Did anyone hear or read about Sarah Palin's major public policy speech on her plan to end the neglect of children with special needs and their families ? I didn't. I had to learn about it by reading the National Review Online editorial board's praise of the speech...I guess since most newspapers continue to dismiss Governor Palin as an anti-intellectual and a clown, they assume most readers wouldn't be interested in what a vice presidential candidate of a major political party has to say.
Also, apparently women (and some Hillary supporters) are starting to speak out against the anti-Palin rhetoric coming out of the Obama camp...and are starting to use the "s" word (sexism). See link to your left or below.
Special Speech, Unsigned Editorial (NRO)
Hillary Camp Assails Obama Anti-Palin Ad by Dave Eberhart
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Another Extremist...the "New Party"....ho hum, Does Anybody Really Care?
Stanley Kurtz, who is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has been doing extensive research on Barack Obama's political affiliations and activities in Chicago. One of his more recent articles discusses the fact that Barack Obama was a member of (and endorsed by) a political party called The New Party. Stanley Kurtz is baffled by the media's lack of interest in this story. He asks:
The more you read about this, the more you realize that Barack Obama's blithe dismissal about his ties to William Ayers and ACORN (and the media's bizarre refusal to scrutinize these ties) is more than disingenuous. It's a total distortion of reality. Indeed, even more recently, it's been learned that the L.A. Times is actually refusing to release a videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting and praising yet another anti-semite extremist, Rashid Khalidi. Here's what Gary Bauer wrote about this in yesterday's End of Day report:
“A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation…’”
In the last week or so some members of the media have been sounding the alarm about the extent to which the media seem to be protecting Obama from scrutiny. It maybe too little too late, but if Obama gets elected, it's likely this will become a story in and of itself. A San Diego Union Tribune editorial suggested as much yesterday when they wrote, "Decades from now, when The Lifetime Channel does a special on “Great Love Affairs of the 21st Century,” the first entry is sure to be the Barack Obama-national media coupling of 2008. What's going on now is simply stunning."
For Further Reading
Here's his book.
Here's a link to info about Stanley Kurtz's articles.
Here's a Wikipedia discussion of the New Party
Here's Stanley Kurtz Bio
Stanley Kurtz, an NRO Contributing Editor, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution with a special interest in America's "culture war." In addition to his regular contributions to National Review Online, Kurtz's writings on the family, feminism, homosexuality, affirmative action, and campus "political correctness" have appeared in Policy Review, the Wall Street Journal, and Commentary.
Before turning his attention to America's cultural battles, Kurtz was a social scientist specializing in family life and religion. He received his Ph.D. in social anthropology from Harvard University and later taught at Harvard, winning several teaching awards for his work in a "Great Books" program. Kurtz was also Dewey Prize Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Chicago. Kurtz has published extensively on family life, child rearing, religion, and psychology in various parts of the world — particularly India, where he did his field research.
"Isn’t the membership of a major party nominee and currently favored candidate to become president of the United States in a third party a major news story? Is it not the height of press irresponsibility to ignore this fact? Now some folks might be disturbed by Obama’s New Party membership and/or endorsement, and some may not. But isn’t this something the American people are entitled to know and decide on for themselves?"
The more you read about this, the more you realize that Barack Obama's blithe dismissal about his ties to William Ayers and ACORN (and the media's bizarre refusal to scrutinize these ties) is more than disingenuous. It's a total distortion of reality. Indeed, even more recently, it's been learned that the L.A. Times is actually refusing to release a videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting and praising yet another anti-semite extremist, Rashid Khalidi. Here's what Gary Bauer wrote about this in yesterday's End of Day report:
The media’s bias in this campaign is absolutely unprecedented, and it has now reached an unbelievable new low. We knew going into this campaign that their coverage would be slanted toward the Democrats. But now it appears that the media are actually working to protect Barack Obama and hide the extent of his associations with radicals like William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi.
You know about William Ayers, but Rashid Khalidi is another radical who, like Ayers and Obama, found refuge in academia. Khalidi is a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, but he previously worked at the University of Chicago, where he and Obama met.
Khalidi is well known for his anti-Israel comments and his vehement objection to our friendship with Israel. When Khalidi left Chicago to work at Columbia, Obama attended a dinner for Khalidi and offered a toast in his honor. The Los Angeles Times wrote about this going away party in April based on a video tape of the event. Here’s an excerpt of the paper’s April column:
You know about William Ayers, but Rashid Khalidi is another radical who, like Ayers and Obama, found refuge in academia. Khalidi is a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, but he previously worked at the University of Chicago, where he and Obama met.
Khalidi is well known for his anti-Israel comments and his vehement objection to our friendship with Israel. When Khalidi left Chicago to work at Columbia, Obama attended a dinner for Khalidi and offered a toast in his honor. The Los Angeles Times wrote about this going away party in April based on a video tape of the event. Here’s an excerpt of the paper’s April column:
Remember, this report was based on a video tape. In recent weeks there have been repeated demands for the Los Angeles Times to release the tape which shows Obama toasting an anti-Israeli “scholar” while others compare Israelis to terrorists. But contrary to the interests of a free media and an informed public, the paper is refusing to release the tape and is essentially protecting Obama.
In the last week or so some members of the media have been sounding the alarm about the extent to which the media seem to be protecting Obama from scrutiny. It maybe too little too late, but if Obama gets elected, it's likely this will become a story in and of itself. A San Diego Union Tribune editorial suggested as much yesterday when they wrote, "Decades from now, when The Lifetime Channel does a special on “Great Love Affairs of the 21st Century,” the first entry is sure to be the Barack Obama-national media coupling of 2008. What's going on now is simply stunning."
For Further Reading
Here's his book.
Here's a link to info about Stanley Kurtz's articles.
Here's a Wikipedia discussion of the New Party
Here's Stanley Kurtz Bio
Stanley Kurtz, an NRO Contributing Editor, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution with a special interest in America's "culture war." In addition to his regular contributions to National Review Online, Kurtz's writings on the family, feminism, homosexuality, affirmative action, and campus "political correctness" have appeared in Policy Review, the Wall Street Journal, and Commentary.
Before turning his attention to America's cultural battles, Kurtz was a social scientist specializing in family life and religion. He received his Ph.D. in social anthropology from Harvard University and later taught at Harvard, winning several teaching awards for his work in a "Great Books" program. Kurtz was also Dewey Prize Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Chicago. Kurtz has published extensively on family life, child rearing, religion, and psychology in various parts of the world — particularly India, where he did his field research.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Divided....
So far I have tried to respect my family's unwritten rule about not engaging in political discussions and have been very restrained about sending emails and and other incendiary communications. But the longer this charade goes on, the more apparent it becomes that we are dealing with something entirely new in terms of media bias and manipulation and possibly corruption the likes of which has yet to be revealed, and consequently, the less able I am to respect the fact that my own family has been hoodwinked.
With John McCain, I feel as if the gap that divides my family could have shrunk. He's a unifier, a coalition builder. I echo the words of New York Times columnist David Brooks who recently wrote that McCain would have been a great president, and that his inevitable loss is "unspeakably sad." I think all of those Obama supporters--even my family--would have been comfortable with John McCain as their president. I know they hate Bush, but McCain is no Bush. His independent and yes maverick record was smeared and distorted by Obama, one of many ways he has deceived people into believing a McCain administration would be an extension of a Bush administration. Not so. Many will come to discover that Obama lied about many things, and I suspect they will come to regret your support of him. But only time will tell.
I am sorry that things are coming down this way. There will be no unifying or uniting of our country after this election, and there will be no unifying or uniting of our families after this election.
These are sad days ahead but I see they are happy, giddy for now.
With John McCain, I feel as if the gap that divides my family could have shrunk. He's a unifier, a coalition builder. I echo the words of New York Times columnist David Brooks who recently wrote that McCain would have been a great president, and that his inevitable loss is "unspeakably sad." I think all of those Obama supporters--even my family--would have been comfortable with John McCain as their president. I know they hate Bush, but McCain is no Bush. His independent and yes maverick record was smeared and distorted by Obama, one of many ways he has deceived people into believing a McCain administration would be an extension of a Bush administration. Not so. Many will come to discover that Obama lied about many things, and I suspect they will come to regret your support of him. But only time will tell.
I am sorry that things are coming down this way. There will be no unifying or uniting of our country after this election, and there will be no unifying or uniting of our families after this election.
These are sad days ahead but I see they are happy, giddy for now.
Media Bias and the Truth
Does truth matter anymore? I'm beginning to wonder. It seems no one's paying attention anymore. Each time something new comes up that's even remotely newsworthy about Barack Obama, the "mainstream" media clamps up (case in point--Joe Biden's prediction about a major international event six months into Obama's presidency, and his implication that Obama wouldn't be prepared to deal with it).
Now here's another revelation about the media's unwillingness (or complicity in covering up) what should be open for discussion and scrutiny. Andrew McCarthy, a contributing editor at National Review Online, has posted an article called "The LA Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape." You can read the article below if you have time, but the question McCarthy raises is this:
He goes on to write:
This is newsworthy stuff given Obama's glib denials of a relationship with (say) William Ayers. Doesn't Barack Obama owe Americans an explanation about these relationships before they hand him the keys to the Oval Office?
Another columnist named Michael S. Malone at ABC News.com has also begun to express outrage about the media's peculair silence about any story that attempts to scrutinize Barack Obama. In an article he wrote on October 24 called "Media's Presidential Bias and Decline," he begins by saying that the media are playing a "very very dangerous game," and then says, "The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling." You can read the rest of his very disturbing article below, if you have a moment.
One more blurb....here's a blog entry by Tom Gross (National Review Online). If Obama wins this election, one wonders how long it will be before the media wakes up from its groggy delusion and realizes what they've done...
Andrew McCarthy's article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=
Columnist Tom Malone on slanted election coverage (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
Now here's another revelation about the media's unwillingness (or complicity in covering up) what should be open for discussion and scrutiny. Andrew McCarthy, a contributing editor at National Review Online, has posted an article called "The LA Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape." You can read the article below if you have time, but the question McCarthy raises is this:
Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
He goes on to write:
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
This is newsworthy stuff given Obama's glib denials of a relationship with (say) William Ayers. Doesn't Barack Obama owe Americans an explanation about these relationships before they hand him the keys to the Oval Office?
Another columnist named Michael S. Malone at ABC News.com has also begun to express outrage about the media's peculair silence about any story that attempts to scrutinize Barack Obama. In an article he wrote on October 24 called "Media's Presidential Bias and Decline," he begins by saying that the media are playing a "very very dangerous game," and then says, "The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling." You can read the rest of his very disturbing article below, if you have a moment.
One more blurb....here's a blog entry by Tom Gross (National Review Online). If Obama wins this election, one wonders how long it will be before the media wakes up from its groggy delusion and realizes what they've done...
Andrew McCarthy's article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFkMGE2MmM1M2Q5MmY0ZmExMzUxMWRhZGJmMTAyOGY=
Columnist Tom Malone on slanted election coverage (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1
Reporters outraged as Obama charges them $$$ for his election party (Tom Gross, NRO, blog):
Barack Obama may be swimming in campaign cash, but he still wants to charge reporters for the privilege of covering his Election Night activities at Grant Park in Chicago, reports John Fund in the Wall Street Journal. Crain’s Chicago Business adds that Obama’s campaign sent a memo saying the price for access to the media area, where electrical power will be available, will be between $715 and $1,815 depending on how many phone lines and power outlets are granted. Reporters who want to cover Obama campaign officials and interview them will have to gain access to a “Press File” tent for an additional $935 per person for admission. Lynn Sweet, Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times, called the price list “an outrageous pay-to-play plan that caters to national elite [media] outlets.” She noted that many reporters don’t have extensive phone and electrical needs and yet will be priced out of covering Obama on Election Night. Are these the first signs of trouble between a future President Obama and the media that have so idolized him until now?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Michelle Obama Should Not Be Off-Limits
I think I've figured out why Barack Obama is so beholden to the pro-abortion lobby....he's married to Michelle Obama. Here's a link that contains a clip of the Obamas (Barack and Michelle) being interviewed, with Barack saying that the media need to lay off his wife and that she's off limits. Really? Why is she off limits? She's a pretty important person to his campaign, and she's fair game.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/obama_lay_off_m.html
Actually I know why he wants her to be off-limits: she's such a lightning rod for criticism. Here's a link to a copy of a fund-raising letter she wrote regarding the need to overturn the partial birth abortion ban.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/michelle_obamas.html
Also, here's a link (with a video clip) to "Women for Obama" (Michelle Obama narrating). Poor Michelle seems pretty influential to all this.
http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome
Why is she off limits to media scrutiny? Just because the Supreme Being says so? Michelle Obama is actively rallying these women to a cause. She believes together they can change the world....These women are mobilized and motivated. And we should leave her alone?
Here is a disturbing article written by Victor David Hanson (from National Review Online) about the indefensible media bias against Sarah Palin.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=&w=MA==
The media thinks Sarah Palin is a clown. Some conservatives have bought into that caricature and have jumped ship and climbed on the Obama bandwagon. I think that's a huge mistake. There's more to Sarah Palin than the media give her credit for and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/obama_lay_off_m.html
Actually I know why he wants her to be off-limits: she's such a lightning rod for criticism. Here's a link to a copy of a fund-raising letter she wrote regarding the need to overturn the partial birth abortion ban.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/michelle_obamas.html
Also, here's a link (with a video clip) to "Women for Obama" (Michelle Obama narrating). Poor Michelle seems pretty influential to all this.
http://women.barackobama.com/page/content/WFOhome
Why is she off limits to media scrutiny? Just because the Supreme Being says so? Michelle Obama is actively rallying these women to a cause. She believes together they can change the world....These women are mobilized and motivated. And we should leave her alone?
Here is a disturbing article written by Victor David Hanson (from National Review Online) about the indefensible media bias against Sarah Palin.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=&w=MA==
The media thinks Sarah Palin is a clown. Some conservatives have bought into that caricature and have jumped ship and climbed on the Obama bandwagon. I think that's a huge mistake. There's more to Sarah Palin than the media give her credit for and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
What's not Being Told About Obama's Appalling Positions on Abortion
For some reason, every time the subject of Barack Obama's views on abortion come up, the subject is changed or his views on abortion get "cleaned up." I've heard that even some pro-life Catholics and evangelicals still plan on voting for Obama because they believe under his administration the number of abortions will be reduced, so his extreme pro-choice stance is irrelevant. They're kidding themselves.
Since the media don't seem to be interested in scrutinizing his record, I've been looking into it myself.
The You Tube video below features a very articulate registered nurse named Jill Stanek who testified before Congress regarding the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I didn't know anything about her. Evidently she was fired from her job at Christ Hospital for her outspoken stance about what was going on with infants who survived abortions. I also found a video clip of her being interviewed on The O'Reilley Factor about her experiences at Christ Hospital.
I also found an interesting audio clip (apparently these are usually destroyed) that contains a snippet of Barack Obama arguing his position against providing medical attention to infants who survive abortion (there's a transcript of his remarks for context). I also found a video clip of his speech at a fund-raising event for Planned Parenthood. All of these excerpts paint a very disturbing portrait of the man who might be our next president.
Obama and Live Birth Abortion
Barack Obama caught on audio tape arguing his position against giving medical attention to infants who survive abortion.
About Jill Stanek.
Here's Jill Stanek being interviewed on The O'Reilly Factor in 2000.
Here is Barack Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood fund-raising event in 2007
Since the media don't seem to be interested in scrutinizing his record, I've been looking into it myself.
The You Tube video below features a very articulate registered nurse named Jill Stanek who testified before Congress regarding the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I didn't know anything about her. Evidently she was fired from her job at Christ Hospital for her outspoken stance about what was going on with infants who survived abortions. I also found a video clip of her being interviewed on The O'Reilley Factor about her experiences at Christ Hospital.
I also found an interesting audio clip (apparently these are usually destroyed) that contains a snippet of Barack Obama arguing his position against providing medical attention to infants who survive abortion (there's a transcript of his remarks for context). I also found a video clip of his speech at a fund-raising event for Planned Parenthood. All of these excerpts paint a very disturbing portrait of the man who might be our next president.
Obama and Live Birth Abortion
Barack Obama caught on audio tape arguing his position against giving medical attention to infants who survive abortion.
About Jill Stanek.
Here's Jill Stanek being interviewed on The O'Reilly Factor in 2000.
Here is Barack Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood fund-raising event in 2007
grrrr
I am so annoyed. I searched high and low in the papers for a report on what Joe Biden said, guaranteeing that there would be an "international crisis" six months into Obama's presidency and implying that Obama might not be up to the task (he apparently spoke for an hour before joking that maybe he better not have said all this since the press was there). Not a word in the papers. In one of Gary Bauer's end of day reports he writes that "the media’s blackout is so obvious that even former media star Dan Rather had to admit it. Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning, Rather made this astonishingly honest comment, '…certainly if Sarah Palin had said this, it would be above the fold in most newspapers today.'"
That's a good word for it: media blackout. Anything remotely negative or critical of Obama is glossed over or ignored, while stories about McCain and Palin are more than fair game. If there's no story, the media will make a story. Here's a for instance. In yesterday's LA Times there was a long article about (guess who) Sarah Palin. It's called "She Graduated with Anonymity (Sarah Palin's College Years Left No Lasting Impression)". HERE"S THE SCOOP (are you ready?): No one can remember her. You find out later in the article that because her family couldn't afford college Sarah (Heath) had to work to support herself during college, so it's easy to infer that she kept herself busy with studies and waiting tables. But ace reporter Robin Abcarian doggedly kept asking asking asking, anyone, professors, fellow students....not much there. But she did have a deadline, so she wrote her story. But here's what really tells the story. At the end of paragraph two where Abcarian introduces her topic by compares how the other candidates (McCain, Obama, and Biden) are recalled at their alma maters she mentions this about Joe Biden: "Sen. Joe Biden, who had a brush with plagiarism at Syracuse University College of Law, is remembered fondly by professors who found him charming."
A brush with plagiarism? If Abcarian had dug up that little gem about Governor Palin, what would the headline have read (and how many more stories would we be reading about it?
Is anyone else sick and tired of what no longer appears to be a dirty little secret--the mainstream press is not interested in doing its job? I think this has gone beyond paranoia and has moved into something really quite disturbing. Major news outlets are either awed, intimidated, or unduly influenced by the Obama campaign. If this does not disturb Obama's supporters, I can't imagine what will. Do they really think things will be different once they get their man in office?
Here's another example. Read Jonah Goldberg's column (bookmarked at left) about the media's assault on Joe (the Plumber) Wurzelbacher whose only crime, it appears, was to ask Barack Obama a direct question and actually managed to get a direct answer from the man (something none of the moderators at the three debates were able to do.) Unfortunately for Obama, the direct answer happened to be a major gaffe (will the real BO please stand up?) when his response about it being a good idea to "spread the wealth" ripped away the facade of his economic policy and exposed it for what it really is (socialism). Golberg writes that the gaffe was so significant there was only one thing the Obama campaign could do to quiet the unruly masses (OK those are my word not Goldberg's): change the subject. They needed to shift the focus away from the question and onto the questioner. So the media smear begins and Joe Wurzelbacker gets shoved under their probing microscope. If this doesn't get your blood boiling, (D- and D- and B-) nothing will. This is what we have to look forward to if your candidate wins in November--if you dare criticize or question your man, you'll be silenced or humiliated. Bravo.
Oh yeah, remember how Joe Biden said (during the VP debate) that he and BO were against gay marriage? That was then, on the stage Sarah Palin (who, contrary to the clown image the media have portrayed, is really quite articulate) and Gwen Ifill (asking tough tough questions...not). It's only later, in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres, that we get the straight answer: neither Biden nor Obama would support Proposition 8, and indeed they strongly favor gay marriage.
Truth truth truth....it matters. Unfortunately, no one seems to care that Barack Obama appears to be one of the most deceitful politicians ever to stand before the American people and ask them to trust him.
That's a good word for it: media blackout. Anything remotely negative or critical of Obama is glossed over or ignored, while stories about McCain and Palin are more than fair game. If there's no story, the media will make a story. Here's a for instance. In yesterday's LA Times there was a long article about (guess who) Sarah Palin. It's called "She Graduated with Anonymity (Sarah Palin's College Years Left No Lasting Impression)". HERE"S THE SCOOP (are you ready?): No one can remember her. You find out later in the article that because her family couldn't afford college Sarah (Heath) had to work to support herself during college, so it's easy to infer that she kept herself busy with studies and waiting tables. But ace reporter Robin Abcarian doggedly kept asking asking asking, anyone, professors, fellow students....not much there. But she did have a deadline, so she wrote her story. But here's what really tells the story. At the end of paragraph two where Abcarian introduces her topic by compares how the other candidates (McCain, Obama, and Biden) are recalled at their alma maters she mentions this about Joe Biden: "Sen. Joe Biden, who had a brush with plagiarism at Syracuse University College of Law, is remembered fondly by professors who found him charming."
A brush with plagiarism? If Abcarian had dug up that little gem about Governor Palin, what would the headline have read (and how many more stories would we be reading about it?
Is anyone else sick and tired of what no longer appears to be a dirty little secret--the mainstream press is not interested in doing its job? I think this has gone beyond paranoia and has moved into something really quite disturbing. Major news outlets are either awed, intimidated, or unduly influenced by the Obama campaign. If this does not disturb Obama's supporters, I can't imagine what will. Do they really think things will be different once they get their man in office?
Here's another example. Read Jonah Goldberg's column (bookmarked at left) about the media's assault on Joe (the Plumber) Wurzelbacher whose only crime, it appears, was to ask Barack Obama a direct question and actually managed to get a direct answer from the man (something none of the moderators at the three debates were able to do.) Unfortunately for Obama, the direct answer happened to be a major gaffe (will the real BO please stand up?) when his response about it being a good idea to "spread the wealth" ripped away the facade of his economic policy and exposed it for what it really is (socialism). Golberg writes that the gaffe was so significant there was only one thing the Obama campaign could do to quiet the unruly masses (OK those are my word not Goldberg's): change the subject. They needed to shift the focus away from the question and onto the questioner. So the media smear begins and Joe Wurzelbacker gets shoved under their probing microscope. If this doesn't get your blood boiling, (D- and D- and B-) nothing will. This is what we have to look forward to if your candidate wins in November--if you dare criticize or question your man, you'll be silenced or humiliated. Bravo.
Oh yeah, remember how Joe Biden said (during the VP debate) that he and BO were against gay marriage? That was then, on the stage Sarah Palin (who, contrary to the clown image the media have portrayed, is really quite articulate) and Gwen Ifill (asking tough tough questions...not). It's only later, in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres, that we get the straight answer: neither Biden nor Obama would support Proposition 8, and indeed they strongly favor gay marriage.
Truth truth truth....it matters. Unfortunately, no one seems to care that Barack Obama appears to be one of the most deceitful politicians ever to stand before the American people and ask them to trust him.
Just When You Think This Election Couldn't Get Any Weirder
So it's come to this: Joe Six-Pack and Joe the Plumber vs. Say-it-Ain't-So-Joe and Joe Professor
hahaha...these are strange times....
hahaha...these are strange times....
Marching Toward November
My brother sent me an email today, informing me (as if I didn't know) that Chris Buckley (WFB Jr's son) endorsed Obama. He even felt it necessary to explain to me the WFB Jr was the founder of National Review Online. David sent it with the added caveat that this was not an invitation to start a political discussion. To which I reply, hahahahahahahahahaha! (Surely he didn't think he could send me something like this and not expect me to respond? How can I not? But I'll respond here...I think I'm learning that we can't speak about things like this directly...)
First, I am saddened about the level of hostility on both sides of the so-called aisle. Christopher Buckley rightly bemoans the fact that Kathleen Parker and now he himself became the recipients of conservative ire by daring to speak their mind. But one musn't be so naive as to think that cretins exist only among the Republicans. If Obama's supporters think their side is immune to this, they might be surprised to discover there are bona fide jerks in their own ranks. For more on this, consider reading this article by Michelle Malkin (10/15) on NRO (link to the left, in Things to Avoid, etc...), or viewing the YouTube video (linked in her article) about the way McCain supporters were treated in NYC. And don't forget the hate-filled and violent rhetoric leveled at Sarah Palin. Hopefully Buckley isn't so naive as to think that those on the left, who have rallied to his defense today, won't turn on him in a heartbeat if and when he sings a different song about Obama tomorrow.
Second, though, I have to say I was more interested in the column Dave didn't send but which was linked in the one he did, the one in which Buckley tries to to explain his endorsement. Read it and tell me that you don't think he struggles to justify his decision. If he's jumping (McCain's) ship to hop on (Obama's) bandwagon because of what he perceives to be McCain's suddenly-revealed inauthenticity, one can't help but wonder what he sees in Obama. Certainly not authenticity? Even those who see potential in Obama do so hesitantly, acknowledging that there's not much to "know" about him yet. His resume is paper thin, he has no backbone to speak of when it comes to making tough decisions, he says one thing and does another (campaign $$ is one example). In short, he seems to be all things to all people. One person's vote for Obama in November will be for the Obama he believes him to be. But it remains to be seen who he really is. Buckley seems to be filled with ambivalence in the matter, as perhaps many are right now. On one hand, there was a time when he saw in McCain what I (personally) still see--"this guy should be president." He writes:
On the other, he looks at Obama and sees what he calls "a first class temperament" and a "first class intellect" (he's tickled that a politician actually writes his own books, as if this alone is enough to commend the man for the office of president). Surprisingly, he seems willing to buy into the Obama persona, that Obama is what the "historical moment seems to be calling for." Yet in the same breath he mocks Obama's "silly rhetoric," specifically, his embarrassing claim that "we are the people we have been waiting for." In short, Buckley seems to have abandoned not only McCain's ship but his own objectivity.
All of which (third) is probably part of the problem in this year's election. There doesn't seem to be any clear rationale for voting for either candidate, other than possibly for the following reasons:
I have deliberately avoided sending Dave and dad literally dozens of articles and other items that I personally believe might be of interest to them (see Things to Avoid, etc), but did not send simply because of the chasm that exists between us, a gulf I am now convinced will never be bridged. Certainly not after this election, regardless of who is elected. I'm so glad there's at least one member of my extended family (yay Eric) who I feel comfortable enough talking with about things like this. Among my own family, sadly, there is no meeting of the minds, and nothing to talk about at Thanksgiving.
Here's my take for what it's worth: If Obama wins this election, I believe it will be a Pyrrhic victory which many will eventually come to regret, maybe even Christopher Buckley. If McCain wins, some predict race riots, including, absurdly, pundits in Europe who believe this would be "proof" that America is deeply racist. So there's no winning, no matter who wins. The divide will be deeper, greater, broader. There will be no unity. The hate will grow more intense. Families like mine will be divided even further.
John McCain is the better man, the more experienced candidate. He is not George Bush. He is knowledgeable, he will work hard for America, he has integrity, he is courageous, he has a track record, he has foreign policy experience. Barack Obama is none of these. What he is is a smooth talker, a novelty. Personally I think he's a puppet, but I'm not sure who the puppet master is. If he wins on his credentials alone, we have a lot of soul searching to do in America.
And so we march inexorably toward November.
First, I am saddened about the level of hostility on both sides of the so-called aisle. Christopher Buckley rightly bemoans the fact that Kathleen Parker and now he himself became the recipients of conservative ire by daring to speak their mind. But one musn't be so naive as to think that cretins exist only among the Republicans. If Obama's supporters think their side is immune to this, they might be surprised to discover there are bona fide jerks in their own ranks. For more on this, consider reading this article by Michelle Malkin (10/15) on NRO (link to the left, in Things to Avoid, etc...), or viewing the YouTube video (linked in her article) about the way McCain supporters were treated in NYC. And don't forget the hate-filled and violent rhetoric leveled at Sarah Palin. Hopefully Buckley isn't so naive as to think that those on the left, who have rallied to his defense today, won't turn on him in a heartbeat if and when he sings a different song about Obama tomorrow.
Second, though, I have to say I was more interested in the column Dave didn't send but which was linked in the one he did, the one in which Buckley tries to to explain his endorsement. Read it and tell me that you don't think he struggles to justify his decision. If he's jumping (McCain's) ship to hop on (Obama's) bandwagon because of what he perceives to be McCain's suddenly-revealed inauthenticity, one can't help but wonder what he sees in Obama. Certainly not authenticity? Even those who see potential in Obama do so hesitantly, acknowledging that there's not much to "know" about him yet. His resume is paper thin, he has no backbone to speak of when it comes to making tough decisions, he says one thing and does another (campaign $$ is one example). In short, he seems to be all things to all people. One person's vote for Obama in November will be for the Obama he believes him to be. But it remains to be seen who he really is. Buckley seems to be filled with ambivalence in the matter, as perhaps many are right now. On one hand, there was a time when he saw in McCain what I (personally) still see--"this guy should be president." He writes:
All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.
On the other, he looks at Obama and sees what he calls "a first class temperament" and a "first class intellect" (he's tickled that a politician actually writes his own books, as if this alone is enough to commend the man for the office of president). Surprisingly, he seems willing to buy into the Obama persona, that Obama is what the "historical moment seems to be calling for." Yet in the same breath he mocks Obama's "silly rhetoric," specifically, his embarrassing claim that "we are the people we have been waiting for." In short, Buckley seems to have abandoned not only McCain's ship but his own objectivity.
All of which (third) is probably part of the problem in this year's election. There doesn't seem to be any clear rationale for voting for either candidate, other than possibly for the following reasons:
- party loyalty (Buckley bucked this. Can Dave? Can Dad? Can I?)
- retaliation (a vote for Obama, in spite of his inexperience and questionable bona fides,is a repudiation of all things Bush...after all, Bush stole the election, now it's our turn)
- ideology (e.g., abortion)
- emotion (Obama the Messiah, McCain the War Hero, Obama comes across as presidential, Palin as daffy, etc.)
- race (good grief)
I have deliberately avoided sending Dave and dad literally dozens of articles and other items that I personally believe might be of interest to them (see Things to Avoid, etc), but did not send simply because of the chasm that exists between us, a gulf I am now convinced will never be bridged. Certainly not after this election, regardless of who is elected. I'm so glad there's at least one member of my extended family (yay Eric) who I feel comfortable enough talking with about things like this. Among my own family, sadly, there is no meeting of the minds, and nothing to talk about at Thanksgiving.
Here's my take for what it's worth: If Obama wins this election, I believe it will be a Pyrrhic victory which many will eventually come to regret, maybe even Christopher Buckley. If McCain wins, some predict race riots, including, absurdly, pundits in Europe who believe this would be "proof" that America is deeply racist. So there's no winning, no matter who wins. The divide will be deeper, greater, broader. There will be no unity. The hate will grow more intense. Families like mine will be divided even further.
John McCain is the better man, the more experienced candidate. He is not George Bush. He is knowledgeable, he will work hard for America, he has integrity, he is courageous, he has a track record, he has foreign policy experience. Barack Obama is none of these. What he is is a smooth talker, a novelty. Personally I think he's a puppet, but I'm not sure who the puppet master is. If he wins on his credentials alone, we have a lot of soul searching to do in America.
And so we march inexorably toward November.
Free Speech?
Reading Michael Barone's article (link below) one is chilled to the bone. What do D- and D- think about this? What about B-? Is it really just about "getting Obama in, not matter what....and then we'll deal with these pesky contradictions?" I fear so. This is all about revenge, retaliation. This is all about George Bush and the visceral hate. This is not about Obama at all. He is a mere puppet.
"The Coming Obama Thugocracy," by Michael Barone
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUwZWIwZTNhY2Y0YTFkYzFmZTIyZWUwZWNkYjk4ZGM=
"The Coming Obama Thugocracy," by Michael Barone
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUwZWIwZTNhY2Y0YTFkYzFmZTIyZWUwZWNkYjk4ZGM=
Reasons for Hope? I'm Not So Sure
I just read an article by Victor Davis Hanson (NRO), about why, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, John McCain still has a chance to win this election. Here's the link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWI5YjQ4OWFhZDFkOTYwZWRmNzAwZjYzZWNlYjUxNWM=
I admit to being skeptical, and to being among those who are losing hope. It does seem as if McCain is throwing stones at Goliath lately--the Goliath not being BO the man but BO the image--the Savior, the One, the Messiah (Nation of Islam's Messiah, that is--see previous entry below)--perpetuated by a mainstream media that have given up all pretention of objectivity (as Hanson points out). But I like Hanson's optimism and will go ahead and believe what hs says. Maybe he knows something about politics and elections and polls and voting patterns. If only there were a way to convince those who adore Obama--otherwise intelligent people like my dad, David, Bruce, et al--that their candidate is an illusion. I know they despise George Bush, which is why Obama's strategy of trying to frighten people into believing that a McCain presidency is "four more years of Bush" has been so effective. But McCain is no Bush. His record and his history in the Senate are proof enough of this. Of all the candidates running for President, McCain was the least likely to be likened to Bush (hence the reluctance of many Republicans to endorse him). Nevertheless, lies and distortions are what elections are all about, and Barack Obama is the smoothest of liars, the cleverest of manipulators. My family will be so pleased when (if) this chameleon becomes their president. I wonder when--at what point--they will discover they were duped.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWI5YjQ4OWFhZDFkOTYwZWRmNzAwZjYzZWNlYjUxNWM=
I admit to being skeptical, and to being among those who are losing hope. It does seem as if McCain is throwing stones at Goliath lately--the Goliath not being BO the man but BO the image--the Savior, the One, the Messiah (Nation of Islam's Messiah, that is--see previous entry below)--perpetuated by a mainstream media that have given up all pretention of objectivity (as Hanson points out). But I like Hanson's optimism and will go ahead and believe what hs says. Maybe he knows something about politics and elections and polls and voting patterns. If only there were a way to convince those who adore Obama--otherwise intelligent people like my dad, David, Bruce, et al--that their candidate is an illusion. I know they despise George Bush, which is why Obama's strategy of trying to frighten people into believing that a McCain presidency is "four more years of Bush" has been so effective. But McCain is no Bush. His record and his history in the Senate are proof enough of this. Of all the candidates running for President, McCain was the least likely to be likened to Bush (hence the reluctance of many Republicans to endorse him). Nevertheless, lies and distortions are what elections are all about, and Barack Obama is the smoothest of liars, the cleverest of manipulators. My family will be so pleased when (if) this chameleon becomes their president. I wonder when--at what point--they will discover they were duped.
Nobody Thinks it Odd that Louis Farrakhan Endorses Obama?
Published earlier (reprinted here)
Sorry folks, but I'm going to go on record here by publicly admitting that I am not voting for Barack Obama for President.
My reasons go beyond Obama's limited experience and his negligible voting record and his extreme views on abortion, all of which are valid reasons for most conservatives and/or Republicans and/or Independents to not vote for him. My reasons have to do with the following:
A friend sent me a You Tube video clip of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan speaking to a large congregation. This very short clip represents Farrakan's concluding statements of a longer sermon, which I also listened to. I've provided links to both the short and the longer versions below. The gist of this clip is this: Farrakhan, speaking this past February on "Nation of Islam Savior's Day 2008," believes that Barack Obama is a type of messiah and concludes, "When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
There's been little mention in the mainstream media about Louis Farrakhan--who is a well-known anti-semite and racist--and his support for Barack Obama. All the recent talk in the media has been on William Ayers,Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright. These associations are questionable in their own right, and many commentators believe that John McCain's recent emphasis on these associations is relevant--contrary to Obama's insistence, reiterated by most newspapers, that these are character smears and attacks using "guilt by association" (I've included a link to a good article published in today's San Diego Union-Tribune about this issue).
However, Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama and his belief that Obama is a precursor of the Nation of Islam's "messiah" elevates this issue to a new and disturbing level. Maybe Obama doesn't see himself as a messiah figure in a literal sense. But the fact that the Nation of Islam leader does should be publicized. Millions and millions of people--perhaps some of you--support Barack Obama because he "sounds presidential," or because they hope he'll rescue them from the financial crisis, or because they believe he cares more about the "little guy" on Main Street or because they don't like Sarah Palin or because Obama is African American (I read somewhere that 95% of African Americans will cast their votes for Obama...and Obama would have us believe this election is not about race?). These people need to know what Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam believes and preaches about their candidate before they cast their vote so at the very least, they will see the man behind the mask and know who they're voting for.
It's highly unlikely the mainstream media will scrutinize and publicize this story. But that doesn't mean that the information isn't relevant, newsworthy, and important. Barack Obama has tapped into the immense power of the Internet. It's how he has been able to out-spend John McCain 8 to 1. But we have access to the Internet, too. Let's use it.
Updated (June 13, 2015): Links to the videos are apparently no longer available on YouTube. But this article from WorldNet Daily published in 2008 contains an embedded link to a portion of Farrakhan's speech.
Here is Louis Farrakhan's biography, posted on the Nation of Islam website:
Here is some general background information from Wikipedia about Nation of Islam
Here's Charles Krauthammer's commentary, "Obama's Character is a Legitimate Issue" (U-T San Diego, October 10, 2008)
Sorry folks, but I'm going to go on record here by publicly admitting that I am not voting for Barack Obama for President.
My reasons go beyond Obama's limited experience and his negligible voting record and his extreme views on abortion, all of which are valid reasons for most conservatives and/or Republicans and/or Independents to not vote for him. My reasons have to do with the following:
A friend sent me a You Tube video clip of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan speaking to a large congregation. This very short clip represents Farrakan's concluding statements of a longer sermon, which I also listened to. I've provided links to both the short and the longer versions below. The gist of this clip is this: Farrakhan, speaking this past February on "Nation of Islam Savior's Day 2008," believes that Barack Obama is a type of messiah and concludes, "When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."
There's been little mention in the mainstream media about Louis Farrakhan--who is a well-known anti-semite and racist--and his support for Barack Obama. All the recent talk in the media has been on William Ayers,Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright. These associations are questionable in their own right, and many commentators believe that John McCain's recent emphasis on these associations is relevant--contrary to Obama's insistence, reiterated by most newspapers, that these are character smears and attacks using "guilt by association" (I've included a link to a good article published in today's San Diego Union-Tribune about this issue).
However, Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama and his belief that Obama is a precursor of the Nation of Islam's "messiah" elevates this issue to a new and disturbing level. Maybe Obama doesn't see himself as a messiah figure in a literal sense. But the fact that the Nation of Islam leader does should be publicized. Millions and millions of people--perhaps some of you--support Barack Obama because he "sounds presidential," or because they hope he'll rescue them from the financial crisis, or because they believe he cares more about the "little guy" on Main Street or because they don't like Sarah Palin or because Obama is African American (I read somewhere that 95% of African Americans will cast their votes for Obama...and Obama would have us believe this election is not about race?). These people need to know what Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam believes and preaches about their candidate before they cast their vote so at the very least, they will see the man behind the mask and know who they're voting for.
It's highly unlikely the mainstream media will scrutinize and publicize this story. But that doesn't mean that the information isn't relevant, newsworthy, and important. Barack Obama has tapped into the immense power of the Internet. It's how he has been able to out-spend John McCain 8 to 1. But we have access to the Internet, too. Let's use it.
Updated (June 13, 2015): Links to the videos are apparently no longer available on YouTube. But this article from WorldNet Daily published in 2008 contains an embedded link to a portion of Farrakhan's speech.
Here is Louis Farrakhan's biography, posted on the Nation of Islam website:
Here is some general background information from Wikipedia about Nation of Islam
Here's Charles Krauthammer's commentary, "Obama's Character is a Legitimate Issue" (U-T San Diego, October 10, 2008)
The President and the Professor
Posted earlier
I felt like I needed to get a pen and notebook each time Obama was speaking ("first....second....finally....") and take notes. When McCain spoke all I could do was listen. Halfway through the debate I said to P-, "I want him to be my president." Barack Obama would make a fine professor, but it's McCain who inspires me, and who gets my vote this November.
Obama looked diminutive, definitely the junior figure on the stage, doing his best to keep up. I noticed McCain didn't even glance at Obama, despite Jim Lehrer's best attempts to get the candidates to "talk with each other." I think that's because McCain can barely tolerate Obama....he came across as disdainful. Some will fault him for this. I think I understood it. Obama is like this green banana....give him 20 years, McCain seems to be thinking, maybe then he'll be ready for this job.
When it was over, both P- and I agreed this debate was a blowout, in spite of McCain's somewhat shaky beginning (nerves maybe? that first answer was a mess). Imagine our suprise, then, when we listened to the post-debate analysis of Shields and Brooks (we listen to the News Hour), and both columnists said that Barack Obama seemed to hold his own, though McCain had the definite advantage in the foreign policy arena. I'm baffled by this assessment and will be even more so if tomorrow's papers come out with a similar conclusion. I felt Obama was totally out-matched, out-debated, certainly out of his league. I try to be objective, but that's how it came across to us. It may be different next debate, but this time, our vote: McCain 1/Obama 0.
I felt like I needed to get a pen and notebook each time Obama was speaking ("first....second....finally....") and take notes. When McCain spoke all I could do was listen. Halfway through the debate I said to P-, "I want him to be my president." Barack Obama would make a fine professor, but it's McCain who inspires me, and who gets my vote this November.
Obama looked diminutive, definitely the junior figure on the stage, doing his best to keep up. I noticed McCain didn't even glance at Obama, despite Jim Lehrer's best attempts to get the candidates to "talk with each other." I think that's because McCain can barely tolerate Obama....he came across as disdainful. Some will fault him for this. I think I understood it. Obama is like this green banana....give him 20 years, McCain seems to be thinking, maybe then he'll be ready for this job.
When it was over, both P- and I agreed this debate was a blowout, in spite of McCain's somewhat shaky beginning (nerves maybe? that first answer was a mess). Imagine our suprise, then, when we listened to the post-debate analysis of Shields and Brooks (we listen to the News Hour), and both columnists said that Barack Obama seemed to hold his own, though McCain had the definite advantage in the foreign policy arena. I'm baffled by this assessment and will be even more so if tomorrow's papers come out with a similar conclusion. I felt Obama was totally out-matched, out-debated, certainly out of his league. I try to be objective, but that's how it came across to us. It may be different next debate, but this time, our vote: McCain 1/Obama 0.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Clearing my throat
In the olden days, people kept actual diaries. Maybe some people still do. But the trend now, of course, is journaling for public consumption....blogging. Ugh. It strikes me as pretty egocentric, that someone would be interested in the inner-workings of one's mind. The idea of a diary, buried, hidden, and then discovered (ah ha!) decades or even centuries after one's death...OK, maybe no less egocentric, but somehow more romantic.
My assumption about this blog? No one will read it! So I'll sort of experiment....maybe after I'm dead someone will stumble on this, cleaning up my computer. Ah ha!
The word ahem is interesting. It has a simple definition:
An utterance similar to the sound of clearing one's throat, used to attract attention, express doubt or a mild warning, etc.
It's this attention-getting interjection, apparently first documented in 1763, that I've chosen as a title for this blog. When you've been silent for a long time, your voice tends to get craggy from disuse. So you clear your throat before speaking. And when people all around you are talking talking talking, and you've been listening for awhile, there comes a moment when you think you have a handle on the subject. So you start searching for an opening, a pause. You take a breath, clear your throat (ahem) and start speaking.
I've been silent for too long. Everybody around me is talking. Some of it is good stuff, some isn't. I've been listening. But now I'd like to add my voice to the conversation.
Ahem.
My assumption about this blog? No one will read it! So I'll sort of experiment....maybe after I'm dead someone will stumble on this, cleaning up my computer. Ah ha!
The word ahem is interesting. It has a simple definition:
An utterance similar to the sound of clearing one's throat, used to attract attention, express doubt or a mild warning, etc.
It's this attention-getting interjection, apparently first documented in 1763, that I've chosen as a title for this blog. When you've been silent for a long time, your voice tends to get craggy from disuse. So you clear your throat before speaking. And when people all around you are talking talking talking, and you've been listening for awhile, there comes a moment when you think you have a handle on the subject. So you start searching for an opening, a pause. You take a breath, clear your throat (ahem) and start speaking.
I've been silent for too long. Everybody around me is talking. Some of it is good stuff, some isn't. I've been listening. But now I'd like to add my voice to the conversation.
Ahem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)