Saturday, September 27, 2008

CBS editing manipulates interview

I was really looking forward to watching both the Joe Biden interview and the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric so I could compare the two. I was really disappointed with the Biden interview, it seemed more like a People Magazine expose and no challenge of obvious fabrication by Senator Biden. So next, Katie interviews Sarah Palin. But what do we get? A interview that has been manipulated in editing !

Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.

After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.

At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.



Here are the missing pieces of the transcript:



(2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?

Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32)

(5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you’ve watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal?

Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.

Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn’t produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends—Israel—and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25)

What do each of these three Palin answers have in common? They portray her as a foreign policy moderate who seeks multilateral coalitions with allies and who advocates for human rights, caring about better lives for Middle Easterners.

Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia.

Katie Couric clearly hasn't learned much from the previous CBS News scandal, Rathergate.

Technical note: There may have been further editing of each of the two interviews. In both instances, we only know about the modifications because of sloppy editing. In one, the transcript is the smoking gun for the discrepancies; in the other it is the video.

Here's an analytics perspective on the deletions:

In the Gibson (ABC News) interview:

7 instances were deleted of "allies"
5 instances were deleted of "countries"
5 instances were deleted of "democracies"

In the Couric (CBS News) interview:

4 instances were deleted of "allies"
3 instances were deleted of "democracies"
3 instances were deleted of "friends"
3 instances were deleted of "nations"

(A few word variants were included.)


http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.htmlPlease click the Digg button below to expose the truth about this.


Add to: | del.icio.us | BlinkList | blogmarks | Digg |


Public - 8:09 PM - 71 views - 8 eprops - 7 comments - edit it -

The Barack Obama Truth Squad

The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1

Barack Obama gets to dictate what is true and what isnt?????????

The brownshirts are coming if Barack has his way.

Camp Obama and ABC caught lying!

"The fact that the mainstream media is silent about this, while mud is thrown instead at Taheri, indicates once again the frightening hold gained by the quasi-religious cult of Obamania over our public discourse"
Dirty politics from Camp Obama
Thursday, 25th September 2008

Earlier this week, I wrote about the dirty tricks campaign against journalist Amir Taheri following his revelation that, in a private meeting in Iraq last July with Iraqi leaders, Barack Obama tried to persuade them to delay the agreement being hammered out with the US government on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to this account, which quoted Iraq’s foreign minister Hoshya Zebari (pictured), Obama had thus privately sought to undermine an American government foreign policy initiative – an explosive revelation. Taheri subsequently dismissed as tendentious Camp Obama’s response which he said deliberately confused two separate agreements under discussion; and he also revealed that, following publication of his story in the New York Post, he had been subjected to death threats, menacing calls about his tax status and passport, and a cyber-attack which disabled two of his email accounts.
Then Camp Obama tried another tactic. It told Jake Tapper of ABC News that Obama’s July meeting in Iraq

was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy’s legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Those who attended this meeting said Taheri’s story was

absolutely untrue

and that

Obama stressed to al Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.

And so, Tapper thundered:

What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with al-Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.

Actually, it is Tapper and Camp Obama from whom explanation should be demanded. Sharp-eyed readers will already have spotted the flaw in their response. Taheri’s story referred to a ‘private’ meeting. Tapper’s story – and Camp Obama’s response quoting all those people who were reportedly also present – refers to an entirely different meeting.

Taheri wrote his report having spoken to a number of people in Iraq following Obama’s July visit. He has told me that Obama made these comments at a meeting in Baghdad with Foreign Minister Zebari before the meeting with al Maliki and the cast of thousands referred to in Tapper’s article. Dismayed by what he knew Obama had said to Zebari, Maliki actually tried to pre-empt Obama from saying the same thing to him – which would have put him in a difficult position by undermining his negotiations with the US government -- by getting his press spokesman to describe the forthcoming meeting with the US senators, in which Obama was pointedly not singled out, as a courtesy call where no substantive political matters would be discussed. In other words, alert to the political damage Obama might do to the negotiations with the US, Maliki tried to shut him up.

What is really extraordinary about this whole affair is that, in any event, Obama had said the same thing to Zebari the previous month on the Foreign Minister’s trip to the US. This had even been reported in the US media. On 16 June, the New York Times reported, after Obama’s conversation with Zebari in the US:

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer political conventions, Mr. Obama said today he opposed such a timetable. ‘My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some way might be binding on the next administration, whether it's my administration or Senator McCain's administration,’ Mr. Obama said.

On July 3, the New York Times reported these remarks by Zebari at a press conference in Baghdad:

Mr. Zebari said that on his recent trip to the United States, in addition to President Bush, he met with the presumptive presidential nominees, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat. He said that Mr. Obama asked him: ‘Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few months in office.’ Mr. Zebari said he told Obama that even a Democratic administration would be better off having something concrete in front of them to take a hard look at.

Yet even while it was reporting what Obama had said, the US media had not seen fit to question the fact that Obama was trying to undermine US negotiations with Iraq. The implications went totally unremarked – until Taheri, who was previously unaware of these NYT reports, obtained his scoop from Baghdad.

In his latest put-down (not yet published) of the mounting attacks on the integrity of his reporting, Taheri sums up the nub of this whole affair:

1. The Bush administration is negotiating an ensemble of agreements regarding the status of US troops, the timetable for their withdrawal, and the future strategic cooperation between the two nations.

2. Senator Obama opposes these negotiations and urges an alternative set of talks in which the Congress is involved. (That would be a novel way of doing business in a system based on separation of powers.) He then tells the Iraqi Foreign Minister in private that his government had better postpone the agreements until there is a new administration in Washington.

3. The Iraqis are bewildered. They wonder whether there are two governments in the US at the same time. They also wonder what is the use of reaching an agreement that the next man in the White House could scrap in a few months' time. The negotiating process is slowed down and the prospect of an agreement, and thus a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, postponed for at least another year.

4. Although we are all fond of television-style courtroom dramas, the issue here is not who said what to whom and where and when. The issue is that Obama intervened in a process of negotiations between his government and a foreign power. He admits it himself as do all media accounts of the episode, although Senator Hagel, more royalist that the king, does not. My article was not a news story. It was an op-ed. The opinion I wanted to express was simple: no one would trust the United States if the leader of its opposition rejected agreements negotiated by its government in advance and without knowing what they looked like. The issue is that Obama has done, and admits that he has done, something that he should not have done: trying to second-guess an incumbent president.

The fact that the mainstream media is silent about this, while mud is thrown instead at Taheri, indicates once again the frightening hold gained by the quasi-religious cult of Obamania over our public discourse.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2175571/dirty-politics-from-camp-obama.thtml

Bail-out prediction

I believe the reality of the situation is that there will be a bail out, just different from the one proposed. Why? I believe it is a political bail-out. I believe it shows the incompetence of government to handle the financial affairs of the country. Take a look at how Dodd and Frank and Reid reacted when people didn't just accept their solution. How freaking out of touch can these folks get?



Do you want the group who denied any culpability trying to provide a solution? It looks like they deserve a long vacation from government service.

Why do I say I predict a bail out? It is a political reality, it is their butts on the line and they don't want to be left holding the bag.

Do you believe the rush to pass this bill now is more for political than economic reasons? Wouldn't you feel better if we studied the best way to resolve this since it involves $700 Billion instead of being rushed into to quick passing it? This didn't happen overnight.

November 4 looms.

Should WAMU's CEO Be Prosecuted?

Intentional Deception by WAMU? Should Fishman be prosecuted?
On Monday September 22, I went to move my funds out of WAMU into our local accounts. When I went to see the exact amount in our accounts, I noticed on the websites front page a note for our customers linked to this:

https://online.wamu.com/banking/offers/campaign001/landing/customer_note


To Our Valued Customers:
September 22, 2008

As WaMu’s new chief executive officer, I am writing to discuss the extraordinary economic environment for all banks in the United States and why you can count on us to continue to serve you safely and soundly.

When I was recently approached about the opportunity to lead this great company, I did my homework to satisfy myself that WaMu has the capital, the liquidity, and the business plan to serve your needs and protect your money through these challenging times.
Let me explain why I felt good about joining WaMu.

All financial institutions have been affected by the turmoil in the mortgage and financial markets, but WaMu is very different from the investment banks, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, that you may have read about. Those firms have very different sources of funding than we do. WaMu’s business is funded largely through the deposits that customers like you put with us. We also borrow billions of dollars from the Federal Home Loan Banks system.

Most importantly, your deposits are insured to the limits established by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). (WaMu partners at your local WaMu store are happy to work with you to maximize your FDIC insurance coverage.)

Capital ratios describe the financial strength of a bank. Our ratios continue to be well in excess of the levels that government regulators require of “well capitalized” institutions. We also have an ample supply of funds on hand to meet your needs and the needs of our other customers and our day-to-day operations.

These strengths, combined with our tradition of superior products and services, are why we continue to welcome new customers every day.

I also expect that comprehensive and constructive plans recently announced by the government will shore up confidence in the U.S. banking system considerably. These plans, if approved by Congress, would remove up to $700 billion of troubled assets from the balance sheets of American financial institutions. There are also provisions to protect financial companies from disruptive rumors and speculation that are fueled by abusive stock trading practices.

Other government actions are already underway and are expected to lend even more security to the nation’s financial system. The Federal Reserve announced that it will open its discount window to financial institutions to enable them to purchase certain assets from money market funds. This provides increased financial flexibility. The Federal Reserve also recently granted requests from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley that will allow them to take deposits, thereby increasing the resources available to both companies. A more stable national financial system is good for WaMu and good for customers.

I came to WaMu because I think it is a great bank with a strong franchise and a solid financial position. We take very seriously our role as the stewards of your hard-earned money. I want to personally thank you for your loyalty and the opportunity to serve your needs.


Sincerely,

Alan Fishman
Chief Executive Officer

______________

I thought maybe, just maybe, it was all a hype about them going under after reading the letter. Then last night I see this:

CAPITOL WAMU-VE
UNCLE SAM BROKERS DEAL FOR JP MORGAN TO BUY THRIFT
By ZACHERY KOUWE
Last updated: 8:30 pm
September 25, 2008
Posted: 8:30 pm
September 25, 2008

JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon won his bid for beleaguered banking giant Washington Mutual in a takeover orchestrated by the federal government that represents the largest banking failure in history.

The takeover of the nation's largest savings and loan will completely wipe out the company's shareholders and saddle taxpayers with some of the bank's toxic mortgage assets - a condition JPMorgan and other bidders insisted on before buying WaMu.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was expected to seize WaMu and simultaneously announce JPMorgan's takeover of most of WaMu's operations Thursday night.

Dimon has long coveted WaMu's valuable retail banking franchise, which includes $144 billion in deposits and over 2,200 branches.

With the takeover, JPMorgan can essentially pick up those assets on the cheap, though it appears Dimon won't get WaMu branches in New York City.

Sources familiar with the situation Thursday said that the FDIC had all but taken over WaMu's auction process, accepting bids from several suitors including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo.

While details of the bids could not be learned, one source said they differed in how much of WaMu's $227 billion book of mortgages they wanted the government to take on. As much as $30 billion of those loans are in danger of default.

WaMu CEO Alan Fishman and Goldman Sachs had been conducting their own auction in the hopes of either salvaging some value for shareholders or raising enough additional capital to continue as an independent company. But people close to the company believe that effort had been stymied by the government's decision to run what amounts to a separate auction.

Sources familiar with WaMu said it had received interest from private-equity titans Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group as well as Texas billionaire Gerald J. Ford. The company and its advisers were also working with their current shareholders Thursday, including TPG Capital, to raise additional funds, sources said.

TPG and others that injected $7 billion into WaMu in April will be completely wiped out as a result of the takeover.

As of two weeks ago, WaMu said it had $50 billion of available liquidity and expected to end the quarter "well-capitalized."

WaMu shares closed down 25 percent to $1.69.

I posted this last evening 09/25@ 9:47 EST

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Question: Should Alan Fishman be brought before the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities and Exchanges Commission and FDIC for misleading investors?Should fraud charges be brought against him?

As a note- I am ok, this is not a poor me post to ramble about how I was taken advantage of, this is a post about how we deal with people giving intentional false information in a market crisis. Should Alan Fishman be prosecuted ?

*******************

The note to our valued customers about WAMU being secure is gone this (Friday 9/26) morning. In its place:

WaMu Customers, Welcome to JPMorgan Chase!

We're proud to welcome you to one of the nation's largest banks; as of September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase & Co. has acquired the deposits, loans, and branches of Washington Mutual. Your deposits remain insured by the FDIC and are now also backed by the strength and security of JPMorgan Chase. Our combined company will offer superior banking convenience - over 5,400 branches and 14,000 ATMs in 23 states. Here's what this means for you:


We look forward to serving you, and to introducing new products, services, and convenience in the coming months.

Tell me more* about the change to JPMorgan Chase.

I guess that is all Fishmans word is worth.

CBS editing manipulates interview


I was really looking forward to watching both the Joe Biden interview and the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric so I could compare the two. I was really disappointed with the Biden interview, it seemed more like a People Magazine expose and no challenge of obvious fabrication by Senator Biden. So next, Katie interviews Sarah Palin. But what do we get? A interview that has been manipulated in editing !

Governor Sarah Palin has given two mainstream media interviews. In both, she made multiple statements about the importance of multilateralism in foreign policy. In both, these comments were deleted by the news organizations.

After both interviews, a furor has broken out afterwards because of her hawkishness.

At two points in the video (2:58 and 5:39), segments have been removed from the official transcript.




Here are the missing pieces of the transcript:



(2:58) Couric: What, specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?

Palin: At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the US and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism. (3:32)

(5:39) Couric: But what lessons do you think you have learned as you’ve watched this unfold in terms of implementing the democracy and the challenges inherent in that goal?

Palin: Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.

Couric: What happened if the goal of democracy, Governor Palin, doesn’t produce the desired outcome, for example in Gaza, the US pushed hard for elections and Hamas won.

Palin: Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends—Israel—and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, expecially there in the Mideast, then nothing will.

If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11.(7:25)

What do each of these three Palin answers have in common? They portray her as a foreign policy moderate who seeks multilateral coalitions with allies and who advocates for human rights, caring about better lives for Middle Easterners.

Interestingly, ABC News also edited out the same kind of moderate, multilateralist comment in order to more effectively promote the misinformation that Palin was advocating a new, warmongering approach to Russia.

Katie Couric clearly hasn't learned much from the previous CBS News scandal, Rathergate.

Technical note: There may have been further editing of each of the two interviews. In both instances, we only know about the modifications because of sloppy editing. In one, the transcript is the smoking gun for the discrepancies; in the other it is the video.

Here's an analytics perspective on the deletions:

In the Gibson (ABC News) interview:

7 instances were deleted of "allies"
5 instances were deleted of "countries"
5 instances were deleted of "democracies"

In the Couric (CBS News) interview:

4 instances were deleted of "allies"
3 instances were deleted of "democracies"
3 instances were deleted of "friends"
3 instances were deleted of "nations"

(A few word variants were included.)


http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/2887-CBS-News-Erases-Moderate-Quotes-from-Palin-Transcript.html

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Democrats think protesting is a partisan event

Video removed

"In the meantime Ahmadinejad still promises to destroy Israel; still issues vile racist comments about Jews.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

It's serious boys

Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

In wake of the GSE's being taken over by the feds and now Lehman 's collapse, how much longer can we listen to Barack Obama sit and just openly fabricate the truth to deflect from his own culpability and ties to the crisis?

Back on May 7 Pam Martens did a feature piece in the Black Agenda Reportwhich I will excerpt and is linked so you can read it in full.

Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street


The candidate that claims to be the only presidential contender who doesn't take money from lobbyists is in fact the biggest recipient of lobby-related contributions. Barack Obama rakes in millions from law firms serving the interests of Wall Street, including the financial institutions that gave us the subprime lending crisis. Lawyers that work for firms that earn hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying may technically not be lobbyists, but they share in their colleagues' earnings as influencers of Congress - a legal loophole that allows Obama to claim his hands are clean of lobby loot. "The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."

This article is the result of a special investigation undertaken by Counterpunch, orignally printed in 2 parts, here and here..


"The top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans."
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?


Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.

The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared in February on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.

Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can "we," the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.


"How can ‘we,' the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?"

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers,
JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse
. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.

But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?

Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina on January 22, 2008:

"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president."

Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:

"Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."


The Center for Responsive Politics website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists, registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.

Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.

Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.

The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.

What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy.

"Many of these individual donors share in the profits generated from lobbying."

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005. Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:


"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights....".

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.

"Obama helped gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms."


Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said the GOP’s style of government led to the collapse of Lehman brothers, suggesting the economy couldn’t handle another Republican White House. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression." Barack Obama told supporters in Golden, Colorado. "I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to.”


That is not leadership.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Obama was willing to risk soldiers lives for his gain

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up? One of Barack's most touted lines of why he should be president is because he had the foresight and judgement to say this war was a mistake. Yet, every time we investigate his actions in real time it conflicts with his persona.

Last month, I highlighted how Barack had modified his Iraq positions in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President because they had more knowledge than he did at the time. But now, when he has a chance to meet with the Iraq leadership, what does he do to give us a glowing example of his leadership abilities?

The NY Post reports;

"WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared.

Of course, the disparity in between what Obama says in public and in private is nothing new. Consider the two versions of the conversation he had with the Iraqi Prime Minister in JUne:

Obama v. Iraqi Foreign Minister
Barack Obama spoke earlier this past week with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Their accounts of the conversation differ in politically convenient ways for the junior senator. Obama's version:


At a press availability in Michigan, I asked Obama if Zebari had expressed any concern to him that his plans to withdrawal U.S. troops as president would undo any security advances.

"No, he did not express that," Obama said. "He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress.


Iraqi Foreign Minister's version:


"The foreign minister said ‘my message’ to Mr. Obama ‘was very clear... Really, we are making progress.

I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress."

Why is it that everytime Barack's words and stands are compared to what he has done, it is Barack vs. Barack ?

*******************

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Obama's lack of curiosity is becoming a liability








Obama Ad Hits McCain for Being Computer Illiterate

Barack Obama steps in it~~again! Barack Hussein Obama II certainly is demonstrating his superior lack of judgement for all to see. Do we want someone who is commander-in-chief to look at “facts” and make judgements with no background knowledge, or has no curiosity as to why? It appears his lack of curiousity is also highlighting a severe lack of his management capabilities. If he was curious, he would have asked why John Mc Cain doesn’t use email before spent peoples hard earned money running it!



As the Boston Globe notes 0n March 4, 2000:

“McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.”

To make matters worse, it happens that John does use the internet, and certainly understands the importance of it, according to this interview in the NY Times (link) on July 13,2008.

While this certainly once again highlights Senator Obama’s poor judgement and analytical skills, it also highlights something much more important. It highlights how lacking Senator Barack Obama is in life experience in his management skills, of which one of the most important aspects will be his time management skills and judgement.

Senator Mc Cain has proven leadership experience in the US Navy where he had to manage and delegate responsibilities. Senator Mc Cain has also expressed in interviews that he prefers to talk to people over written communication. Anyone involved in management today can tell you the many problems that are encountered in dealing with issues via e-mail, because of how often they are misinterpreted. In fact, the standard managerial advice is NOT to email people about important issues, as they lack intonation, facial expression and the run the risk of being misinterpreted.

Again, we really don’t expect Senator Obama to understand this because of his inexperience in management, but every time we forget he reminds us once again when it comes to executive matters- he does not even grasp the position he is seeking.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Baracks step grandmom house is broken into



could it be his half brother looking for food?

Should I worry about being a slave again?



Yes, thats what we want whoopi, you to be a slave. Duh!
Why do they do these insane shows anyone?

Desperate Dem's in the House



Jesus was a community organizer, Pontious Pilate was a governor

Palin rumors made up by BOB

Lipstick on a Pig


Says it then denies it is about Palin. Guess he thought no one would notice he copied the comment from the DNC blog. No wonder he picked Biden as a running mate!

Let the cameras roll!



Biden makes Kirsten Powers point, makes accusation with knowledge.

Keep the mikes on and the camera rolling!

Obama Operatives are Palins Investigators


Surprise! Surprise!

Muslims play race and religion card.

Political Correctness Gone Wild

Vote for the vet and the mommy - not the plagiarist and the commie

Now that got your attention!

This campaign has highlighted the smoke and mirrors of politcal reporting more than any I can ever remember. You almost understood to some extent, the media helping out John Kerry because he was kind of like the democratic version of Bob Dole. Just plain boring and so nuanced that he was enough to annoy the pope. Oh thats right, he actually did annoy the pope! In 2004 we saw Dan Rather allow his career to end with a asterick when he realized there are limits to how far you can go in defrauding the public. I mean, John Kerry had big hurdles to clear with the Winter Soldier antics he pulled after he got back from Nam. That, not Swiftboats, sunk his ship. Plus, did I mention he is just a boring old cad, who we eventually found out had worse grades in school than President Bush. I thought you had to have good grades to get into the intellectual snobbery club. Oh, thats right. Al Gore wasnt exactly a scholar either was he? Just pretended to be and the media provided the props!

Anyway, here was an excellent piece by J B Willaims in the Canadian Free Press. When I first read it I thought he had been reading my blog! LOL.

Palin Properly Frames the Debate Elitism vs. Americanism

As a small town hockey mom turned political ethics crusader in the biggest state of the union, Sarah Palin stepped to the RNC Convention podium last night an hit it out of the park. Even the left-wing press was punched back on its heels by the home run début performance of the “pit bull in lipstick” they knew little about, but had already written off as in way over her head.

Immediately following her speech, former Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson said, “Now democrats have something to worry about!” He’s right for a change…

The clock is ticking on Obama’s fifteen minutes of manufactured fame and it’s a little fire-breathing hockey mom from the frozen tundra who is likely to snuff out his political ambitions in short order.

Palin’s speech was much more than an international introduction to McCain’s surprise running mate. The speech properly framed the debate of the 2008 election.

Palin didn’t just launch a full scale frontal attack on the Obama-Biden ticket; she had stolen the right to frame the entire debate from the left-wing press who had been framing election debates for far too long. Yes, the Obama camp is in trouble against the McCain – Palin ticket. But so is the lamestream press who has been carrying their water up to this point.

The left-wing press attack dogs started attacking Friday morning and they worked around the clock through the holiday weekend, throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Palin and her family in an effort to run her off or at a minimum, make her shaky by her Wednesday night début.

None of it worked… She was not the least shaken and Republicans from all factions of the big tent came running to her defense. The left-wing press had stepped into the land mine set for them by McCain. The Obama-press took aim at Palin, but the moose hunting barracuda quickly turned the public sights on the left-wing press and their left-wing ticket. In the end, the press did something McCain himself had not been able to do… They united the Republican Party.

The standard leftist character assassination strategy had finally backfired and by Thursday morning, even Democrats and some members of the press itself were swooning over Sarah Palin.

A New Conservative Movement is Born
After months on the campaign trail without bringing his party base back into the fold, McCain was convinced that he had to choose a running mate to his ideological right if we wanted his party to support his run for the White House.

Moving outside of the Washington Elitist Network was a stroke of genius. Finding Sarah Palin was a gift from above! People don’t only see her as a great pick for VP, helping to move McCain back to the ideological foundation of the Republican Party; they already see her as potentially a great first female president.

A new age of conservatism has been born. Not really in the starchy tradition of old, but more in the new direction of plain good old fashioned fundamental Americanism. God, Country, Family, good ethical governance, individual freedom and liberty with responsibility. These are wholly American concepts, not just Republican ideals.

Palin Sets the Pace
Unlike the elitists who have never served in uniform but tell voters how much they know about securing a nation or winning a war, McCain has spent a lifetime on the front lines and Palin is Commander-in-Chief of her states National Guard, and mother of a soldier…

GOV. PALIN:

I’m just one of many moms who will say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm’s way. Our son Track is 19, and one week from tomorrow, September 11th, he’ll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country. My nephew Casey (sp) also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf. My family is so proud of both of them, and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.

Those who mistakenly think NYC and LA represent average American life and Middle American attitudes just met someone from Middle American values in Sarah Palin.

“You know, from the inside, no family ever seems typical, and that’s how it is with us. Our family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the same joys, sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.”

“Todd (husband) is a story all by himself. He’s a lifelong commercial fisherman and a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska’s North Slope, and a proud member of the Untied Steelworkers Union.”

“My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town, and among the many things I owe them is a simple lesson that I’ve learned: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.”

Unlike the limousine liberals she is running against, Palin is very much the average American. You don’t have to ask if she can identify with average voters, she is an average voter.

However, like her running mate John McCain, she is an average American who has chosen to do extraordinary things with her life.

The REAL Debate
“Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reason, and not just to mingle with the right people. Politics isn’t just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.”

Exactly… The average American is fed up with inside the beltway corruption and partisan backstabbing.

“Now, I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have too. We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state senate.”

“In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”

This Palin statement is the central point of the debate between the anti-American left and the American right.

Politicians have to allow that even the most anti-American socialist flag-burner is still an American. But I’m not running for office, so I am free to state the truth that there is nothing American about the Democratic Socialism being crammed down the throats of those who seek self-interest and another trip to the public trough and those expected to pick up the tab.

Obama – Biden represent more of the same old “pick-pocket politics” of the past. McCain – Palin represent the concept of individual freedom and liberty as designed by our nation’s founders. That’s the primary difference between the two tickets. One is American, the other wholly anti-American.

After leftists have spent years biting the hands that feed them, attacking productive Americans as if their personal productivity was some kind of assault upon the less productive, it’s high time someone slapped them away from the trough and taught them some manners.

“Among politicians, there is the idealism of high- flown speechmaking in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.”

Nobody in America has personally sacrificed more than John McCain to earn the right to become Commander-in-Chief. That alone is not enough to make him Commander-in-Chief, however.

The people really do want change. They want government REFORM! But they can only get it from leaders who have a record of forcing change. They won’t ever get change from “leaders” who have never “led” anything.

They won’t get change from a chief executive who has never done anything in the past, and couldn’t even decide YES or NO on 130 congressional votes. It wasn’t a multiple choice question. He could have closed his eyes and guessed. He would have had a 50/50 chance of being right had he just had the courage to answer the question.

In a decision by committee body like congress, one can hide from the responsibility to make tough choices. But there is no place to hide in the Oval Office! Good or bad, right or wrong, a decision must be made. Obama has proven repeatedly throughout his career, that he lacks the courage to take a stand on tough choices.

Reform will only come from proven Reformers
Leadership is not just about making the right decisions. It’s about having the backbone to make the decision, then commit to that decision and make it right. Obama has no such backbone and his record demonstrates that beyond debate. His choice of Joe Biden as a VP running mate demonstrates this reality.

No guts, no glory for Obama! The candidate of “change” chose a tired old corrupt backstabbing DC partisan to prop up his otherwise blank résumé for office. When faced with a chance to choose courageous change, he instead defaulted backwards to something he saw as “safe.”

Sarah Palin and John McCain have made tough choice after tough choice throughout their careers and learned how to stick when the going gets even tougher.

Democrats are in Trouble
Palin has defined the debate. She has pushed Obama and Biden into the corner they built for themselves and in the course of doing that, she has given the left-wing press enough rope to hang themselves…

Those Americans who never fail to cast their vote on the basis of free gifts from the public trough would vote for Ronald McDonald if they had to and they will vote for Obama no matter what.

But the rest of America just got a close up look at what a real pro-American leader looks like. Obama is thanking his lucky stars that Joe Biden will have to face Palin in the debates.

Once Obama and Biden finished cleaning out their britches last night, they fired up the attack machine. But it won’t work this time around.

The real differences between the anti-American left represented by Obama-Biden and the pro-American right represented by two obvious members of the no-nonsense average American community is nothing short of astounding.

Even the left-wing press is in trouble this time around… It’s fast becoming obvious that without the full support of the leftist press, Obama would not even be in this race. He is a manufactured media creation and the press is scrambling to prop him up until November.

Change is a comin’! and not a moment too soon!

The grown ups had to step in

The mortgage crisis could not have happened at a better time and I am personally glad it happened prior to the elections than after. Why? It highlights the totally irresponsible democratic economic philosophy.

All of us homeowners could have taken advantage of the mortgage offers being floated the last few years. Take a loan for more than your house is worth, pay off the credit cards with the equity that is NOT in your home, buy a car with your home equity loan, borrow against tomorrows success with your home. But responsible people said, no thank you.

Now responsible people are being asked to foot the bill for the irresponsible? What kind of lesson is this? It is time for the government to quit playing nursemaid and asking me to take up the slack. I can’t afford it, can you?

Fannie and Freddie: GOP Cleaning up Democrat Messes (link)

Grown ups are always having to step in and clean up the messes left by the children. Such is the case all too often in our government.

It was announced yesterday that the Treasury is going to take over the two huge quasi-public lending corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In short, without doing this the housing markets would have continued to decline and more problems would have been manifest throughout the entire finanical industry. When you calculate the loss of wealth as home prices and stock prices continue to decline, the consequences would have been almost unthinkable. This is wealth counted on by a lot of middle class taxpayers who depend on their home value and their 401K’s for retirement.



As Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said this morning on CNBC’s Squawk Box,



“I’m not happy about it...but it had to be done. I have to fight the battle that is in front of me.” Paulson went on to say that the problem with Fannie and Freddie were ingrained in their respective charters, which is to say put together by Democrat controlled congresses decades ago. Paulson, in great new tone fashion, did not mention which party controlled congress when these charters were drawn up. But I will.



Stock picking guru Jim Cramer, who applauded the move by Paulson, admitted that Fannie and Freddie were in the back pockets of Democrats in Congress. Cramer is normally a big Democrat, though his opinions today indicate that he would be doing intellectual gymnastics to stay that way. These are the two lenders, by the way, that donated millions to Jesse Jackson’s various racial organizations over the years. These are the two organizations that backstopped big liberal Anthony Mozillo as his Countrywide Mortgage Corporation sold “predatory” mortgages to undeserving (and apparently financially illiterate) borrowers over the years so he could hand out sweetheart deals to congressional Democrats like Chris Dodd and others.



Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor, also applauded the move by Paulson as “exactly the right thing” to do and indicated that these problems are decades in the making. Buffet was mum on the fact that these institutions are the Democrat’s babies and did not elaborate on just what “decades in the making” meant.



Many of the so-called “creative mortgages” were designed in response to politically correct and racially motivate legislation demanding that lenders have more minorities in their customer portfolio. Again, this was not something that came from the right side of the aisle.



And all of this came crashing down as the oil markets soared and people in the sub prime market had to choose between groceries, gas or mortgage payments. More liberal policies at work when you look at our energy situation over the past 30 years of course. Choosing to pay the former, these defaulting mortgages jump-started the mortgage-housing meltdown. These problems were the worst, of course, in liberal-controlled states like Michigan and California where government has driven businesses away and taxes up. And the result has been a cascading down of home values, bank failures and more deterioration of millions of 401K plans. It’s no wonder that Dick Armey says that “economic illiteracy” is required to join the Democrat caucus in congress.



So today, the grown ups had to step in and do what they did. This may or may not be good for the taxpayer in all of us. It is certainly necessary for the stockholder and homeonwer in all of us. Even if you don’t own a home, this is good for you since having your landlord go broke will not help anyone.



The conservative philosopher in us is split, of course. This is kind of a quasi-socialist step that was needed to correct what were simply liberal fallacies. (makes you wonder if there was a grand plan afterall?) Free marketeers cannot like this part of it. The worst part could the precedent it might set for the auto industry, ailing of course thanks to the liberal energy policies on top of liberal union power.

Obama's Lipstick Lies

I firmly believe a real part of the reason why Hillary Clinton is not the democratic nominee today is because people were tired of the Clinton era politics. The politics of whine and blame had tested our patience to the limits and we wanted something fresh. And along comes Barack Obama, the articulate one with a message of hope and change and that telling us he was the post-partisan, post-racial uniter. Cool. Except for now that he wrapped up the democratic nomination he can turn into the typical Daley attack machine partisan democratic politician he has always been.

For such an educated and alleged articulate man (I am still looking for that guy!), he sure makes some real stupid moves ! He is so nuanced and has to explain himself so much, he makes John Kerry look like the common man from Appalachia . Everytime I have to hear him stammer and stutter to explain away what he just said I think, here we go again! Another wimp who wants to whine his way to the white house.. So now we are charged with being delusional about making stuff up about his pig remark. Oh us stupid folk!

But oh no, what is this? Lo and behold- In checking the The Democratic Blog we find a post entitled " Mc Cains selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig"

Here is the url and the tags for the post so you can see for yourself:

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/elizabethberry/Cgsq

Tags: lipstick on a pig, more of the same, palin, Republicans, rnc


"Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig (the Bush Administration whose failed strategies have wrecked our nation). Nothing has changed except for an exciting and sexy dash of lipstick to freshen up their tired old face of more of the same.

The same people who do not like the Bush Administration for what it has done to this nation are not going to be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. And it they think that the American public are so stupid that they will rush over now and kiss their pig of a platform because it is wearing a fresh touch of lipstick, well I think they will be surprised. Economically, the majority of Americans are at the breaking point. Most American families literally cannot stand another four more years of the same.

That is exactly why we had so many Republicans giving testimony at our convention as to why they were crossing over. The message was the same: They simply could no longer afford to vote Republican. Palin does not change that message. She is more of the same.

Judging from McCains choice, he seems to think that our Democratic Campaign is built on the purpose of electing the first black man as President. That is not, nor has it ever been the purpose of the Barack Obama campaign.

The purpose and message of Barack Obama's campaign has always been CHANGE and it remains so--to change this country before conservatives totally destroy it with their tax breaks for the wealthy and for coporate America; to rebuild this nation by creating new jobs and restoring worldwide respect for our nation; to unite our country in a common purpose; to end our reliance on fossil fuel in the next 10 years--not to drill for more.

Palin changes nothing in terms of what the Republicans are offering. They are still offering a ticket of more of the same: more tax breaks for the weathy, more disdain for global warming, more war, more disregard for rebuilding our educational system in America, more continued privatization of our nation.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND NOT BE THROWN OFF OUR MESSAGE. THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUCH SWELLING SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF ECONOMICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ--Palin represent more of the same. She changes nothing.

In a way a Palin is a good thing because now we can focus on the real issues. The REAL issues for Americans do not include whether we elect the first black president of our nation or whether we elect the first woman vice president .

AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE: CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME.

Demorats offer change.
Republicans offer more of the same. Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart.

Both Palin and McCain think that Americans are whiners. What do you think? Are you a whiner? Do you want more of the same? If you don't, then get out and register at least 5 people and tell them why they should vote a straight Democratic ticket this year

+++++++++++++

Again, Barack Obama's lack of forthrightness and lawyer-like nuances are a bit too elitist for Main Street America.

On main street, we call a lie a lie. And being lied to makes us typical Americans real bitter at the government that lies to us..

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The day the world shrank

The phone rang and my wife sounded startled. "Did you hear the news this morning?". I said no, I was doing my accounts receivable and then headed to the bank. She said, "Go turn on the TV and see what is going on." I turned on the TV to witness the rest of the carnage unfold that day and through the night .

Sitting there, going through a full range of emotions, yet trying to think clearly about what I was seeing, I realized the oceans had gotten smaller and the world shrank for us on 9/11. The idea of America being attacked at her very symbol of welcome to others brought a new sense of reality about the world we live in today.

I also drew a parallel about how we all have our 9/11's when we drop our guard against attacks from the enemy and how we are commanded in Ephesians 6 to be prepared at all times. I learned at a very young age it is a mistake to underestimate your enemy, because that is when you are caught off guard. When we try to live the Christian life depending on our own resolve and our own power instead of relying on Jesus Christ we are at risk of attack.

So as we reflect back on 9/11, let us not only remember the event and pray for the families of those left behind, but also be resolute not to allow ourselves to ever forget that He is our hope and our strength. Let us also realize that our faith or our strength does not shield us from attack, but keeps us prepared and able to withstand those attacks. Never forget.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

He Complete Us

The Mc Cain Palin revolt

Ironic as it may seems, instead of planning a return to dynastical politics and one party rule that has been a diservice to the country, the addition of Governor Palin represents a intent to commit change and a revolt against the status quo in Washington.

Is returning to the past CHANGE you can believe in?



I thought America was tired of the Cinton/Bush era. If this is how change is defined, keep it.

Examining Obama's judgement

Here is another example of Barack Obama's unacceptably poor judgement. His words, not mine.

Joe Biden stressing the importance of experience

His words done in the infamous Joe Biden humble manner



Will the media play the tapes to call him on this? Don't hold your breath

Obama lied about Harvard




Barack Obama — Magna Cum Saudi?
Does Barack Obama owe his meteoric rise to an Israeli-hating adviser to a Saudi billionaire? Why did a race-baiting mentor to the Black Panthers favor this yet unknown community organizer?
In her stunning national political debut as the Republican candidate for vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described Obama as a man who had written two memoirs but no significant laws or reforms. So how did this unaccomplished community organizer rise to fame and fortune? He had some interesting help.
We know he's a Harvard graduate and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Less known is the story of how he got into the prestigious Ivy League university. As Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports, he was helped by a letter written by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan borough president and a credible candidate for mayor of New York in 1977.

In an interview earlier this year on New York's all-news cable channel NY1, the 88-year-old Sutton made some interesting revelations about his relationship with the young Obama. He told NY1 reporter Dominic Carter on "Inside City Hall" that he was introduced to Obama by a friend raising money for him. The friend asked Sutton to write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard law school.

"The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas," Sutton said. "He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."

Sutton recalled that al-Mansour said, "There is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?" Sutton did.

According to Timmerman, "At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he (al-Mansour) was raising money for Obama's graduate school education (and) al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States."

One of those Saudi royals was Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of Saudi King Abdullah. He was the Saudi prince who offered to donate $10 million to help New York rebuild after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After the prince publicly suggested (as Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, did recently) that U.S. policies brought on the attacks, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Prince Alwaleed where he could deposit his check.

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, born Donald Warden, is another interesting fellow from Obama's past. He himself is a graduate of Harvard and has been a guest lecturer there. His writings and statements reveal him to be an ideological clone of the Rev. Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

In his 1995 book, "The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered," al-Monsour alleged that America was plotting genocide against black Americans. The first "genocide against the black man began 300 years ago," he said at a book-signing in Harlem, while a second "genocide" was on the way "to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society."

Al-Mansour told an audience in South Africa that "the Palestinians are treated like savages," something our worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter, as well as Wright might agree with. He has accused Israeli Jews of "stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America."
When he was known as Donald Warden, according to the Social Activism Project at the University of California at Berkeley, al-Monsour was the mentor of Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton and his associate, Bobby Seale.

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee entered an official statement of appreciation of Warden and his Black Panther colleagues for their role in founding a radical group known as the African-American Association into the Congressional Record of April 23, 2007.

What did this radical extremist see in young Barack Obama that he would seek to sponsor and perhaps finance Obama's education? Obama says he paid his way solely through student loans. How did they meet? Where did the money he raised come from? Now that we know who the father of Bristol Palin's baby is, maybe the mainstream media will have time to find out.

Courtesy of IBD

Obama countering Palin with his femanazis