting irregularities and DOJ lawyers who supervise voting rights are Obama donors.

WSJ's editorial today begins - - -

We've all read a lot about the "politicization" of the Justice Department in recent years, and that political pounding is having an ironic effect. The prosecutors who are supposed to guard against voter fraud don't seem very interested in running the political risk of doing their job.

If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn's history of deceit and the national sweep of today's scandal demand a federal probe.

Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn, and warning Justice to focus instead on "voter suppression."

Barack Obama has also joined in this political intimidation, demanding in two letters that Mr. Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justice staff who he claims are engaged in "unlawful coordination" with John McCain's campaign to pursue "so-called 'election fraud.'"

There is zero evidence that such coordination exists, but it is remarkable that a Presidential nominee would dismiss election fraud as a myth. [But Obama’s from Chicago, remember? Dem pols there always dismiss vote fraud as a myth. - - JinC]

The lawyers at the Civil Rights Division are already falling into line. Justice recently decided to reverse a policy in place since 2002 to send criminal attorneys and other federal employees to monitor polling places. The decision came two weeks after a September meeting to which the Civil Rights Division invited dozens of left-wing activist groups to discuss voter "access" to the polls. …

It doesn't help Justice's credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters.

According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 -- nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to make these attorneys available to us, though she didn't deny that the contributions were made. She noted that the Hatch Act does not forbid federal employees from donating to candidates, and that Justice's internal "standards for recusal" on prosecutions depend on any "given situation." Apparently so.

Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. …

In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the result of a mayor's race because of absentee ballot fraud -- a case that led to a stricter Indiana ID law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2005 Tennessee state Senate race was voided after evidence of voting by felons, nonresidents and the deceased.

A Washington State Superior Court judge found that the state's 2004 gubernatorial race, which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 133 votes, had included at least 1,678 illegal votes.

Voter access does need to be protected, but Democrats are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters.

This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at Acorn, who have been registering thousands of phony voters. Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books, and Justice is obliged to enforce them.

The entire editorial is here.


I posted last week on the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer’s editorial minimizing concerns about vote fraud while wailing about “voter suppression” targeting minorities.

Just what you’d expect from an Obama newspaper.

Obama advocates wealth redistribution in 2001

Liston to him speaking on Chicago's WBEZ Public Radio and you won't be able to say your weren't warned.

MSM had to work very hard to keep this 4 minute audio from the public. But Gateway Pundit posted it and BN passed it on to me. I thank them both

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Overflow crowd at Palin NC rally

With so many MSM news orgs deep in the tank for Sen. Obama, citizen journalists are stepping up and providing much of this year's reliable campaign reporting.

The following is from a JinC Anon. Let's see how what this citizen journalist reports stacks up with what we get tomorrow from Obama NC newspapers such as the Raleigh N&O and the Durham Herald-Sun.

Anon reports - - -

Just returned from standing in line for 4 hours in Asheville, NC to see Sarah Palin at the Civic Center and we still COULDN'T GET IN!

There were over 7,000 in the Civic Center; 2,000 in the adjacent auditorium, and about 2,000 more still wrapped around the blocks outside the Civic Center, hopeful of gaining admittance to the center or auditorium and waiting up to the very hour she was to arrive.

When it was clear that we would not be able to get in , we left very disappointed.

But we are greatly heartened by one thing: that is the knowledge that this campaign is still very much alive in Western North Carolina.

Our local TV Station ( WLOS TV) claims that they are having internet trouble and cannot provide the live feed.

Really? I wonder. WLOS is an ABC Affiliate. I just wonder about the "trouble" they are having. [Yes, Anon, and remember the "trouble" Charles Gibson had understanding what Gov. Palin was saying about God. He told her she was wrong. She was right. ABC has never corrected or apologized. - - JinC]

Nevertheless, close to 10,000 people bought buttons, wore t-shirts, and chanted "Palin, Palin". Little kids were there. I talked to a seven year old little boy who was in front of me all those hours and he had BEGGED his mom to bring him here.
People in wheel chairs were finally given preference and admitted about an hour before the lines closed.

It ain't over yet folks, as we say in North Carolina!


Folks, I keep hearing from other bloggers that at McCain-Palin rallies they've attended, the MSM have underreported the size and enthusiasm of the crowds.

Could that be because the crowds at those rallies don't cheer loud and long enough as the MSMers think the crowds should when they step off their press buses?

Whatever the case, thank you Anon.

I AM BILL and you’ll LOL unless

you’re an Obama supporter who worries he may not move America far enough left.

From Iowahawk - - -

Every time I turn on the internet these days, it seems like another right wing blogger is digging up more baloney on Professor Bill Ayers.

Apparently these people would rather talk about Bill Ayers' passionate youthful rambunctiousness than the issues that really matter to us, like Sarah Palin's shoe bill.

Well, I've got a message for you, Mister Google cache McCarthy fascist: I'm mad as H-E-double sippy straws, and I'm not going to take it anymore.

No longer will I remain silent while you smear and slur this great America-hating American with his own quotes.

Hear me now: when you mess with Bill Ayers, you're messing with me.

Because I AM BILL.

. I am the everyday forgotten little guy in your neighborhood, the quiet anarcho-syndicalist family man who gets up early and punches the clock at the local state university, writing the manifestos and polemics and grant proposals that keep America humming.

I'm just doing my job, and all I ask in return is a little respect. And tenure. And Chicago Citizen of the Year awards. And two graduate assistants to grade exams for Practicum in Imperialist Racist Hegemony 311, because I'm teaching two sections this semester.

Also, a sabbatical to Italy next summer would be nice.

I grew up in a simple little gated community just like yours, with white picket fences and where all the aux pairs and gardeners know your name.

When my dad came home from a hard day's work as a CEO, he was never too tired to help me with my homework or tousle my hair for winning the Lake Forest Academy essay contest on Hegelian Dialectics.

Yes, he was a simpleminded bourgeois technocrat of the capitalist war machine, but he made sure I got the tuition and tutors and sailing lessons and allowance I needed to make it on my own.

I wish he was still alive so I could tell him how much I really planned to kill him last.

. I work with my hands, grizzled and calloused from years on a non-ergonomic keyboard. Maybe I don't know pipe wrenches, but I know pipe bombs, and I've built them right there in my communal kitchen and I've watched with pride as they've offed a couple of pigs.

Sure, maybe I've made a few mistakes with wiring or detonator timing and it ends up killing a couple of comrades.

But you know what? I get up, dust myself off, and get right back to the drawing board. Because when it comes to international Maoist revolution, quitters never win and winners never quit.

I AM BILL. I love traveling the highways and byways of this great, puke-inducing country we call America, visiting its police stations and ROTC buildings and legislative halls. And when the pigs finally catch up with me and dad hires a legal team to get me off on a technicality, it lets me know that yes, Bill, you can go home again.

I AM BILL. I may have started small. But I still have a crazy plan that one day I will make it big and finally plunge this danged country of ours into a bloody cataclysmic race war.

And if you think you can stand in the way of my dream, or escape my escape-proof reeducation death camps, well, then you don't know me.

I AM BILL. I'm still married to my college sweetheart, and we believe in family values. Especially Manson Family values. …

There’s a lot more of I AM BILL here.

Hat tip:

How McCain could pull an upset

Dick Morris say McCain must do three things - - -

1. - - - Use the stock market crash to highlight the tax issue. With the Dow Jones dropping each day by hundreds of points, this election is being held against a backdrop of economic fear unlike any since the Depression.

Almost every reputable economist agrees that it would be catastrophic to add to the economy's woes by raising the capital gains tax. But Obama is on record as favoring an increase from 15% to 20% and suggested during the primaries that he would consider hitting 28%.

McCain should jump on the issue and challenge Obama to agree to a two-year moratorium on increases in the capital gains tax.

If Obama agrees, McCain will score points for leadership.

If Obama refuses, or ignores the challenge, McCain can attribute much of the drop in the market to the fear of increased capital gains taxation once Obama takes over.

McCain has already scored mightily with his invocation of Joe the Plumber and, polls show, he won the third debate by using the issue of taxes and small businesses. By early this coming week, his advertising will have achieved sufficient levels of frequency to have an impact on the polling.

2. - - - Bring back Rev. Jeremiah Wright. For reasons that are beyond me, John McCain has vowed not to make an issue out of Rev. Wright's extreme anti-American statements. But that should not stop independent expenditure and 527 groups from raising the issue.

A good advertisement would alternate footage of Wright saying "God damn America" and 9/11 was just the "chickens coming home to roost" with an announcer explaining the relationship between the two men.

The narrator might remind voters that it was Rev. Wright who married Barack and Michelle Obama and that Obama himself sat in the pews at Wright's church for 20 years as sermons like these were being given.

It should point out that Obama only distanced himself from Wright a month after his remarks scandalized all Americans and cost him his momentum in the polls.

McCain is likely fearful that the establishment media would condemn him for running the ads. Their very effectiveness would ensure that the liberal media would fall all over themselves to denounce the tactic. But independent groups who want to prevent a leftist takeover of the government should not let liberal organs dictate their campaign tactics or their message.

3. - - - Warn voters of impending socialism in America. The recent bailout legislation puts the United States government inside the ownership, management and direction of many of our major companies and financial institutions. The bureaucrats have entered as firefighters, trying to extinguish the blazes that threaten to consume these companies.

But once the flames are put out, will the firefighters go home or will they set up shop and give the United States a socialist economy akin to that of Western European nations? Will the bureaucrats relinquish the power they are being given in a time of crisis?

McCain needs to point out that bureaucrats never let go of power unless they have to. He should say that with an Obama Administration and a highly Democratic Congress, we could face a long and perhaps permanent period during which entrepreneurial, private-sector capitalism disappears and loan applicants must win government approval for their financing. …

If the Dow continues to terrify investors and distract voters from the election, it will continue to bolster Obama's candidacy and his lead. But if there is some stability in the final week before the election, there is every chance that voters will take another look at Obama and decide that he is too risky.

By stressing the tax issue and the potential of an Obama regime to subvert our free enterprise system, McCain can harness the crisis and warn voters of the impact of a decision to elect the most radical candidate for president in our nation's history.

Morris’ entire column’s here.

I agree with everything Morris says, especially regarding Wright.

Asking why Sen. Obama befriended, adopted as his mentor and financially supported a virulent racist, anti-American preacher who claimed the government deliberately spread the AIDS virus among blacks is something the media and McCain should’ve done last Spring and continued to do until Obama provided satisfactory answers.

It would also have been important to acknowledge that Obama and his wife had a perfect right to take their children to Wright’s church for religious, but to also ask why of all the churches in Chicago they chose Wright’s church.

Almost all media have abdicated their responsibility to ask Obama about Wright and investigate their relationship because they’re in the tank for Obama and afraid he’ll cry race if they do anything but hype for him.

It’s now up to McCain to ask the questions Americans deserved to have answered about Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright.