AP Continues Assault on Journalism, Calls Truth About Obama Racist
By Dan | October 5, 2008
It has finally been revealed why the AP implemented rediculous policies limiting bloggers ability to quote from AP wire stories earlier this year. They have decided that journalism no longer exists and they don’t want to be called out on their lies. The latest one is a doozy; they are calling Sarah Palin a racist for telling the truth about Obama.
Sarah Palin has been on the offensive pointing out Obama’s indisputable ties to radicals and terrorists. She is simply trying to shine the light of truth on a candidate for political office. Something the AP used to do but has completely neglected when it comes to Obama.
Instead the AP is trying to obscure the truth. I never thought I would see the day that the AP would openly campaign for their chosen candidate in their wire stories. That is what they are doing, they are blatantly lying about Palin and what she is saying:
Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.
Obama’s own words contradict this story. Obama admits that Ayers was a neighbor who helped him launch his political career. Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama at his house and the recently released Annenberg Challenge documents reveal a close working relationship.
Palin is simply trying to tell the American people what the AP and the rest of the media are trying to hide; that Obama is a radical that we cannot afford in the Whitehouse. To call her a racist for revealing these facts simply shows how desperate the AP is for Obama to win and further discredits them as a source of news.
Michelle Malkin weighs in and Stop the ACLU hasthe whole story
Topics: Liberalism on the March, Media Bias, Politics | 2 Comments »
Obama’s Past and America’s Future
By Dan | October 4, 2008
Is experience necessary to be President of the United States? Can any experience prepare you to be President? I think the answer to both questions is no. When you become President you have to be able to make decisions based on information from your advisers.
So why does a candidate’s experience matter? It is simple really, a candidate’s background tells us, the voters, about the decisions that the candidate would make as President.
We know what McCain will do as President. We know he will put the country first, that he cares more for America than he does for himself. His history shows us that he wants this job because he wants what is best for America.
What does Obama’s history tell us about him? His lack of a record and his deft avoidance of decision making tells us that he wants this job above all others. He has been running for President since he got into the Senate, he has avoided taking sides on issues so that it would he would not hurt his campaign.
Obama’s background tells us that he has put his political future before the country. He cares more about winning this election than winning a war. He even tried to undermine current US foreign policy in Iraq to help his campaign. In short, he put himself and his campaign before the lives of American Soldiers.
Recently Obama put himself and his campaign before the economic future of average Americans. He refused to take a stand on what he called “a financial crisis as serious as any we’ve faced since the Great Depression.” He waited to see what McCain would do before he made up his mind.
Is this what we are looking for in a President? A man who cannot make a decision? Or do you expect him to change when he gets in the Whitehouse?
I think that the real Obama will only emerge if he gets the job. What will he do and who will he be in office? Can we afford to find out?
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Obama and the Tax Lie
By Dan | October 3, 2008
Barack Obama keeps telling us that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He claims that he will only raise taxes on those making over 250k. There are many problems with Obama’s plan but the main problem is that he doesn’t intend to follow through with the tax cuts.
Barack Obama’s history in the Senate and as a representative in Illinois tell us that he will raise our taxes. Obama knows that he could not get elected by telling us that he was going to raise every-one’s taxes so he is following Bill Clinton’s lead. In 1992 Clinton ran on the promise of a middle class tax cut. When he got into office he turned around and raised taxes on the middle class.
With the current economic crisis Obama has been forced to admit that he may have to scale back his over 1 trillion dollars of new spending he is proposing. Which do you think is more likely? Obama will for the first time in his life cut taxes and give up on his dream of government controlled health care? Or will Obama raise taxes in order to socialize medicine?
That’s right, if Obama gets in office he will raise your taxes and socialize your health care. Right now he is running in the center, when he gets into office he going to revert back to crazy leftist he has always been.
Topics: Election | No Comments »
Why Obama Should Still Be Worried
By Dan | October 2, 2008
The Media and Obama Partisans (is there a difference?) are happy toady. They think that recent polling indicates that this election is over and their candidate is going to run away with it. The problem is that history is not on their side.
In 1980 Jimmy Carter was well ahead until the week before the election. In 1984 Mondale was ahead early but Reagan ran away with it late. In 1988 Dukakis was well ahead and ended up getting stomped. In 2000 and 2004 Bush did not surge to his lead until the last two weeks of the election.
Obama’s lead from last week is already starting to fade but the polls showing a tightening race are not widely reported while polls showing an Obama lead are highly touted. The problem with most of these polls is that they are oversampling Democrats and young voters. In some cases they are hiding their internals.
On top of that Obama is trying to keep the lid on several potential scandals. His campaign has illegally accepted foreign money, he is friends with terrorists and his former pastor has gone into hiding. Any one of these issues could be enough to sink him in the coming weeks and the Obama campaign’s use of intimidation and threats of lawsuits will not play well with the American public.
Obama may yet win, God help us if he does, but it far from a sure thing.
Topics: Election | No Comments »
Obama wants to use the law, not obey it
By Dan | October 2, 2008
We have seen the Obama Campaign attempt to use the law as a cudgel against his political opponents in this campaign. Now we are finding that the Obama campaign is blatantly circumventing campaign finance law.
Andy McCarthy has a great article on the Obama campaigns attempts to silence his critics through legal action or by threatening legal action. Here are some of the highlights:
Item: When the American Issues Project ran political ads calling attention to Obama’s extensive ties to Ayers, the Weatherman terrorist who brags about having bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, the Obama campaign pressured the Justice Department to launch an absurd criminal prosecution.
Item: When commentator Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was invited on a Chicago radio program to discuss his investigation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an “education reform” project in which Obama and Ayers (just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”) collaborated to dole out over $100 million, the Obama campaign issued an Internet action alert. Supporters, armed with the campaign’s non-responsive talking points, dutifully flooded the program with calls and emails, protesting Kurtz’s appearance and attempting to shout him down.
Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents, including Bush administration officials responsible for the national security policies put in effect after nearly 3000 Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks.
There are many more items you should read the whole article.
This is just one half of the equation. As they try to use the law to stifle their opposition the Obama Campaign is finding their way around the law.The American Spectator reports: H/T Stuck on Stupid
An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst’s requests have largely been ignored. “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”
What we are seeing in this campaign is a candidate and campaign that will do anything to win. They have tried to lose a war, they hope the economy fails and now they are willing to take foreign money to buy an election.
Obama is acting more like a feudal lord than a political candidate. He intends to rule over the people but does not think the rules should apply to him. Obama needs to realize that this is America, where the law is suppose to apply equally to the people and the politicians, not medieval France where the rulers were above the law.
Topics: Election, Politics | No Comments »
What a mihrab means to the Wahhabists, the Khomeini-ists and the other Salafists
By Dan | October 1, 2008
In 1981, Ayatollah Khomeini explained the meaning of a Mecca-direction indicator (called a mihrab), like the one now being planted on the Flight 93 crash site:
Mehrab means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs. [Hat tip Yoel Natan, Moon-o-theism, p. 30]
The I-ah-told-you-so wasn’t just speaking allegorically either. The University of Chicago’s Francis Joseph Steinglass Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary lists amongst its definitions for mihrab: “warlike,” and “a field of battle.” (Hat tip Czechmade.)
Anyone who thinks it is okay to build the world’s largest mihrab on the Flight 93 crash site really should read Khomeini’s whole speech (his tribute to Muhammad). It’s only two pages, but psychopathic hellspawn like Khomeini can pack an awful lot of murder-lust into a short space, when every stinking sentence is a plea for wanton slaughter.
From beginning:
The real Day of God is the day that Amir al mo’menin drew his sword and slaughtered all the khavarej and killed them from the first to the last.
To end:
We believe that the accused essentially does not have to be tried. He or she must just be killed. Only their identity is to be established and then they should be killed.
“The accused,” of course, is YOU, and all the other “discontented people” who do not readily submit to the murder-cult’s endless demands.
To rid the world of who they accuse of violating God’s law, they grant themselves exemption from the Sixth Commandment. Evil stupidity. Maggots for brains. Matched only by the see-no-evil stupidity of a western world that is so defrauded by its dishonest left wing media that it is losing the capacity to fight back.
Will we really build a Salafist memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? Will we really elect a president who is in bed with Islamofascists and domestic terrorists alike? Will we really let Iran get the nuclear weapons with which to wipe city after American city off the map, as they so desperately crave? Will we really turn off the energy spigot–the key to past and continuing progress–based on utterly fraudulent claims of human-caused global warming, even as the world descends into a substantial cooling phase?
None of these issues should even be in question, yet the minority of us who are trying to stem the collapse of the nation can barely battle even these gimmies to a draw, and could lose all four. If the nation survives this “moment” in history–this long war with Islamic fascism and with our own liberty hating left–it will be thanks to the relative handful of people who recognize honest reason and evidence as impenetrable armor and unbreakable sword against those who seek advantage in manipulative dishonesty.
The demagogues and their dupes are powerful in numbers, but blind. Their hostility to contrary reason and evidence divorces them from reality, leaving them ignorant of surrounding truth. That is our advantage. We know the lay of the land, and can use it to defeat them, but we still have to get up and do it.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Obama Loses Ground, ABC Hides Poll
By Dan | October 1, 2008
Last week Obama was up by nine in the ABC/Washington Post poll and it was front page news. This week Obama is up by 4, within 1 point of the margin of error and the poll cannot be found. Instead the story is Bush’s approval rating which finds a new low in this poll.
Interestingly the internals of the poll are difficult to find. I have been unable to find the party ID of those polled. I don’t image there was much change from last week when the poll was heavily skewed toward Obama.
McCain’s gains this week come on the economy where is plus three and Obama is down 3 for a 6 point swing. McCain also gained 10 points on who could better work across party lines, where he is now only 3 points behind Obama. This is evidence that McCain’s strategy of going to Washington to work on the economic crisis may yet pay off.
Topics: Election, Media Bias, Politics | 3 Comments »
Pelosi’s Attempted October Surprise
By Dan | September 30, 2008
Yesterday 94 Democrats voted to kill the bailout bill. Nancy Pelosi did nothing to stop them and she gleefully blamed Republicans for killing the bailout. From now until Election day you are certain to here about the irresponsible Republican minority. The media has picked up the refrain and is running with it.
Pelosi did not want this bill to pass, if she did she would not have insulted Republicans and everything they stood for right before the vote. If she really wanted this bill to pass she would not have questioned their patriotism for not showing up to a meeting she failed to invite them to. No, Pelosi wanted this to fail.
Why, you ask?
Politics. America wants change, they are not happy with the direction of the country. Pelosi knows that she is leading the most unpopular congress in American history. She knows that her majority is in peril an she needed something to turn America’s anger against the Republican party.
The question is, will it work? Republicans are now being blamed for killing a wildly unpopular bill. Pelosi is gambling that the American people will see this as irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Hey, I didn’t say it was smart but not too many people would accuse Pelosi of being smart. She has in less than two years done something that took Republicans 12 years to do. In two years she has turned anger toward the Republican party into anger toward Democrats.
Under Pelosi’s leadership congress has become the most corrupt organization in the country. They are now approved of less than used car dealers. Their approval raiting is nearly as low as the mob, lower in New Jersey.
So Pelosi came up with a plan. She would set a trap for the Republicans, she would goad them into voting against this bailout in the hope that the American voter would see her and the Democrats as the responsible grown-ups.
I don’t think American voters are that stupid.
Topics: Economy, Election, Politics | No Comments »
Throw the Bums Out!
By Dan | September 30, 2008
“We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don’t bail them out.” — Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat.
I agree with Visclosky, we should not be rewarding the thieves in Congress that caused this mess. At the top of the list are Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank. These two thieves forced his mess on the American people.
Their refusal to address the crisis at Fannie and Freddie has led directly to the situation that we are now facing. What is worse is that they want us to let them “fix it.”
How would they fix it? They would make us pay for more of their friends golden parachutes. Look at what has already happened, Democrats have gotten rich while destroying American financial institutions. Now they are blaiming this mess on Republicans in order to win an election.
Congressman Pete Visclosky is right, we should throw these guys out of office and then throw them in jail.
Topics: Economy, Election, Politics | No Comments »
Obama Campaign Believes the Polls are Wrong
By Dan | September 29, 2008
Barack Obama has a campaign full of lightweight first timers. They do not listen to those outside the circle and no one on the inside has won a Presidential campaign before. That would explain some of their delusions brought to light in the Telegraph:
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, said last week that Obama had “a lot of opportunity” in states which Mr Bush won four years ago.
But in private briefings in Washington, a member of Mr Obama’s inner circle of policy advisers went much further in spelling out why the campaign’s working assumptions far exceed the expectations of independent observers.
“Public polling companies and the media have underestimated the scale of new Democratic voters registration in these states,” the campaign official told a friend. “We’re much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all.”
To win the presidency, Mr Obama must win 270 votes in the Electoral College, which awards votes to the winner of each state broadly in proportion to the size of the population.
Statewide surveys put the likely Electoral College result at a slender Obama win, 273-265. But his campaign staff believe they have a good chance of securing between 330 and 340 votes, and could win up to 364 votes, a landslide on the scale of Bill Clinton’s wins.
The senior Obama advisor said that the Democratic nominee is confident of winning all the states held by John Kerry, the Democratic candidate four years ago, a total of 252 votes.
The Obama campaign thinks that they are going to win because they are going to turn out new voters like this is some sort of novel idea. Every presidential campaign since the begging of politics has used this strategy, many more effectively than Obama. What they have all learned is people that haven’t voted in the past normally don’t vote in the future. Is it worth trying to turn them out? Yes, will you get a high number of them out, no.
The Obama camp thinks they are farther ahead than the polls are showing but we know that most of these polls are skewed in his favor. Obama trails is several key categories, he is losing the senoir vote, a reliable Democrat demographic. He is having trouble with union workers, the base of his party. He leads with young people, very unreliable voters.
Obama also trails in another key category, party loyalty. McCain is consistently polling in the mid to 80s as far as party loyalty goes. Obama is about 10 points below that. That means that, if turn out is equal between the two parties, as it has been for the past decade, then Obama will lose handily because McCain will win more Democrats than Obama wins Republicans.
As usual it comes down to turnout. The Obama camp thinks they will win that battle, but once again they are not listening to those who have played the game before. Their 50 state strategy wasted valuable resources they could have focused in a few key states like VA and OH. If the Obama campaign spreads itself too thin they will end up on the other end of that landslide they are predicting.
Topics: Election | No Comments »
« Previous Entries
