The Jawa Report: Doom in Six Months(Gird your loins) Biden makes the mother of all gaffe’s!!!
Newsbusters: NY Times Iraq Reporter Corrects Russert: ‘American Troops Were Greeted as Liberators’
Political Headlines
Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? Little Green Footballs: LA Times Hiding Incriminating Video of Obama with Radical Palestinian? Update: Ayers and Dohrn Attended Khalidi Party with Obama Gateway Pundit: Confirmed: MSM Holds Video Of Barack Obama Attending Jew-Bash & Toasting a Former PLO Operative… Refuse to Release the Video!
Who is Rashid Khalidi?
John McCain’s attacks on Obama’s tax plan are starting to hit home:
Facing criticism from John McCain that his tax plan constitutes “welfare,” Barack Obama recently added a work requirement to one of his proposals.
“They started saying this was welfare,” said Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. “So, just so they would absolutely not be able to say that, we decided that for the last two percent we’ll simply add a work requirement.”
As new scandals erupt daily concerning the sleazy attempts of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to steal the upcoming Presidential election, it is worth looking to the not-so-distant past and investigate the role that ACORN played in the defeat of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic Party Caucuses and Primaries. Given ACORN’s strong and undeniable ties to both Senator Barack Obama and his campaign, and their proven track record of aggressive deception, duplicity, fraud, and corruption, it is instructive to see if their present attempts at vote fraud reflect earlier efforts in the Democratic Caucuses and Primaries.
This basic, explicit question that must be asked by all concerned Democrats, Republicans, and Independants is this: Did ACORN register inelgible voters, collect invalid names, engage in voter intimidation, or seek to cast unlawful votes in the Democratic Party nomination process, and if so, was that a factor in Obama’s narrow win?
Not only should supporters of Senator Clinton be outraged by this plausible likelihood, but every voter in America who cherishes our sacred rights and the integrity of our election system should be angered … and demanding some immediate answers.
There is ample evidence of ACORN’s unholy marriage of partisan “ends justifies the means” ethos combined with their shoddy recruiting, hiring, training, and accountability practices. This, combined with election officials and courts in certain districts who are hell-bent on rushing through every registration – without credibly checking voter identification – is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, it is a recipe for voter fraud on an unprecedented scale.
The Far Left often accuses Conservatives of “voter supression.” The fact is, Conservatives are delighted when legitimate voters exercise their Constitutional right to vote; but Conservatives must unapologetically stand with fair-minded Democrats and Independants in calling for a supression of lawlessness and fraud on Election Day. This is not a peripheral or tangential issue; it goes straight to the heart of Obama’s personal integrity, his deeply troublesome alliances with radical individuals and groups, and his true vision for America.
Part of this process is in demanding an immediate investigation into the role that ACORN played in the Democratic Primaries. In invite every concerned citizen to join with me in broadcasting this demand to their friends, to every elected official, law enforcement agency, and responsible media outlet.
For more on Obama’s strong alliance with ACORN, and ACORN’s widespread and corrupt activities (not only in the vote fraud scandal, but also their profound role in helping to cause the current US financial crisis):
The impact of ACORN on this election strikes at the heart of democracy itself. We can all argue amongst ourselves about the role of government, or on specific issues. However, the principal of one person one vote is the lynchpin of American government. ACORN putting that principal in jeopardy threatens the integrity of our whole system of government. Clinton supporters were the first to see this threat to the Democratic system during the primaries and particularly the caucuses. As Pajamas Media reports that complaints about caucus fraud were largely chalked up to ’sour grapes’, but research shows there were serious problems with the way the caususes were run.
Last Saturday I took the plunge and drove down to the Apple store and bought myself a MacBook. It’s been a week now, and I’ve done my best to try and use it as much as possible in order to give it a fair test and comparison.
Out of the box, the thing is beautiful. Everybody knows by now that the new MacBooks are carved out of a solid block of aluminum. The thing is light and thin, but it’s got a very substantial feel to it. You just don’t get the feeling that it’s going to break easily.
Learning a new operating system was a concern, but I’ve managed to pick up on it pretty quickly. I got started with Windows back when Windows95 was the latest and greatest, and I’ve been pretty faithful to the line since then. When Vista came out, there were too many driver issues, and I decided to stay with XP, which works very well for me. Now that XP is becoming outdated, OSX seemed like a great choice for my new laptop, and so far it hasn’t dissapointed.
My desktop PC is one that I build myself. It’s got plenty of power, works great with XP, and drives three monitors without a hiccup. My previous laptop was a Dell Inspiron 6000, which is a nice machine, but it’s heavy, clunky, and fragile. My MacBook won’t be replacing my Windows desktop any time soon, but it really puts the Dell to shame.
Along with the MacBook, I also picked up an AirPort Extreme wireless router. The 802.11n wireless networking is noticeably faster than my old 802.11g network, and upgrading is something I wouldn’t have a problem recommending to anyone. The AirPort Extreme also allows me to plug my printer in (usb) and turns the printer into a network printer, which is now accessible from all the computers in our house, both PC and Mac.
So after using the MacBook for a week, there are things that I love about it and things that I’m not so fond of. It is very lightweight and small. Much better suited for portable use and travel. It’s very powerful and still has an amazing battery life. I’ve been using it sitting at my kitchen table for about 45 minutes now, and battery meter shows four hours of battery remaining. If I turn the brightness down on the display I can squeeze even more time out. The display is bright and clear. Text rendering on the screen is the best I have ever seen too.
On the other hand, there are a few things I don’t like. The screen is very glossy (all glass) and reflects everything. Turning up the brightness fixes this, but it’s a little annoying. There are only 2 usb ports, and I could use about 4. And all the ports are on the side of the machine. I like ports on the back where they aren’t visible, and aren’t in the way. And finally, the screen is pretty small, which isn’t really that big of a deal – I’m just used to my three monitor setup where I can have a ton of windows open and on display at once.
Overall, I’m pretty pleased with the MacBook. I think the more I use it, the more accustomed I will become to it and the more I will like it. At this point, I wouldn’t have any problem recommending the new MacBook to anyone over a windows based laptop.
Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn’t ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and… “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”
The same reader then repeated the experiment with Saddam Hussein, Bill Ayers and Osama bin Laden. Each name had a different address, but used the same credit card. Each donation was accepted.
If these donations were made to the McCain campaign, they would have been rejected. But Barack security is far lower, which helps those who wish to donate fraudulently.
The Fairness Doctrine is a Democrat’s best friend. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949 and lasted until the Reagan Administration. In 1985, the FCC issued a report. According to the Museum of Broadcast Communication, the report said the Doctrine was stifling debate:
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.
The Democrat Congress, in the face of a report saying they might be violating the First Amendment, voted the Fairness Doctrine into law in 1987. Reagan squashed it with a veto. Thus, Rush Limbaugh and talk radio was born.
The Democrats are going to try to destroy talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine is the way to do it.
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was “looking at it.”
“I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.”
John Kerry voiced his support for the doctrine, also in June of 2007:
In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said.
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-OKLAHOMA): I was going over to vote the other day, and I was walking with two very liberal gals that were, they didn’t pay any attention to me being with them. They were outraged by something you said, or Rush Limbaugh said. Somebody said something that upset them. They said, “We’ve got to do something about this. These are nothing but far rightwing extremists. We’ve got to have a balance. There’s got to be a legislative fix to this.” And as we got off the elevator, I said, “You gals don’t understand. This is market driven. And there’s no market for your liberal tripe.”
And that’s in, so I see…
JOHN ZEIGLER, HOST: You can’t tell us which Senators they were Senator? You can’t tell us who they were? Was that Boxer and Feinstein?
INHOFE: Uh, you’re halfway there. The other one’s running for president. You figure it out.
ZEIGLER: Oh wow. So, it was Boxer and Hillary. Boxer and Hillary told you that, you overheard Boxer and Hillary saying…
Clinton and Boxer said that never happened, and you can trust Hillary to tell the truth.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi came right out and said she supported the return of the Fairness Doctrine. When questioned on whether she foresaw Rep. Mike Pence’s “Broadcaster’s Freedom Act,” put it right out there:
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
“So I don’t see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor,” Pelosi said.
“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said right out loud in an interview with 770 KKOB Radio’s Jim Villanucci what many of his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to say out loud — that he favors the restoration of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that would require a balancing of viewpoints on the largely right-tilting world of talk radio.
Obama has said he doesn’t support the “Fairness Doctrine.” But do you really think that a bill with the support of the Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, John Kerry and the other liberals in Congress will be vetoed by President Obama? Neither do I.
“Under the rubric of ‘broadcast localism’ it is clear the Commission is proposing no less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media. The proposals and recommendations for Commission action contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking amount to the stealth enactment of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy designated to squelch the free speech and free expression of specifically targeted audiences,” wrote Boehner.
Why is this such a big deal to conservatives? Why is it supported by a majority of liberals? Because it would hush Rush. It would destroy talk radio, which, as Front Page.com says, “the only form of communication that conservatives have through which they can certainly and consistently connect with the general public. Most major television and print media are dominated by liberals, but conservatives are successful on talk radio.”
I’m sure Rush and Co. would simply jump to XM, but the folks who can’t afford XM would be without a way to hear conservative points of view. Which is exactly what the liberals are planning on.
Here are some other bloggers who are talking about the Fairness Doctrine:
Reihl World View: Dem Senator: Fairness Doctrine Is A “Higher Calling”
Hot Air: Jeff Bingaman: You know what would be sweet? Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine
Red State: Barack Obama: One Man, One Vote, One Time
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, less than 20 percent of American households owned stock directly. Today, 50 percent of households own stock and two-thirds of all voters in the past elections were shareholders.
The reason for the increase is the creation of the 401(k) plan. As people understood the plan and with the expansion of the mutual fund industry, more and more people are taking advantage of this. For those who don’t know, here’s what it is in a nutshell:
Employee 401k contribution are automatically deducted from their paycheck each pay period. This money is taken out before the employees paycheck is taxed. The contributions are invested at the employees direction into one or more funds provided in the plan. Employers often “match” employee contributions, but are not required to do so. While the investments grow in the employees 401k account, they do not pay any taxes on it.
The individual is using his or her property to ensure a prosperous future before the government has a chance to seize it. It is a great plan. I take advantage of it at work, as do many of my co-workers. You should see how attentive some of these folks are to the stock market.
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
So, instead of getting around 15% on my 401k investments, I’ll get a government bond at 3%. Why don’t they just kick me straight in the groin while they are at it? Seriously, this is what passes for a reform to Democrats?
John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. said it best when he said, “From where I sit that’s just crazy…If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets.”
But the problem with the 401k plan is it’s seated in individual and personal responsibility. And another big factor is the billions of dollars the Democrats don’t get to tax. Both of those run counter to the Democrats philosophy of having government be the nanny of the masses.
The Democrats simply cannot get enough of your property and they won’t hesitate to create new ways to take more of it. Here is a plan, the 401k plan, that is far more credible than Social Security, and they want to take money from it, essentially taking money out of the economy, and give it to government bureaucrats for their failed inter-generational Ponzi scheme.
Yesterday I wrote that Barack is suspending his campaign Thursday to go back to visit his grandmother, who is possibly dying. I questioned why, if she is on her deathbed, was he waiting until Thursday. What could be more important than going now if the situation is that dire?
This evening in Miami, Sen. Barack Obama taped an interview with Ellen DeGeneres for a piece that will air tomorrow on her show — a surprise appearance.
So, I have to ask: if the situation is bad enough that Barry has to stop his campaign and run off to Hawaii, but not bad enough to miss dancing with Ellen, where are Barry’s priorities?
There are two articles I encourage any sensible voter to read if they are considering voting for Barack Obama. The first one is from Director Blue and it is titled “The Manifesto of the Silenced Majority.”
Here’s a taste:
We believe that a man who could not otherwise receive a security clearance should not serve as Commander-in-Chief.
• We believe that Obama’s 20-year relationship with his pastor, who he once described as his “spiritual adviser”, displays a basic affinity for a racist ideology that runs counter to everything his candidacy should stand for.
• We believe that most of Obama’s senate experience has been spent running for office; from the time he was sworn in as a U.S. senator to the time he formed a presidential exploratory committee, he logged only 143 days in the senate.
• We believe that Obama does voters a disservice by hiding his chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a $165 million dollar effort to improve Chicago’s schools) when he used that service as his central experience in 2000 during his first run for Congress.
• We believe that Obama made a series of very poor choices by serving on boards and sharing an office with Bill Ayers (for three years); Ayers’ organization killed three police officers, bombed numerous government facilities and nearly detonated a nail bomb at a Fort Dix Officer’s Dance.
• We believe that, no matter Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, his evasive and ever-morphing answers about their work together smack of a coverup.
The second one is from Hot Air. This is the big daddy of all Obama articles, and should be considered required reading for the uninformed voter. It’s titled “The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama.”
If you read one thing before voting, well, you should read more. But make sure if you are thinking about voting Obama, you read this:
FILE: DISDAIN FOR THE HEARTLAND
Barack Obama was rated the most liberal United States Senator in 2007 by the non-partisan National Journal — farther left than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. He rarely mentions this extreme voting record as he campaigns throughout the heartland, just as he refrains from telling middle America what he really thinks of those who live there. Obama waits until he’s in San Francisco to do that. At a chic fundraising dinner, Obama sniffed that average Americans get “bitter” and “cling” to their guns and religion—as if these were shameful crutches. He may look down his nose at you, but he still wants your vote:
Obama also expressed disapproval of Americans’ (apparently) selfish way of life, scolding his fellow citizens for doing awful things like driving SUVs, heating their homes to a comfortable temperature, and eating as much as they’d like. Note the return of John Kerry’s “global test” in his remarks. If this is how he lectures Americans while he’s still pandering for votes, one wonders how preachy a President Obama might get:
My podcast Sunday detailed more of the relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. Obama has said that Ayers is just a guy in the neighborhood, and has minimized his relationship with Ayers. As I talked about Sunday, this is a lie.
Two more items that need attention are specific times when Obama and Ayers spoke together in public.
In 1997, Ayers and Obama spoke together on a panel hosted by the University of Chicago and introduced by Michelle Obama.
William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court(Beacon Press, 1997), says “We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn’t suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?”
Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop of the Reynolds Club, 5706 S. University Ave.
The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center’s monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago.
The event is free and open to the public.
Ayers will be joined by Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the University of Chicago Law School, who is working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system; Randolph Stone, Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago; Alex Correa, a reformed juvenile offender who spent 7 years in Cook County Temporary Detention Center; Frank Tobin, a former priest and teacher in the Detention Center who helped Correa; and Willy Baldwin, who grew up in public housing and is currently a teacher in the Detention Center. (Emphasis mine.)
In 2002, Ayers and Obama again spoke together on a panel. It was at another function hosted by the University of Chicago, and Ayers terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn, spoke as well. The name of the conference was “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?”
2:15-3:45 p.m.
IV. Intellectuals in Times of Crisis
Experiences and applications of intellectual work in urgent situations.
William Ayers, UIC, College of Education; author of Fugitive Days
Douglass Cassel, Northwestern University, Center for International Human Rights
Cathy Cohen, University of Chicago, Political Science
Salim Muwakkil, Chicago Tribune; In These Times
Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator
Barbara Ransby, UIC, African-American Studies (moderator)
Are we to honestly believe that Obama didn’t know the past of Ayers when he spoke with him this time? Are we honestly to believe that following the 2001 article where Ayers claims the Weather Underground didn’t set enough bombs and after writing Fugitive Days Obama was ignorant of the fact that Ayers was unrepentant?
Either Barack Obama is a liar, or he is incredibly dense. I say he’s a liar. What do you say?
There are questions regarding the citizenship of Mr. Obama that Americans deserve to know the answers to before election day. Why is Barack Obama refusing to answer the questions about his place of birth?
Hat tip to Mark Steyn at The Corner via Drudge. Add this to the collection of photos depicting Obama as more than human, or as Louis Farrakhan says, “The Messiah.”
Barack Obama is racing to Hawaii to visit his sick Grandmother. I wonder if she is ill from breathing all the exhaust fumes from under the bus:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 85-year-old grandmother, his spokesman said.
Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he said her health had deteriorated “to the point where her situation is very serious.”
Best wishes to Granny Dunham. Here’s to her health.
Now, to the politics of it and a bit of conspiracy theory. Why is Obama rushing off to Hawaii after she is released from the hospital? Why didn’t he visit her while she was in the hospital? A bit odd, especially when you factor in this:
The leader of the national anti-Obama movement, legendary Chicago Internet columnist and Obama author Andy Martin, will hold a Honolulu news conference today, October 20, 2008 to announce he has asked the Hawai’i Supreme Court to entertain an emergency writ expediting the release of Senator Barack Obama’s secret birth records.
Speculations are that Obama is going there to stop Andy Martin from getting his birth certificate. I have a hard time with that one after reading this from the Honolulu Advertiser:
Under state law, such copies may only be released to those who have a “tangible relationship” to the person whose record is being sought, said Janice Okubo, state Department of Health spokeswoman.
On average, health officials receive two requests for a copy of Obama’s birth certificate every three weeks or so, Okubo said.
“The law was enacted primarily to protect your private information, especially in these days where there’s ID theft,” Okubo said.
Seems like Barack isn’t needed there to stop that business.
Others are saying he is staging this flight to Hawaii to halt a McCain ad campaign that is starting to damage his poll numbers. I guess that’s possible.
Others just wonder what he is really up to. But why don’t folks embrace Occam’s Razor and say he’s really just going to visit a deathly ill grandmother?
Well, he’s not leaving until Thursday. Now, if my granny were alive, and she raised me and was on her deathbed, I would probably find a way to get there faster than two days, especially if I had millions of dollars at my disposal. So, that alone makes it a little fishy.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in.
He said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, and everyone followed.
He said he would bring justice and equality to all, and everyone said, “Praise the Lord!”
The young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change.”
Out of the box, the thing is beautiful. Everybody knows by now that the new MacBooks are carved out of a solid block of aluminum. The thing is light and thin, but it’s got a very substantial feel to it. You just don’t get the feeling that it’s going to break easily.
