Obama Overseas Money Could Total $3.3 Million
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 7:30 PM
Article Font Size
\Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission.
Most of those contributors did identify themselves as living abroad in foreign cities. Under federal law, foreign citizens cannot make political contributions, but U.S. citizens living abroad can.
The Republican National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday asking for an investigation of Obama's foreign contributions, among other things.
The FEC on Monday provided The Associated Press with a spread sheet of potential overseas donors that did not include contributors who left their state designation blank. As a result, the list was incomplete.
The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors. Republican John McCain's campaign lists all his donors, even those who give less than $200, on his Web site.
The Obama campaign has begun to request passport numbers from donors to verify their citizenship.
October 11, 2008
Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media
The Coming Counterrevolution To Hush The Alternative Media
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:
• When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations.
• When the 527 group, the American Issues Project, came out with a commercial linking Obama to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the campaign (unsuccessfully) complained to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws, and managed to spook some stations away from the ad.
• When two different conservative writers looking into Obama's background appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio, the campaign's "action wire" energized its activists to bombard the station with rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.
(The show, hosted by the eminently reasonable Milt Rosenberg, had on both occasions invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.)
These crude efforts are only a start.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.
Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors.
Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today.
And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't).
This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.
This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.
Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?
Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."
But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration.
Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter.
Email To Friend |
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate.
Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident:
• When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations.
• When the 527 group, the American Issues Project, came out with a commercial linking Obama to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the campaign (unsuccessfully) complained to the Department of Justice that AIP had broken campaign finance laws, and managed to spook some stations away from the ad.
• When two different conservative writers looking into Obama's background appeared on Chicago's WGN-AM Radio, the campaign's "action wire" energized its activists to bombard the station with rage-filled phone calls and e-mails, making the program more difficult to conduct.
(The show, hosted by the eminently reasonable Milt Rosenberg, had on both occasions invited the Obama campaign to send a representative to respond; the campaign preferred to answer with digital brownshirts.)
These crude efforts are only a start.
A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one.
Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors.
Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today.
And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't).
This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether.
Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers.
The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections.
This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony.
Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive?
Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination."
But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for.
Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered.
Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration.
Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of "A Manifesto for Media Freedom," just out from Encounter.
Email To Friend |
October 10, 2008
Lieberman Calls Obama 'Naïve,' May Bolt Party
Lieberman Calls Obama 'Naïve,' May Bolt Party
By: Tim Collie and David Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s “naïve” world view could embolden America’s enemies during one of the most dangerous periods for America since the 1930s, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Newsmax in an exclusive television sit-down interview Tuesday.
Lieberman, visiting Fort Lauderdale, Fla., also told Newsmax that he is so disappointed with the Democratic Party, he will consider whether to bolt the Democratic Senate caucus next session.
[You can see the full video broadcast on Newsmax.tv — Go Here Now].
“I believe he’s naïve to think that people like [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Tehran will somehow become America’s friends by talking to them — a warm embrace and a cup of tea. It’s not going to work that way,” said Lieberman.
McCain’s recent decline in the polls was “unfair” and “not rational,” Lieberman said, referring to the negative economic news that has impacted the McCain campaign.
The Connecticut senator suggested that many Americans don’t realize that the global economic crisis is also a security crisis—one that will require an experienced foreign policy hand like McCain to navigate.
“Frankly, he has to convince the American people that Barack Obama is not ready for prime time, that he’s not ready to be president of the United States,’’ Lieberman said. “Particularly not now, when we’re in two wars abroad and facing the most serious economic crisis we’ve faced since the Great Depression.”
McCain’s recent drop in the polls, Lieberman said, stems from voter reaction to the subprime meltdown.
“The economy has had such a crisis the past couple of weeks, that for reasons that I don’t think are fair or rational, Senator McCain seems to be losing as a result, and Senator Obama seems to be gaining. It’s the only thing that’s really changed,” he said.
“The very fact that the American people clearly trust John McCain more in a national security crisis is exactly the reason why they should have more confidence in him in an economic security crisis than Senator Obama,” said Lieberman.
In a wide-ranging interview, Lieberman also said:
• It’s important for the political process to question Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers: “I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.”
• Barack Obama is clearly ‘not ready’ yet to be commander in chief, and the country’s adversaries, including Iran “will not fear him” if he were to become president.
• McCain needs to persuade voters that “based on his record, that he really is the one who will change Washington, and Washington truly needs to be changed.”
• McCain should tout his economic plan that will emphasize tax cuts and job creation — exactly what a troubled economy needs. He said it would be foolhardy to raise taxes in a recession, as Obama has promised.
• The Republicans must emphasize that his plan for energy independence will create “hundreds of thousands, I think millions of new jobs.”
Asked if he may leave his party and join with Senate Republicans, Lieberman said he had no immediate plans to make that move, but said he would consider it at a later date.
“The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that I joined in the '60s under my hero President Kennedy, and it’s not the Democratic Party of my dear friend Bill Clinton,” Lieberman said.
Still, Lieberman insists his main focus today is to get McCain elected president and has spent the past several months traveling the campaign trail on McCain’s behalf. On Monday night, he introduced McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to a Boca Raton audience at an event that raised more than $1 million.
By: Tim Collie and David Patten
Sen. Barack Obama’s “naïve” world view could embolden America’s enemies during one of the most dangerous periods for America since the 1930s, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman told Newsmax in an exclusive television sit-down interview Tuesday.
Lieberman, visiting Fort Lauderdale, Fla., also told Newsmax that he is so disappointed with the Democratic Party, he will consider whether to bolt the Democratic Senate caucus next session.
[You can see the full video broadcast on Newsmax.tv — Go Here Now].
“I believe he’s naïve to think that people like [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Tehran will somehow become America’s friends by talking to them — a warm embrace and a cup of tea. It’s not going to work that way,” said Lieberman.
McCain’s recent decline in the polls was “unfair” and “not rational,” Lieberman said, referring to the negative economic news that has impacted the McCain campaign.
The Connecticut senator suggested that many Americans don’t realize that the global economic crisis is also a security crisis—one that will require an experienced foreign policy hand like McCain to navigate.
“Frankly, he has to convince the American people that Barack Obama is not ready for prime time, that he’s not ready to be president of the United States,’’ Lieberman said. “Particularly not now, when we’re in two wars abroad and facing the most serious economic crisis we’ve faced since the Great Depression.”
McCain’s recent drop in the polls, Lieberman said, stems from voter reaction to the subprime meltdown.
“The economy has had such a crisis the past couple of weeks, that for reasons that I don’t think are fair or rational, Senator McCain seems to be losing as a result, and Senator Obama seems to be gaining. It’s the only thing that’s really changed,” he said.
“The very fact that the American people clearly trust John McCain more in a national security crisis is exactly the reason why they should have more confidence in him in an economic security crisis than Senator Obama,” said Lieberman.
In a wide-ranging interview, Lieberman also said:
• It’s important for the political process to question Obama’s ties to former Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers: “I think these are very fair questions and it’s now up to Senator Obama to answer them.”
• Barack Obama is clearly ‘not ready’ yet to be commander in chief, and the country’s adversaries, including Iran “will not fear him” if he were to become president.
• McCain needs to persuade voters that “based on his record, that he really is the one who will change Washington, and Washington truly needs to be changed.”
• McCain should tout his economic plan that will emphasize tax cuts and job creation — exactly what a troubled economy needs. He said it would be foolhardy to raise taxes in a recession, as Obama has promised.
• The Republicans must emphasize that his plan for energy independence will create “hundreds of thousands, I think millions of new jobs.”
Asked if he may leave his party and join with Senate Republicans, Lieberman said he had no immediate plans to make that move, but said he would consider it at a later date.
“The Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that I joined in the '60s under my hero President Kennedy, and it’s not the Democratic Party of my dear friend Bill Clinton,” Lieberman said.
Still, Lieberman insists his main focus today is to get McCain elected president and has spent the past several months traveling the campaign trail on McCain’s behalf. On Monday night, he introduced McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to a Boca Raton audience at an event that raised more than $1 million.
Is ACORN Stealing The Election?
Is ACORN Stealing The Election?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?
It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.
"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."
While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.
In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.
There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.
The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.
In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.
Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.
Fewer than 40 reponded.
In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.
In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.
The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.
Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.
Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.
But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.
ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.
McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election Fraud: A radical group Barack Obama used to work for is committing voter-registration fraud in several states, ahead of the election. What does Obama know about this scam?
It's a legitimate question to raise now that the FBI has raided the offices of the nonprofit Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in Nevada and North Carolina, two states where Obama and John McCain are running neck-and-neck. ACORN has registered bogus voters in both states.
The group's voter-registration fraud is rampant, and authorities plan a nationwide sweep of ACORN offices to collect records.
In Nevada, state officials say the fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, including quarterback Tony Romo.
"Romo is not registered to vote in the state of Nevada," Secretary of State Ross Miller said, "and anybody trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot on Nov. 4."
While those names will be flagged on Election Day, felonious voters may have better luck using other cutouts. Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote.
In North Carolina, where Obama has been running nonstop ads, ACORN has registered a record number of new voters, many of them suspicious. Statewide, Democrats are doing better than the GOP in new converts — even in traditionally Republican counties.
There have been 218,749 newly registered Democrats in North Carolina since January — more than five times the 38,337 new Republicans, state records show.
The numbers show a startlingly close political battle even in Republican-dominated Union County, with 4,233 new voters registering as Democrats and 4,362 as Republicans. In previous election years, new Republicans have outnumbered Democrats 2-to-1 in the fast-growing Charlotte-area county.
In Missouri, one ACORN registrant named Monica Rays showed up on no less than eight forms, all bearing the same signature.
Suspicious election officials sent letters to some 5,000 ACORN registrants in St. Louis, asking the letter recipients to contact them.
Fewer than 40 reponded.
In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud.
In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
ACORN has also been registering convicted felons — including inmates — in Florida and other battleground states. ACORN boasts registering a record 1.5 million new voters so far this election.
What does all this have to do with Obama, besides the fact that he'd be the beneficiary of most, if not all, of these new votes?
For starters, Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")
What's more, Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year.
The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud.
Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters.
Meantime, New Orleans-based ACORN maintains that it has no control over volunteers who are falsifying application forms, that they're like employees who steal from the store.
But the fraud is widespread and not isolated. It also turns out that some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago.
ACORN's corruption is not just out in the field, as they claim. There's a pattern of corruption from the top down.
McCain would be wise to start preparing a challenge to voter registration rolls should he lose the race in a close contest. He'd be crazy not to contest the results in light of these events.
Email To Friend |
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
October 9, 2008
NOT WHAT WAS ANSWERED BUT NOT ASKED?
IT IS NOT WHAT WAS ANSWERED OR MISSTATED BUT RATHER WHAT WAS NOT ASKED.
NAT A SINGLE QUESTION ON IMMIGRATION, IRAQ, CORRUPT POLITICIANS, AND OTHERS. DAA
(CNSNews.com) - Neither Tom Brokaw of NBC News, who moderated Tuesday night’s presidential debate, nor any of the “townhall” audience members Brokaw pre-selected to ask questions of the two presidential candidates asked a single question about immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage or the war in Iraq.
The pretext of the debate was that the questions would come from a “townhall” audience and from Americans all across the nation sending in questions via the Internet. All issues would be inbounds.
Ultimately, however, all questions were screened and chosen by NBC’s Brokaw, who kept the focus almost exclusively on the economy and foreign policy.
In commentary on Fox News after the debate, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard observed that there had been no questions about immigration and abortion. He was correct.
None of the questions in the debate referenced immigration, abortion or same-sex marriage, issues that have been prominent in American public policy debates in recent years.
Not one question directly mentioned Iraq, a nation where America is currently involved in a congressionally authorized war. Both candidates, however, brought up Iraq and discussed it in the course of their answers to questions that did not reference Iraq.
In his introduction to the debate, which was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Brokaw explained that he was the final decider of questions.
“Tonight's debate is the only one with a town hall format,” Brokaw said. “The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates. From all of these questions--and from tens of thousands submitted online--I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won't be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.”
But this “wide-ranging” discussion in fact centered almost entirely on the economy and foreign policy which together were the theme of 16 of the 21 distinct questions asked. The only other issues featured in debate questions were the environment, energy and health care.
An analysis of a complete transcript of the debate posted by CNN shortly after the debate ended, indicated that of the 21 distinct debate questions, 9 focused on the economy, 7 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 1 on the environment, and 1 on energy.
An additional question—the last one in the debate—came from a woman in Amherst, New Hampshire, and was characterized by Brokaw as having a “Zen-like” quality. It was: “"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
A statement put out by the Commission on Presidential Debates on September 21 said the commission hailed the formats of this year’s presidential debates as an “historic breakthrough.”
It pitched Tuesday night’s debate as one that would allow “all topics in town meeting format, moderated by Tom Brokaw.”
“This year the moderator will include questions submitted by Internet at MyDebates.org with questions from the citizen participants,” the statement said.
The next and final presidential debate will be held next Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The commission says it will be on “the economy and domestic policy, moderated by Bob Schieffer.” Schieffer works for CBS News.
That debate will allow each candidate to spend 2 minutes answering a question followed by five minutes of discussion between the candidates.
Here are the 21 distinct questions asked in Tuesday night’s debate arranged by issue category:
Economy (9):
Audience member: “With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?”
Tom Brokaw: “Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?”
Audience member: “Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.”
Tom Brokaw: “Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?”
Audience Member: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?”
Tom Brokaw: “There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?”
Tom Brokaw: “We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long. Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora (ph) from Chicago. Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?”
Tom Brokaw: “President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?”
Tom Brokaw: “Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.”
Environment (1):
Audience member: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”
Energy (1):
Tom Brokaw: “Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?”
Health Care (2):
12. Audience Member: “Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?”
13. Tom Brokaw: “Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?”
Foreign Policy (7):
Audience Member: “How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?”
15. Tom Brokaw: “Let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?”
Audience Member: “Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?”
17. Tom Brokaw: “Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.”
18. Tom Brokaw: “How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?”
Tom Brokaw: “This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?”
20. Audience Member: “If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”
Zen-Like Question (1):
21. Tom Brokaw: “We've come to the last question. And you'll both be interested to know this comes from the Internet and it's from a state that you're strongly contesting, both of you. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
Sean777 at 06:12 PM - October 08, 2008
Vote for change, vote for OBAMA/BIDEN!!!! Vote for equal rights for all, not special rights for rich white men. Tax the rich, re-distribute to the middle and lower classes. The Buybull has no place in a secular government, esp., this one! I have the right to marry whomsoever I love, regardless of gender or gender identity/expression. I have the same rights as str8's, but they don't have to fight for theirs, no, they live in the lap of heteroprivilege, then have the chutzpah to say **anything against** when we demand the same. The democrats at the DNC were the only ones to bring up GLBT equality. The GOP, due to their enslavement to evangelicals, didn't dare. So, in closing, if you support equal rights for ALL people, all considerations aside, vote for Obama/Biden, NOT Mcsame/Caribou Barbie.
Ender Wiggin at 02:40 PM - October 08, 2008
Gun rights? I love the quote from the movie "The American President," when Michael Douglas says that for some reason that surpasses understanding the American people don't equate guns with gun-related crime. As for Brokaw not mentioning gay marriage or abortion, THANK GOD!!!!! We need to keep our eye on the ball here, folks. Talk about religion in your church and let the national politicians talk about national politics. Trying to use mythology as a basis for running a government is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect us from when they separated church and state.
stovebolt at 02:18 PM - October 08, 2008
Why would they ask the important questions when they can ask the same ones over and over again. The press is afraid if they ask about immigration, that the hispanics will raise holy hell. We live in fear of racism which has been embedded so deep that no one will bring up the true and important issues. We can't ask about anything that relates to religion, race or illegal immigrants.We have now become France.
shark60 at 01:23 PM - October 08, 2008
Did you really expect NBC to ask their poster child anything that he couldn't use his baffle them with BS eloquence. This whole thing was set up to put McCain on the spot and highlight Obama without allowing any of his ignorance to show through. Even with the unfair questions and he could do is double speak and never give direct answers.
MomInTheFlyOverZone at 01:21 PM - October 08, 2008
Well, I guess we need to get our information about the issues via the internet - the MSM is in the tank for Obama and there is no well in he** that any of those issues will be covered. For the conservatives like me, this is very troubling. I am very disappointed in what I see for the future of my daughter and her friends. I've pretty much given up on getting any correct answers via the debates. Like I said, do your own research and don't take either one of them at their word, but especially Obama.
NAT A SINGLE QUESTION ON IMMIGRATION, IRAQ, CORRUPT POLITICIANS, AND OTHERS. DAA
(CNSNews.com) - Neither Tom Brokaw of NBC News, who moderated Tuesday night’s presidential debate, nor any of the “townhall” audience members Brokaw pre-selected to ask questions of the two presidential candidates asked a single question about immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage or the war in Iraq.
The pretext of the debate was that the questions would come from a “townhall” audience and from Americans all across the nation sending in questions via the Internet. All issues would be inbounds.
Ultimately, however, all questions were screened and chosen by NBC’s Brokaw, who kept the focus almost exclusively on the economy and foreign policy.
In commentary on Fox News after the debate, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard observed that there had been no questions about immigration and abortion. He was correct.
None of the questions in the debate referenced immigration, abortion or same-sex marriage, issues that have been prominent in American public policy debates in recent years.
Not one question directly mentioned Iraq, a nation where America is currently involved in a congressionally authorized war. Both candidates, however, brought up Iraq and discussed it in the course of their answers to questions that did not reference Iraq.
In his introduction to the debate, which was held at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., Brokaw explained that he was the final decider of questions.
“Tonight's debate is the only one with a town hall format,” Brokaw said. “The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates. From all of these questions--and from tens of thousands submitted online--I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy. Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won't be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.”
But this “wide-ranging” discussion in fact centered almost entirely on the economy and foreign policy which together were the theme of 16 of the 21 distinct questions asked. The only other issues featured in debate questions were the environment, energy and health care.
An analysis of a complete transcript of the debate posted by CNN shortly after the debate ended, indicated that of the 21 distinct debate questions, 9 focused on the economy, 7 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 1 on the environment, and 1 on energy.
An additional question—the last one in the debate—came from a woman in Amherst, New Hampshire, and was characterized by Brokaw as having a “Zen-like” quality. It was: “"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
A statement put out by the Commission on Presidential Debates on September 21 said the commission hailed the formats of this year’s presidential debates as an “historic breakthrough.”
It pitched Tuesday night’s debate as one that would allow “all topics in town meeting format, moderated by Tom Brokaw.”
“This year the moderator will include questions submitted by Internet at MyDebates.org with questions from the citizen participants,” the statement said.
The next and final presidential debate will be held next Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The commission says it will be on “the economy and domestic policy, moderated by Bob Schieffer.” Schieffer works for CBS News.
That debate will allow each candidate to spend 2 minutes answering a question followed by five minutes of discussion between the candidates.
Here are the 21 distinct questions asked in Tuesday night’s debate arranged by issue category:
Economy (9):
Audience member: “With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?”
Tom Brokaw: “Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?”
Audience member: “Through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.”
Tom Brokaw: “Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?”
Audience Member: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?”
Tom Brokaw: “There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?”
Tom Brokaw: “We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long. Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiora (ph) from Chicago. Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?”
Tom Brokaw: “President Bush, you'll remember, last summer, said that "Wall Street got drunk." A lot of people now look back and think the federal government got drunk and, in fact, the American consumers got drunk. How would you, as president, try to break those bad habits of too much debt and too much easy credit, specifically, across the board, for this country, not just at the federal level, but as a model for the rest of the country, as well?”
Tom Brokaw: “Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis.”
Environment (1):
Audience member: “We saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs?”
Energy (1):
Tom Brokaw: “Should we fund a Manhattan-like project that develops a nuclear bomb to deal with global energy and alternative energy or should we fund 100,000 garages across America, the kind of industry and innovation that developed Silicon Valley?”
Health Care (2):
12. Audience Member: “Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry. Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?”
13. Tom Brokaw: “Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?”
Foreign Policy (7):
Audience Member: “How will all the recent economic stress affect our nation's ability to act as a peacemaker in the world?”
15. Tom Brokaw: “Let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security. Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?”
Audience Member: “Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?”
17. Tom Brokaw: “Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we're failing in Afghanistan. The commander said we cannot win there. We've got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator. If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan's strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.”
18. Tom Brokaw: “How can we apply pressure to Russia for humanitarian issues in an effective manner without starting another Cold War?”
Tom Brokaw: “This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?”
20. Audience Member: “If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”
Zen-Like Question (1):
21. Tom Brokaw: “We've come to the last question. And you'll both be interested to know this comes from the Internet and it's from a state that you're strongly contesting, both of you. It's from Peggy in Amherst, New Hampshire. And it has a certain Zen-like quality, I'll give you a fair warning. She says, "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-5 of 9 Comments 1 2 Next Loading...
Sean777 at 06:12 PM - October 08, 2008
Vote for change, vote for OBAMA/BIDEN!!!! Vote for equal rights for all, not special rights for rich white men. Tax the rich, re-distribute to the middle and lower classes. The Buybull has no place in a secular government, esp., this one! I have the right to marry whomsoever I love, regardless of gender or gender identity/expression. I have the same rights as str8's, but they don't have to fight for theirs, no, they live in the lap of heteroprivilege, then have the chutzpah to say **anything against** when we demand the same. The democrats at the DNC were the only ones to bring up GLBT equality. The GOP, due to their enslavement to evangelicals, didn't dare. So, in closing, if you support equal rights for ALL people, all considerations aside, vote for Obama/Biden, NOT Mcsame/Caribou Barbie.
Ender Wiggin at 02:40 PM - October 08, 2008
Gun rights? I love the quote from the movie "The American President," when Michael Douglas says that for some reason that surpasses understanding the American people don't equate guns with gun-related crime. As for Brokaw not mentioning gay marriage or abortion, THANK GOD!!!!! We need to keep our eye on the ball here, folks. Talk about religion in your church and let the national politicians talk about national politics. Trying to use mythology as a basis for running a government is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to protect us from when they separated church and state.
stovebolt at 02:18 PM - October 08, 2008
Why would they ask the important questions when they can ask the same ones over and over again. The press is afraid if they ask about immigration, that the hispanics will raise holy hell. We live in fear of racism which has been embedded so deep that no one will bring up the true and important issues. We can't ask about anything that relates to religion, race or illegal immigrants.We have now become France.
shark60 at 01:23 PM - October 08, 2008
Did you really expect NBC to ask their poster child anything that he couldn't use his baffle them with BS eloquence. This whole thing was set up to put McCain on the spot and highlight Obama without allowing any of his ignorance to show through. Even with the unfair questions and he could do is double speak and never give direct answers.
MomInTheFlyOverZone at 01:21 PM - October 08, 2008
Well, I guess we need to get our information about the issues via the internet - the MSM is in the tank for Obama and there is no well in he** that any of those issues will be covered. For the conservatives like me, this is very troubling. I am very disappointed in what I see for the future of my daughter and her friends. I've pretty much given up on getting any correct answers via the debates. Like I said, do your own research and don't take either one of them at their word, but especially Obama.
McCain Needs To Get Back To Substance
McCain Needs To Get Back To Substance
By E.J. DIONNE JR. | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Tuesday night's debate, a town-hall discussion dominated by economic questions, made it clear that John McCain's effort to change the campaign's focus to the culture wars of the 1960s is not going to work. Voters want candidates to talk about problems and how to solve them, especially the enormous ones we are confronting now.
And so it was that while McCain took shots at Barack Obama — about his "cronies and his friends" at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about his tax proposals, about his healthcare plan — he could not drag the debate into the more obscure and personal assaults on his Democratic foe that his campaign is peddling. Doing so would not have looked serious or in touch.
A few days ago, McCain lieutenant Greg Strimple told the Washington Post that the Republican side is "looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis." The debate and the continuing meltdown in the markets showed that this just isn't going to happen.
It's clear why Strimple wishes that page would turn. America's economic upheavals have transformed the electoral landscape in Obama's favor. Ohio, which I visited on the eve of the debate, is Ground Zero of the McCain implosion. It's a state McCain absolutely must win, but recent polls show Obama with a clear lead.
Local Democrats sense that a contest they once feared losing has turned decisively in Obama's direction because the economy is "front and center," said Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat whose district includes Youngstown.
"People are listening more, they're more open to what (Obama) and his surrogates are saying, and they don't want four more years," Ryan said.
The main lesson of the debate is that McCain realizes he must get voters to listen to him, too. He has to find his way back to substance and prove he would provide, in his words, "a cool hand at the tiller."
Presumably, he will leave it to his running mate, Sarah Palin, his consultants and his surrogates to peddle the mud.
No Big Errors
Palin seems eager to do the job of exaggerating Obama's ties to Bill Ayers, the veteran of the violent Weather Underground of the Vietnam era who has become a community activist in Obama's Chicago neighborhood. On Saturday, Palin cast matters in the most offensive way possible, accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
It was thought that McCain might continue that line of attack Tuesday night. Instead, the debate was as sober as the current circumstances call for. Neither candidate committed a large error. Both demonstrated that there are large philosophical differences between them.
McCain kept reverting to talk about spending cuts and individual choice in healthcare, though he did propose an expensive-sounding program to buy up defaulting mortgages. Obama spoke of the costs of deregulation, the need for new programs in healthcare and an aggressive government response to the economic crisis.
McCain kept highlighting the conservative past with reverent references to Ronald Reagan. But at the moment, the conservative past is on trial. It represents the era Obama unmistakably wants to end.
Desperate Man
There was a revealing exchange about midway through the debate. When asked whether Americans other than our men and women in uniform should be asked to sacrifice for the country, McCain spoke almost entirely about cutting or freezing government programs. It was a strange answer from a man whose military career was characterized by years of punishing patriotic sacrifice.
Obama caught the idealism behind the query, criticizing President Bush's call for Americans to shop after the Sept. 11 attacks. He spoke of the need for individual energy conservation, called for expansion of service programs, including the Peace Corps, and described the hunger among young people to serve their country. McCain sounded like a legislator, Obama like a president.
A few days ago, McCain, pressing his effort to paint Obama as a strange and mysterious figure, asked:
"Who is the real Barack Obama?"
The debate raised a different question: Who is the real John McCain? Is he the man who used to tout himself as a problem-solver, or is he the desperate candidate who lurches from attack to attack?
The first McCain showed up Tuesday night, insisting that our "situation today cries out for bipartisanship." But is that the McCain who would govern? Is that the McCain who is authorizing all those attack ads?
Is that the McCain we'll see tomorrow, and the day after?
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Email To Friend |
By E.J. DIONNE JR. | Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Tuesday night's debate, a town-hall discussion dominated by economic questions, made it clear that John McCain's effort to change the campaign's focus to the culture wars of the 1960s is not going to work. Voters want candidates to talk about problems and how to solve them, especially the enormous ones we are confronting now.
And so it was that while McCain took shots at Barack Obama — about his "cronies and his friends" at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about his tax proposals, about his healthcare plan — he could not drag the debate into the more obscure and personal assaults on his Democratic foe that his campaign is peddling. Doing so would not have looked serious or in touch.
A few days ago, McCain lieutenant Greg Strimple told the Washington Post that the Republican side is "looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis." The debate and the continuing meltdown in the markets showed that this just isn't going to happen.
It's clear why Strimple wishes that page would turn. America's economic upheavals have transformed the electoral landscape in Obama's favor. Ohio, which I visited on the eve of the debate, is Ground Zero of the McCain implosion. It's a state McCain absolutely must win, but recent polls show Obama with a clear lead.
Local Democrats sense that a contest they once feared losing has turned decisively in Obama's direction because the economy is "front and center," said Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat whose district includes Youngstown.
"People are listening more, they're more open to what (Obama) and his surrogates are saying, and they don't want four more years," Ryan said.
The main lesson of the debate is that McCain realizes he must get voters to listen to him, too. He has to find his way back to substance and prove he would provide, in his words, "a cool hand at the tiller."
Presumably, he will leave it to his running mate, Sarah Palin, his consultants and his surrogates to peddle the mud.
No Big Errors
Palin seems eager to do the job of exaggerating Obama's ties to Bill Ayers, the veteran of the violent Weather Underground of the Vietnam era who has become a community activist in Obama's Chicago neighborhood. On Saturday, Palin cast matters in the most offensive way possible, accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
It was thought that McCain might continue that line of attack Tuesday night. Instead, the debate was as sober as the current circumstances call for. Neither candidate committed a large error. Both demonstrated that there are large philosophical differences between them.
McCain kept reverting to talk about spending cuts and individual choice in healthcare, though he did propose an expensive-sounding program to buy up defaulting mortgages. Obama spoke of the costs of deregulation, the need for new programs in healthcare and an aggressive government response to the economic crisis.
McCain kept highlighting the conservative past with reverent references to Ronald Reagan. But at the moment, the conservative past is on trial. It represents the era Obama unmistakably wants to end.
Desperate Man
There was a revealing exchange about midway through the debate. When asked whether Americans other than our men and women in uniform should be asked to sacrifice for the country, McCain spoke almost entirely about cutting or freezing government programs. It was a strange answer from a man whose military career was characterized by years of punishing patriotic sacrifice.
Obama caught the idealism behind the query, criticizing President Bush's call for Americans to shop after the Sept. 11 attacks. He spoke of the need for individual energy conservation, called for expansion of service programs, including the Peace Corps, and described the hunger among young people to serve their country. McCain sounded like a legislator, Obama like a president.
A few days ago, McCain, pressing his effort to paint Obama as a strange and mysterious figure, asked:
"Who is the real Barack Obama?"
The debate raised a different question: Who is the real John McCain? Is he the man who used to tout himself as a problem-solver, or is he the desperate candidate who lurches from attack to attack?
The first McCain showed up Tuesday night, insisting that our "situation today cries out for bipartisanship." But is that the McCain who would govern? Is that the McCain who is authorizing all those attack ads?
Is that the McCain we'll see tomorrow, and the day after?
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Email To Friend |
A NOTE FROM NINA
TO ALL MY FRIENDS . . . LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE . . . FYI only.
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high --14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large! . .
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes --we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by$12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS, INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE . . . AND WE SURE GOT IT!
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TOREALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high --14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large! . .
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes --we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by$12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS, INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE . . . AND WE SURE GOT IT!
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TOREALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
October 8, 2008
Negative Campaign Ads Work
Negative Campaign Ads Work
Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
If there is one Darwinian adaptation that the American people have made to modern times, it is the ability to sift through a wide variety of claims and determine for themselves which are specious and which are accurate.
We realize that the days during which we could trust any one media outlet or candidate to give us the full story are long over — if they ever existed in the first place. We realize that truth is a synthesis of the various claims made by the left and the right, the Democrats and Republicans, and the incumbents and the challengers.
Voters see negative advertising as another form of information. They so distrust politicians that they want to see their opponents tear them down so they can get at the truth.
In fact, voter attitudes toward politicians are akin to their opinions of criminal defendants (they could be forgiven for confusing the two). Just as juries want a prosecutor who tears the defendant apart and punches holes in his alibi, so they want a political candidate to run ads exposing his opponent.
Of course, negative ads do not always work. Sometimes they backfire — big time. So when a candidate runs a negative ad, he takes his life, career, and reputation in his hands. If the ad turns out not to be true and an alert opponent jumps on him and runs a rebuttal ad exposing its inaccuracies, he can lose the election in a heartbeat.
Voters have a skilled baloney detector embedded in their consciousness. They know that politicians who have proclaimed their own honesty have ended up in prison, while others who say "read my lips, no new taxes" have broken their solemn vows and jacked up rates anyway. So they watch all television with suspicion. To succeed, negative ads must work overtime to get in under the detector.
Negative ads must emphasize fairness and accuracy even at the price of having less overt impact. The best negative ad I ever ran was for Jeff Bingaman in his 1982 race to unseat astronaut-turned-Sen. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.
The ad went as follows: "Do you think we should drill for oil in national parks and wilderness areas? The candidates for Senate disagree. Jack Schmitt says yes, we need the oil. Jeff Bingaman says no, we need to protect our national heritage more. Two good men run for Senate, but they disagree on oil drilling in parks and wilderness areas. So, on Election Day, vote for the one who agrees with you."
The ad appeared so evenhanded — and was so accurate — that it overcame voter distrust and led to an upset victory for Bingaman.
To work, negative ads must be believable. To accuse an opponent of being soft on child molesters won't work. It lacks credibility. One cannot ask voters to believe such ill of an opponent that he deserves not just defeat but imprisonment. But to say that he puts his perception of constitutional rights ahead of convicting child molesters does work.
Paint a picture. Negatives must be thematic. John McCain, in the current campaign, is too scattershot, one day hitting Barack Obama for his Chicago political connections and then accusing him of vapid celebrity the next. It is only when the negative campaign paints a consistent picture that it can work.
Some political consultants, including most Republicans, treat positive advertisements like the overture before the show begins, marking time until the real campaign starts and the negatives begin to hit. That's wrong.
Positive ads that explain a program, develop a theme, or spell out hot-button issues are still the most effective communications in politics. But negative ads work and have their place.
They are how the voters find truth in a morass of claims and counterclaims. With much of the media oriented toward the left or the right, negative ads are often the only way voters can penetrate the claims of the various campaigns and get the facts.
Voters always tell pollsters that they hate negative ads, but politicians continue to run them. That's because the same polls show that they work. In a world with flawed politicians, we need negative ads; otherwise, we won't know candidates' defects until it's too late.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Wednesday, October 8, 2008 11:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
If there is one Darwinian adaptation that the American people have made to modern times, it is the ability to sift through a wide variety of claims and determine for themselves which are specious and which are accurate.
We realize that the days during which we could trust any one media outlet or candidate to give us the full story are long over — if they ever existed in the first place. We realize that truth is a synthesis of the various claims made by the left and the right, the Democrats and Republicans, and the incumbents and the challengers.
Voters see negative advertising as another form of information. They so distrust politicians that they want to see their opponents tear them down so they can get at the truth.
In fact, voter attitudes toward politicians are akin to their opinions of criminal defendants (they could be forgiven for confusing the two). Just as juries want a prosecutor who tears the defendant apart and punches holes in his alibi, so they want a political candidate to run ads exposing his opponent.
Of course, negative ads do not always work. Sometimes they backfire — big time. So when a candidate runs a negative ad, he takes his life, career, and reputation in his hands. If the ad turns out not to be true and an alert opponent jumps on him and runs a rebuttal ad exposing its inaccuracies, he can lose the election in a heartbeat.
Voters have a skilled baloney detector embedded in their consciousness. They know that politicians who have proclaimed their own honesty have ended up in prison, while others who say "read my lips, no new taxes" have broken their solemn vows and jacked up rates anyway. So they watch all television with suspicion. To succeed, negative ads must work overtime to get in under the detector.
Negative ads must emphasize fairness and accuracy even at the price of having less overt impact. The best negative ad I ever ran was for Jeff Bingaman in his 1982 race to unseat astronaut-turned-Sen. Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.
The ad went as follows: "Do you think we should drill for oil in national parks and wilderness areas? The candidates for Senate disagree. Jack Schmitt says yes, we need the oil. Jeff Bingaman says no, we need to protect our national heritage more. Two good men run for Senate, but they disagree on oil drilling in parks and wilderness areas. So, on Election Day, vote for the one who agrees with you."
The ad appeared so evenhanded — and was so accurate — that it overcame voter distrust and led to an upset victory for Bingaman.
To work, negative ads must be believable. To accuse an opponent of being soft on child molesters won't work. It lacks credibility. One cannot ask voters to believe such ill of an opponent that he deserves not just defeat but imprisonment. But to say that he puts his perception of constitutional rights ahead of convicting child molesters does work.
Paint a picture. Negatives must be thematic. John McCain, in the current campaign, is too scattershot, one day hitting Barack Obama for his Chicago political connections and then accusing him of vapid celebrity the next. It is only when the negative campaign paints a consistent picture that it can work.
Some political consultants, including most Republicans, treat positive advertisements like the overture before the show begins, marking time until the real campaign starts and the negatives begin to hit. That's wrong.
Positive ads that explain a program, develop a theme, or spell out hot-button issues are still the most effective communications in politics. But negative ads work and have their place.
They are how the voters find truth in a morass of claims and counterclaims. With much of the media oriented toward the left or the right, negative ads are often the only way voters can penetrate the claims of the various campaigns and get the facts.
Voters always tell pollsters that they hate negative ads, but politicians continue to run them. That's because the same polls show that they work. In a world with flawed politicians, we need negative ads; otherwise, we won't know candidates' defects until it's too late.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
October 7, 2008
Palin Criticizes Obama's Ties to Wright, Ayers
Palin Criticizes Obama's Ties to Wright, Ayers
Monday, October 6, 2008 10:00 AM
CLEARWATER, Fla. — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is criticizing Barack Obama's ties to his incendiary former pastor and a 1960s-era radical.
In an interview in The New York Times published Monday, Palin spoke about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made anti-American comments even though John McCain had said talk of Wright was off limits.
Palin said, "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country."
At a morning rally in Florida, Palin keep up her criticism of Obama and Ayers, though this time she referred to him as a "former terrorist."
© 2008 Associated Press. All
Monday, October 6, 2008 10:00 AM
CLEARWATER, Fla. — Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is criticizing Barack Obama's ties to his incendiary former pastor and a 1960s-era radical.
In an interview in The New York Times published Monday, Palin spoke about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made anti-American comments even though John McCain had said talk of Wright was off limits.
Palin said, "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country."
At a morning rally in Florida, Palin keep up her criticism of Obama and Ayers, though this time she referred to him as a "former terrorist."
© 2008 Associated Press. All
French Foreign Minister: Israel Will Strike Iran
French Foreign Minister: Israel Will Strike Iran
Sunday, October 5, 2008 3:19 PM
JERUSALEM — Visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that Israel would strike archfoe Iran before it was able to develop nuclear weapons, in comments published on Sunday.
"I honestly don't believe (a nuclear weapon) will give any immunity to Iran," Kouchner said in an interview conducted in English with Israel's Haaretz newspaper during a two-day visit to the region.
"First, because you will hit them before. And this is the danger. Israel has always said it will not wait for the bomb to be ready. I think that (the Iranians) know. Everyone knows."
The newspaper's print edition quoted Kouchner as saying that Israel would "eat" Iran, but in a written statement the foreign minister said he had used the word "hit," and that he regretted any "phonetic confusion".
Kouchner told Haaretz he hoped tough diplomacy and sanctions would persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme, which Israel and many Western countries believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
"Iran with an atomic bomb is unacceptable at all ... Talking, talking talking, and offering dialogue, sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Is the alternative to bomb first? I think not."
Iran always has insisted that its atomic drive is entirely peaceful. Israel is widely regarded as the only nuclear armed state in the Middle East, but it has never confirmed or denied having an arsenal.
Kouchner met outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is trying to form a new coalition government to succeed Olmert's administration, and was to return to Paris later Sunday.
France holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, which has been sponsoring Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as part of the Middle East Quartet, which also includes the United States, the United Nations, and Russia.
Kouchner told reporters he is optimistic about the peace process following his talks with Palestinian and Israeli officials and said there was a "very positive vision of peace" on the Israeli side.
On Saturday, Kouchner toured the West Bank town of Jenin, the focus of a months-old Palestinian security crackdown that has been praised by Israel and the United States, and met Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
Kouchner encouraged both sides to press ahead with the peace talks, which were formally relaunched last November, but said they were unlikely to meet their stated goal of a comprehensive agreement by the end of this year.
Copyright 2008 AFP
Sunday, October 5, 2008 3:19 PM
JERUSALEM — Visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warned that Israel would strike archfoe Iran before it was able to develop nuclear weapons, in comments published on Sunday.
"I honestly don't believe (a nuclear weapon) will give any immunity to Iran," Kouchner said in an interview conducted in English with Israel's Haaretz newspaper during a two-day visit to the region.
"First, because you will hit them before. And this is the danger. Israel has always said it will not wait for the bomb to be ready. I think that (the Iranians) know. Everyone knows."
The newspaper's print edition quoted Kouchner as saying that Israel would "eat" Iran, but in a written statement the foreign minister said he had used the word "hit," and that he regretted any "phonetic confusion".
Kouchner told Haaretz he hoped tough diplomacy and sanctions would persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme, which Israel and many Western countries believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
"Iran with an atomic bomb is unacceptable at all ... Talking, talking talking, and offering dialogue, sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Is the alternative to bomb first? I think not."
Iran always has insisted that its atomic drive is entirely peaceful. Israel is widely regarded as the only nuclear armed state in the Middle East, but it has never confirmed or denied having an arsenal.
Kouchner met outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is trying to form a new coalition government to succeed Olmert's administration, and was to return to Paris later Sunday.
France holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, which has been sponsoring Israeli-Palestinian peace talks as part of the Middle East Quartet, which also includes the United States, the United Nations, and Russia.
Kouchner told reporters he is optimistic about the peace process following his talks with Palestinian and Israeli officials and said there was a "very positive vision of peace" on the Israeli side.
On Saturday, Kouchner toured the West Bank town of Jenin, the focus of a months-old Palestinian security crackdown that has been praised by Israel and the United States, and met Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
Kouchner encouraged both sides to press ahead with the peace talks, which were formally relaunched last November, but said they were unlikely to meet their stated goal of a comprehensive agreement by the end of this year.
Copyright 2008 AFP
Ex-CIA Agent: War With Iran May be Coming
Ex-CIA Agent: War With Iran May be Coming
Sunday, October 5, 2008 7:30 PM
By: Tim Collie
No matter who is elected president in November, former CIA officer Robert Baer has no doubt about what will be topping his agenda: Iran.
“Everything is coming to a head in the Middle East,” Baer tells Newsmax. “The days of messing around with Iran are over. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for 30 years, and now we’re at the end of the road.”
The former CIA covert operative asserts that the Islamic nation of 70 million people is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.”
He warns that Iran is probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
That’s the message of Baer’s new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”
Baer came to national prominence after he left the agency in 1997 and wrote the New York Times bestseller “See No Evil,” detailing almost two decades of intrigue he saw firsthand while working for the agency. “See No Evil” and another Baer bestseller, “Sleeping with the Devil,” were the basis for the Oscar-winning film “Syriana.”
In previous books Baer had detailed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now he has his finger clearly pointed at the Iranians.
With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.
Like it or not, Baer argues in “The Devil We Know,” Iran is now a superpower with perhaps even more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. And the threat it poses has been ignored for far too long.
The next president will face three stark choices very soon, Baer says.
He can either stagger toward an eventual war with the Muslim nation or try to negotiate with a new Persian empire, much as previous administrations have done with hostile powers like the Soviet Union, Libya or North Korea.
Or the president can continue to “kick the can,” let Israel handle Iran, and reap the consequences.
“The Israelis are going to tell this to the next administration: ‘You guys have to do something or we got to do it.’ I hear that over and over again from the Israelis,” Baer says.
“And that’s exactly what we don’t want to do: push the Israelis into a corner,’’ he adds. “Because they’ve got guts. We either have to have the b***s to take on Iran and knock them down a peg, or we have to have the guts to have a serious sit-down.”
A combination of analysis and recent reporting from Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, the book lays out Baer’s argument that Iran should be seen not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union or China. Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.
Baer has friends and sources in every corner of the Mideast: from Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon to Sunni sheiks in Iraq. He knows the languages, the cultures and the history of the Middle East quite well.
Iran aspires to be the center of not only Shia Islam but also all Islam, with the goal of eventually taking over the holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saudi Arabia, Baer says. That process is already pretty far along.
In Lebanon, it has created a state within a state led by the powerful Hezbollah, created by Iranian agents in the 1980s. It has made key alliances with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has top allies in the Iraqi government, and is pressuring Saudi Arabia to share control of its holy places.
He says these are the natural tendencies of a nation with imperial ambitions -- something that Iranian leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have been quite open about in interviews.
Iran has evolved “from a terrorist state to a calculating Machiavellian power,” Baer says. Despite its religious, messianic, end-of-days rhetoric, its motives are clear-headed and logical once its history is understood.
Simply put, the Iranians are not crazy.
“They are not homicidal maniacs like the Sunni terrorists or Osama Bin Laden,’’ Baer says. “There’s no other way to look at bin Laden: he’s a nihilist. The Iranians have a mission, a goal. You may not meet their terms. You may end up in war with them, but just possibly you might be able to strike a deal with them.”
Says Baer: “I think they want stable markets in oil. I think they want to open up trade. I think they want a big say in Iraq. I think they want to stop the oppression of the Shia in Saudi Arabia. I think they want implementation of (United Nations Security Council) Resolution 242,” which calls for the Israelis to pull back from the West Bank and other territories seized in the Six Day War of 1967.
Baer doesn’t take Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his messianic, Holocaust-denying rhetoric seriously. He points out that, under the Iranian system, the president is largely a figurehead with little power. The real power rests with the country’s supreme leader and a small core of religious leaders in the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts.
“He’s like the queen of England,” Baer says. “That’s how much power he has. In the Iranian system, he’s like a crazy congressman on the left or the right -- nobody pays much attention to him.”
“You have to go on actions, not words,” he adds. “The guy’s nuts. He’s bipolar. He doesn’t have it together. He’s like the Manchurian candidate, and since he doesn’t have his finger on the trigger, I don’t really care much.”
Baer is not saying that U.S. differences with the new Iranian superpower are resolvable. Nor is he saying the U.S. must not push back against Iran in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
War may be inevitable. But by engaging Iran, there’s a better chance that such a war will be at a time of America’s choosing, not Iran’s, Baer believes. He wants a tough negotiator, someone like former Secretary of State James Baker, to be tasked with talking to Iran.
“If we have to get in a war let’s make sure it’s intentional, not accidental, one that we can control,” Baer says. “But if we have to get into a war with Iran, let’s at least try to determine what the hell is going on in Tehran.”
[Editor’s Note: Get Robert Bayer’s book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower
Sunday, October 5, 2008 7:30 PM
By: Tim Collie
No matter who is elected president in November, former CIA officer Robert Baer has no doubt about what will be topping his agenda: Iran.
“Everything is coming to a head in the Middle East,” Baer tells Newsmax. “The days of messing around with Iran are over. We’ve been kicking this can down the road for 30 years, and now we’re at the end of the road.”
The former CIA covert operative asserts that the Islamic nation of 70 million people is building an empire in the Middle East, believing it should be the “citadel of Islam.”
He warns that Iran is probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.
That’s the message of Baer’s new book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.”
Baer came to national prominence after he left the agency in 1997 and wrote the New York Times bestseller “See No Evil,” detailing almost two decades of intrigue he saw firsthand while working for the agency. “See No Evil” and another Baer bestseller, “Sleeping with the Devil,” were the basis for the Oscar-winning film “Syriana.”
In previous books Baer had detailed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now he has his finger clearly pointed at the Iranians.
With Chinese Silkworm missiles pointed toward the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has the ability to cripple the world economy in a matter of minutes by shutting down the flow of oil. That’s even before it gains a nuclear missile.
Like it or not, Baer argues in “The Devil We Know,” Iran is now a superpower with perhaps even more ability to alter America’s destiny than China or Russia. And the threat it poses has been ignored for far too long.
The next president will face three stark choices very soon, Baer says.
He can either stagger toward an eventual war with the Muslim nation or try to negotiate with a new Persian empire, much as previous administrations have done with hostile powers like the Soviet Union, Libya or North Korea.
Or the president can continue to “kick the can,” let Israel handle Iran, and reap the consequences.
“The Israelis are going to tell this to the next administration: ‘You guys have to do something or we got to do it.’ I hear that over and over again from the Israelis,” Baer says.
“And that’s exactly what we don’t want to do: push the Israelis into a corner,’’ he adds. “Because they’ve got guts. We either have to have the b***s to take on Iran and knock them down a peg, or we have to have the guts to have a serious sit-down.”
A combination of analysis and recent reporting from Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, the book lays out Baer’s argument that Iran should be seen not as a messianic terror group such as al-Qaida, but as a nation with imperial aspirations like the former Soviet Union or China. Historic compulsions inspire Iran’s leaders to re-create a Persian empire throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.
Baer has friends and sources in every corner of the Mideast: from Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon to Sunni sheiks in Iraq. He knows the languages, the cultures and the history of the Middle East quite well.
Iran aspires to be the center of not only Shia Islam but also all Islam, with the goal of eventually taking over the holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saudi Arabia, Baer says. That process is already pretty far along.
In Lebanon, it has created a state within a state led by the powerful Hezbollah, created by Iranian agents in the 1980s. It has made key alliances with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has top allies in the Iraqi government, and is pressuring Saudi Arabia to share control of its holy places.
He says these are the natural tendencies of a nation with imperial ambitions -- something that Iranian leaders such as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani have been quite open about in interviews.
Iran has evolved “from a terrorist state to a calculating Machiavellian power,” Baer says. Despite its religious, messianic, end-of-days rhetoric, its motives are clear-headed and logical once its history is understood.
Simply put, the Iranians are not crazy.
“They are not homicidal maniacs like the Sunni terrorists or Osama Bin Laden,’’ Baer says. “There’s no other way to look at bin Laden: he’s a nihilist. The Iranians have a mission, a goal. You may not meet their terms. You may end up in war with them, but just possibly you might be able to strike a deal with them.”
Says Baer: “I think they want stable markets in oil. I think they want to open up trade. I think they want a big say in Iraq. I think they want to stop the oppression of the Shia in Saudi Arabia. I think they want implementation of (United Nations Security Council) Resolution 242,” which calls for the Israelis to pull back from the West Bank and other territories seized in the Six Day War of 1967.
Baer doesn’t take Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his messianic, Holocaust-denying rhetoric seriously. He points out that, under the Iranian system, the president is largely a figurehead with little power. The real power rests with the country’s supreme leader and a small core of religious leaders in the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts.
“He’s like the queen of England,” Baer says. “That’s how much power he has. In the Iranian system, he’s like a crazy congressman on the left or the right -- nobody pays much attention to him.”
“You have to go on actions, not words,” he adds. “The guy’s nuts. He’s bipolar. He doesn’t have it together. He’s like the Manchurian candidate, and since he doesn’t have his finger on the trigger, I don’t really care much.”
Baer is not saying that U.S. differences with the new Iranian superpower are resolvable. Nor is he saying the U.S. must not push back against Iran in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.
War may be inevitable. But by engaging Iran, there’s a better chance that such a war will be at a time of America’s choosing, not Iran’s, Baer believes. He wants a tough negotiator, someone like former Secretary of State James Baker, to be tasked with talking to Iran.
“If we have to get in a war let’s make sure it’s intentional, not accidental, one that we can control,” Baer says. “But if we have to get into a war with Iran, let’s at least try to determine what the hell is going on in Tehran.”
[Editor’s Note: Get Robert Bayer’s book, “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower
RNC Demands FEC Probe Obama's Donations
RNC Demands FEC Probe Obama's Donations
Sunday, October 5, 2008 7:13 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Republican Party on Sunday said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had not done enough to screen out illegal campaign contributions and asked U.S. election officials to look into the matter.
Citing news reports, the Republican National Committee said Obama had accepted contributions from foreigners and taken more than the $2,300 maximum from donors who give in small increments. The Obama campaign denied the charges.
The RNC said it will ask the Federal Election Commission to examine Obama records in detail to determine the extent of the problem.
The Obama campaign could face fines if found guilty of violations by the FEC, but any decision would likely come after he faces Republican John McCain in the November 4 presidential election.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the McCain campaign has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions, including money from foreign nationals.
"Our campaign has shattered fund-raising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements," Burton said.
"While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available to step to root-out improper contributions," he said.
But Republican officials said the Obama campaign had not done enough to weed out illegal donations.
"It seems to the RNC that the Obama campaign knew they were excessive," RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross said in a conference call. "Yet they appear to have taken no action on their own."
Obama opted out of the public financing system so his money totals include both the primaries and the general election. More than half of the $454 million raised by Obama has come in small increments of $200 or less.
By contrast, one-third of McCain's $230 million raised during the primary campaign has come in small donations. McCain is taking public funds in the general election campaign so he is limited to $84 million.
Campaigns are not required to report small donations, and some donors appear to have given well beyond the legal limit, Newsweek magazine reported.
Two apparently fictional donors using the names "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will" gave Obama more than $11,000 in increments of $10 and $25, according to Newsweek.
Other news accounts suggest that roughly 11,500 donors who gave a total of $34 million to the campaign may be citizens of foreign countries, who are not allowed to contribute to U.S. elections, the RNC said.
"We see a lack of control, a lack of willingness on the part of the Obama campaign to ask relevant questions," Cairncross said.
Sunday, October 5, 2008 7:13 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Republican Party on Sunday said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama had not done enough to screen out illegal campaign contributions and asked U.S. election officials to look into the matter.
Citing news reports, the Republican National Committee said Obama had accepted contributions from foreigners and taken more than the $2,300 maximum from donors who give in small increments. The Obama campaign denied the charges.
The RNC said it will ask the Federal Election Commission to examine Obama records in detail to determine the extent of the problem.
The Obama campaign could face fines if found guilty of violations by the FEC, but any decision would likely come after he faces Republican John McCain in the November 4 presidential election.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the McCain campaign has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions, including money from foreign nationals.
"Our campaign has shattered fund-raising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements," Burton said.
"While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available to step to root-out improper contributions," he said.
But Republican officials said the Obama campaign had not done enough to weed out illegal donations.
"It seems to the RNC that the Obama campaign knew they were excessive," RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross said in a conference call. "Yet they appear to have taken no action on their own."
Obama opted out of the public financing system so his money totals include both the primaries and the general election. More than half of the $454 million raised by Obama has come in small increments of $200 or less.
By contrast, one-third of McCain's $230 million raised during the primary campaign has come in small donations. McCain is taking public funds in the general election campaign so he is limited to $84 million.
Campaigns are not required to report small donations, and some donors appear to have given well beyond the legal limit, Newsweek magazine reported.
Two apparently fictional donors using the names "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will" gave Obama more than $11,000 in increments of $10 and $25, according to Newsweek.
Other news accounts suggest that roughly 11,500 donors who gave a total of $34 million to the campaign may be citizens of foreign countries, who are not allowed to contribute to U.S. elections, the RNC said.
"We see a lack of control, a lack of willingness on the part of the Obama campaign to ask relevant questions," Cairncross said.
An American Muslim’s Diatribe
An American Muslim’s Diatribe
Dear Dave,
An ACT! for America chapter leader recently had a running email correspondence with an American Muslim. The catalyst for this correspondence was a private email the chapter leader sent to a third party, which was then forwarded to a number of Muslims.
The initial email was intended to educate the recipient as to what the Qur’an, Hadith (sayings and traditions of Mohammed), and works by various Islamic scholars, say with respect to issues such as Jihad, treatment of non-Muslims, and treatment of women. The chapter leader quoted texts from the two holy books of Islam, as well as the writings of the various Islamic scholars.
What follows is the email correspondence between this chapter leader and the American Muslim. Each specific email is enclosed in quotations and the text has been copied and pasted from the original emails in the exact typefaces and fonts the emails were written. No names or places are mentioned to protect the identities of both. What you will find is an illuminating, frightening window into the worldview and perspective of one American Muslim.
What you will also find in the tone, tenor and construction of the chapter leader’s emails, is a model for our members to follow when communicating with others about this issue. The contrast between the calm and reasoned emails from the chapter leader and the ranting, hateful nature of the emails from the Muslim could not be more stark.
At certain places we have inserted commentary in brackets and in bold red type.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[This email text was the first email sent by the Muslim to the ACT! for America chapter leader, in response to the chapter leader’s email to a third party, quoting the holy books of Islam and various Islamic scholars.]
“If I were take apart the Jewish religion in a the same manor you attacked the Islamic religion, the Jews would look like blood sucking, prophet killers. Your ignorance and one sided shameless propaganda shows in your tired old diatribe. Do you know that a believer in Islam is a person of the book (Torah, Bible). Do you believe in God/Allah/G*D? If so, then you would not be the "worst of beasts". You idiot, the unbelievers were pagans and idol worshipers. In all reality, Muslims, Christians and Jews are the same. It is zionist scum such as yourself who distort the truth to promote your zionist agenda. Throughout history the Jews have been the group who has committed the worst crimes. Your self professed studying appears to be from the zionist propaganda and lies 101.”
[Not only is the above email hateful in tone, it is factually inaccurate. Approximately 270 million people have died at the hands of Islamic terror since the time of Mohammed. What alleged “crimes” have Jews committed throughout history that could possibly exceed that? None.
Following is the chapter leader’s response to the Muslim’s email quoted above.]
“If you ever said "In all reality, Muslims, Christians and Jews are the same. " in a Muslim country, you could be executed for blasphemy. Haven't you read any of the Islamic scholars such as Qutb, Maududi, Khomeini, Qaradawi and others? They all disagree with you. They say that only Islam is the God-given perfect system. Do you disagree with that? They would also disagree with you when you imply that Jews and Christians are "believers". Actually, the Koran, itself, defines who is a believer: "Only those are believers who believe in Allah and his messenger.” (24:62) Since neither Jews nor Christians accept Muhammad as Prophet, they cannot be believers. Do you disagree with that verse from the Koran?
You do me a terrible injustice when you say that I attacked the Islamic religion. I did NOT! What I did was to quote the most respected Islamic sources (Koran and Hadith) and religious authorities. I let them speak for themselves without giving my own opinion. If you do not like what they say about Islam, then your gripe is with the Koran, Muhammad and the respected Islamic religious authorities -- not with me. This has nothing at all to do with Zionism or "Islamophobia".
Peace.”
[Following is the next response from the Muslim to the chapter leader’s email reproduced above.]
“Do not Jews believe that anyone not a Jew is allowed to be cheated on and murdered by a Jew without the Jew facing consequences or a ridiculously light sentence (one cent fine for Jews who kill non Jews in cold blood). Do not Jews think that anyone not a Jew is worthless? Do not Jews make women sit in the back of busses? Do not Jews attack women who they think are not acting Jewish enough? Did not the Jews kill many a prophet? Did not Jews disobey Moses many, many times? Does not the so- called State of Isreal discriminate against anyone not a Jew? Does not the only democracy in the middle East (HAHAHA) not have a constitution, and practice state sponsored racism. Your quote "behing the smiling faces, there is an agressive, imperialistic ideology that our Moslem neighbors are associated with to one degree or other" remind you of Goebbels vitriol. I can copy and paste quotes from anti-Jewish websites all day like you did. Muslims say "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger." With your logic, you would say Muslims declare there is no God. Sorry, your accusations are baseless and wreak of zionazi hate propaganda. Nuteri Karta Jews would agree with me.”
[Following is the chapter leader’s next response to the Muslim’s latest email.]
“I did not copy and paste from any anti-Moslem websites. I copied and pasted from the Koran, the Hadith, and from the writings of Ibn Khaldun, Maududi, Qaradawi and the Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. Do you disagree with them? If so, what, exactly, is your disagreement? Where do you think they go wrong? Do you know more about Islam than they do?”
[Following is the Muslim’s response.]
“I am not sure if I should bother answering your inflammatory accusations. You ask a lot of questions, and you ignore all the questions poised to you. If you are truly an educated person, you should have already realized the context and time frame of the selected verses and quotes. Have you seen the movie The Messenger"? Muslims, not unlike the Jews and Christians, were persecuted severely for believing in the oneness of God. Of course the Quran is the word of God, and his infinite wisdom humans will never fully understand. Translations can only try to explain the wisdoms entailed within the Quran. Have you bother to read the Quran and it full explanations? How could have man have know the things described in the Quran 1400 years ago, that scientist today are just discovering as truths? Many of a researcher and scientist have become Muslims after discovering the unimaginable truths it holds. As I said, I can take take half truths and statements from any religion and manipulate it to conform to my agenda.
Why do Christians believe that anyone not a Christian on the Day of Judgment will go to hell? What was the Crusades the Inquisition and the Holocaust all about? Did Muslims kill those millions? Do not Jews live in every Muslim country? Not a Jew anywhere in the world is treated like the GOY are treated in the Jewish state. It is because Jews are programmed to hate GOY. How many Rabbis and Jews have killed GOY without punishment in a Jewish court?
I do not claim to know more about Islam than the quoted Muslim scholars. All of their opinions are not sacred to me, but you do not give balance or explanations to your selected quotes ("To the woman [Shariah] assigns the duty of managing the household, training and bringing up children in the best possible way, and providing her husband and children with the greatest possible comfort and contentment." "But this does not mean that the woman is not allowed to leave the house at all. She is, when necessary." "When women have to go out of their homes, they should wear simple dress and be properly veiled. They should also cover their caves and hands as a normal course." "... nor should a woman expose any part of her body except her face and hands to any person other than her husband.." HMMM, sounds like an orthodox Jewish code to me. I find no fault with it. What is your problem with that statement?
I have wasted enough time with you. I will say though, I do know much more about Islam than you.”
[Following is the final email response from the chapter leader.]
“You wrote: "If you are truly an educated person, you should have already realized the context and time frame of the selected verses and quotes. " Are you saying that those selected verses and quotes are no longer valid for today? If so, which ones? As for context, please enlighten me as to the context which makes those verses and quotes mean something other than what they appear to mean. Since you claim to know so much about Islam, I am willing to learn from you, but you must be specific.”
[How does one reason with a person so filled with anger, hatred, bigotry and ignorance of facts and history? We can only wonder how common such a worldview is among American Muslims.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.
Discontinue your subscription.
October 6, 2008
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
Dear Newsmax Reader:
The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today, The National Republican Trust PAC, reveals that Hillary Clinton's hardball strategy against Obama actually worked -- though it was implemented too late. Please read their full message below -- and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.
Thank you.
Newsmax.com
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause – Go Here Now
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
The latest swing state polls show that John McCain is now losing to Barack Obama, but many of these races still remain very close. McCain can still win! Our sponsor today, The National Republican Trust PAC, reveals that Hillary Clinton's hardball strategy against Obama actually worked -- though it was implemented too late. Please read their full message below -- and find out how you can help The National Republican Trust defeat Obama.
Thank you.
Newsmax.com
Obama’s Radical Agenda Exposed
An Urgent Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
Dear Fellow American:
Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a grave crisis: one of the most radical political figures ever to be nominated by a major party is just minutes away from becoming President of the United States.
That man is Barack Obama.
He promises to change America forever. If elected, he will do just that — but in ways you may not like.
Remember Obama is the most liberal member of the United States Senate.
He received a 100 percent Liberal Rating from the National Journal, making him the most left-wing Senator in Washington — more liberal than even Democratic senators like Ted Kennedy.
If you look at Obama’s record, you will understand just how dangerous this man is.
He even has terrorist friends he won’t denounce. One such man is William Ayers, a leader in the radical terrorist group the Weatherman Underground. The group bombed several government buildings, including the Pentagon, killing civilians and police officers.
In 2001, Ayers said he had no regrets for his actions and wished he could have done more.
The ties between Obama and Ayers are tight. Both served on two non profit boards and they worked closely together. Ayers even hosted a political event at his home for Obama.
Obama has acknowledged he is a friend of Ayers and defends his association by saying he, Obama, was only 8 years old at the time of the Pentagon bombing.
However, Obama has no explanation as to why he is still a friend of Ayers.
Obama has even been endorsed by radicals such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
No one can deny hearing about Obama’s relationship with the America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
There should be little doubt that William Ayers and Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright are rooting for Obama — because he is one of them.
In keeping with such friends, Obama has promised to meet with radical leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without “preconditions” even though Ahmadinejad has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy” America.
Even radical Hamas terrorists have praised him.
“We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” Ahmed Yousef, senior Hamas leader was quoted by ABC radio as saying.
Help the National Republican Trust PAC tell the truth about Obama – Go Here Now
Dangerous Economic Plan
And then there are Obama’s dangerous economic plans for America.
He wants to almost double the capital gains tax. He wants to strip the FICA tax cap off every worker making more than $97,500. He wants to increase the dividend tax. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire — giving almost every American family an automatic tax increase.
He has called for more than $800 billion in new spending programs.
He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.
He is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live born children — children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.
He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.
He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.
Never forget that Obama is a Harvard educated elitist. To him we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”
Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama – Go Here Now
Exposing the Truth
Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.
When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.
Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.
And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.
How did Obama beat Hillary for the nomination?
Well, using a loophole in Democratic rules, he was able to rack up large majorities in caucus states where he outspent and out organized her.
But in large, contested states she won almost every time. Why? Because when Democrats heard what Obama really stood for, they turned on him.
Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!
But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.
We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.
Send a donation today to help our cause – Go Here Now
You Can Make a Difference
This is why the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee is moving to implement a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.
We plan to take out powerful television ads, Internet ads and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.
We plan to target key states that can make a difference — But we need your help to do it.
As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.
A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.
But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — Any amount you can afford will help.
Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.
Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.
Please help today – Donate by Going Here Now
It will most certainly help our great nation.
Thank you.
Yours for America,
Scott Wheeler
Executive Director
P.S. Election Day is just weeks away. Your support today can make a huge difference – donate today -- Go Here Now
Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233
Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. No corporate funds are accepted.
Professor Wichman E-mail
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University
with a mechanical engineering professor named
Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest
of the Danish cartoons
that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were
'hate speech'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU
I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons,
but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians,
cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders,
murders of Catholic priests
(the latest in Turkey ),
burnings of Christian churches,
the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt ,
the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims,
the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women
(called 'whores' in your culture),
the murder of film directors in Holland ,
and the rioting and looting in Paris France .
This is what offends me,
a soft-spoken person and academic,
and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal,
and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems
to be very aware of this as you proceed
with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West
- see the 1st Amendment -
you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake
that most of you choose that option .
Please return to your ancestral homelands
and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded
and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty
and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray .
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part,
the university is standing its ground
in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private,
and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
please send it to all your friends,
if not simply delete it.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University
with a mechanical engineering professor named
Indrek Wichman.
Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest
of the Danish cartoons
that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were
'hate speech'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Moslem Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU
I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons,
but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians,
cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders,
murders of Catholic priests
(the latest in Turkey ),
burnings of Christian churches,
the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt ,
the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims,
the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women
(called 'whores' in your culture),
the murder of film directors in Holland ,
and the rioting and looting in Paris France .
This is what offends me,
a soft-spoken person and academic,
and many, many of my colleagues.
I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal,
and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems
to be very aware of this as you proceed
with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West
- see the 1st Amendment -
you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake
that most of you choose that option .
Please return to your ancestral homelands
and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded
and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty
and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray .
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations,
apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part,
the university is standing its ground
in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private,
and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
please send it to all your friends,
if not simply delete it.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Chicago War Zone Information
To our attention from a friend.thanks Marge
Chicago War Zone Information
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago , 221 killed in Iraq .
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley...our leadership in Illinois...all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?
I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day ~ Abraham Lincoln
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago War Zone Information
Body count. In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago , 221 killed in Iraq .
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Gov. Rod Blogojevich, House leader Mike Madigan, Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Mayor Richard Daley...our leadership in Illinois...all Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago . Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, there aren't any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look 'em up if you want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . He's gonna 'fix' Washington politics?
I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day ~ Abraham Lincoln
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorists For Obama
Terrorists For Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Campaign '08: Sarah takes the gloves off and talks about Obama "palling around with terrorists." The New York Times says their "paths have crossed sporadically." But William Ayers isn't the only terrorist supporting Obama.
In the infamous interview with Katie Couric that sent conservatives panicking, one of the patronizing questions Palin was asked was what newspapers and magazines did she read. One of them, she told supporters Saturday, is the New York Times.
While campaigning Saturday before an audience of at least 15,000 in Southern California, the Alaska governor mentioned an article in that day's Times. It dealt with a matter some consider irrelevant — Barack Obama's association with Weather Underground founder William Ayers.
The piece was no expose. The title, "Obama And '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," suggests their relationship was trivial, old news. As Obama's defenders remind us, Ayers bombed buildings like the Pentagon when Obama was 8 years old.
With Obama/Ayers, we have ample documentation their association was not just casual, but in fact meaningful.
"If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " observes columnist Steve Chapman. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' "
That Ayers' totalitarian revolutionary agenda isn't history is shown by Ayers today sitting on the directorate of the Miranda International Center, a think tank funded by the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez, unofficially a state sponsor of terror that just last weekend was found to be hosting terror training camps with Cuban and FARC operatives to attack its neighbors. Ayers is both a hero and adviser to Hugo Chavez and a colleague of Obama's.
A brief resume of Ayers on the Venezuelan government site describes him as "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group The Weather Underground which initiated struggle against the government of the USA," which it calls "the empire."
Ayers is also described as having "developed courses around the urban reform (and) problems of capitalist education." That refers to Ayers' joint involvement with Obama in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school "reform" project Ayers used to insert a radical socialist curriculum into the Windy City's public schools.
On Saturday, Palin fired the first salvo against Obama's long links with terrorists like Ayers, socialist activists like ACORN, racist pastors like Jeremiah Wright and convicted influence peddlers like Tony Rezko.
"Our opponent . . . is someone who sees America, it seems, as so imperfect — imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin said. "Americans need to know this . . . I think, OK, we gotta get the word out . . . we gotta start telling people what the other side represents."
As we have pointed out repeatedly, Obama and Ayers didn't merely "cross paths." When Obama made his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers and terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn hosted Obama's first fundraiser at their house in 1995. He remains in their debt.
Obama was CEO of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project Ayers helped found, fund and use to advance his socialist agenda. Ayers served on its board. The two met frequently, talked a lot and shared ideas. Their ties were anything but casual.
Both men served for a few years together on the board of the Woods Fund. This group helped fund the leftist group ACORN and its project to coerce banks to issue the very risky loans that led to the current financial crisis. Among their grants was one to Yasser Arafat's associate Rashid Khalidi.
Ayers isn't the only terrorist or radical supporting Obama. Mark Rudd, one of the founders of the Weathermen terrorist group, worked closely with Ayers. He's one of the signatories and endorsers of Progressives for Obama.
The group was started by, among others, Tom Hayden, founder of the Students for a Democratic Society, and Hugo Chavez's buddy, actor Danny Glover. Also in the mix is former Maoist Bill Fletcher, leader of Democratic Socialists of America and a Chavez apologist.
"Before people pull that lever in November, they have a right to know, and we a duty to tell them, who Barack Obama is — and to shine the light on some of those fairly liberal and sometimes downright troubling relationships that he's had," McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer told Fox News Saturday.
Hopefully that will start in earnest in Tuesday's debate. As Sarah says, the American people gotta know, doggone it.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Campaign '08: Sarah takes the gloves off and talks about Obama "palling around with terrorists." The New York Times says their "paths have crossed sporadically." But William Ayers isn't the only terrorist supporting Obama.
In the infamous interview with Katie Couric that sent conservatives panicking, one of the patronizing questions Palin was asked was what newspapers and magazines did she read. One of them, she told supporters Saturday, is the New York Times.
While campaigning Saturday before an audience of at least 15,000 in Southern California, the Alaska governor mentioned an article in that day's Times. It dealt with a matter some consider irrelevant — Barack Obama's association with Weather Underground founder William Ayers.
The piece was no expose. The title, "Obama And '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," suggests their relationship was trivial, old news. As Obama's defenders remind us, Ayers bombed buildings like the Pentagon when Obama was 8 years old.
With Obama/Ayers, we have ample documentation their association was not just casual, but in fact meaningful.
"If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " observes columnist Steve Chapman. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' "
That Ayers' totalitarian revolutionary agenda isn't history is shown by Ayers today sitting on the directorate of the Miranda International Center, a think tank funded by the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez, unofficially a state sponsor of terror that just last weekend was found to be hosting terror training camps with Cuban and FARC operatives to attack its neighbors. Ayers is both a hero and adviser to Hugo Chavez and a colleague of Obama's.
A brief resume of Ayers on the Venezuelan government site describes him as "the leader of the revolutionary and anti-imperialist group The Weather Underground which initiated struggle against the government of the USA," which it calls "the empire."
Ayers is also described as having "developed courses around the urban reform (and) problems of capitalist education." That refers to Ayers' joint involvement with Obama in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school "reform" project Ayers used to insert a radical socialist curriculum into the Windy City's public schools.
On Saturday, Palin fired the first salvo against Obama's long links with terrorists like Ayers, socialist activists like ACORN, racist pastors like Jeremiah Wright and convicted influence peddlers like Tony Rezko.
"Our opponent . . . is someone who sees America, it seems, as so imperfect — imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin said. "Americans need to know this . . . I think, OK, we gotta get the word out . . . we gotta start telling people what the other side represents."
As we have pointed out repeatedly, Obama and Ayers didn't merely "cross paths." When Obama made his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers and terrorist wife Bernadine Dohrn hosted Obama's first fundraiser at their house in 1995. He remains in their debt.
Obama was CEO of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform project Ayers helped found, fund and use to advance his socialist agenda. Ayers served on its board. The two met frequently, talked a lot and shared ideas. Their ties were anything but casual.
Both men served for a few years together on the board of the Woods Fund. This group helped fund the leftist group ACORN and its project to coerce banks to issue the very risky loans that led to the current financial crisis. Among their grants was one to Yasser Arafat's associate Rashid Khalidi.
Ayers isn't the only terrorist or radical supporting Obama. Mark Rudd, one of the founders of the Weathermen terrorist group, worked closely with Ayers. He's one of the signatories and endorsers of Progressives for Obama.
The group was started by, among others, Tom Hayden, founder of the Students for a Democratic Society, and Hugo Chavez's buddy, actor Danny Glover. Also in the mix is former Maoist Bill Fletcher, leader of Democratic Socialists of America and a Chavez apologist.
"Before people pull that lever in November, they have a right to know, and we a duty to tell them, who Barack Obama is — and to shine the light on some of those fairly liberal and sometimes downright troubling relationships that he's had," McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer told Fox News Saturday.
Hopefully that will start in earnest in Tuesday's debate. As Sarah says, the American people gotta know, doggone it.
Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas
Barney Frank's Bankrupt Ideas
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Financial Rescue: Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Now Obama and Biden want bankruptcy judges to bail out the same deadbeat homeowners. And once again, Barney Frank is helping.
It's been said that history is a lie agreed upon. Democrats are trying to rewrite history by blaming the Bush administration for the current crisis and claiming that the rescue bill is necessary to save the economy from Republican mismanagement.
More blarney from Barney.
Last Thursday on Fox News, when Bill O'Reilly tried to suggest that both parties might share the blame, House Finance Committee Chairman Frank, in a not atypical meltdown, disowned any responsibility for his lack of oversight over the last two years and his complicity before that.
Frank also claimed: "The fact is, it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it." In other words, those rascally Republicans did it all when they took control of Congress that November.
The legislation he spoke of was the Homeowners Equity Protection Act. It was supposed to empower the Federal Reserve to set the rules on mortgages. Problem was, the Clinton administration had its own ideas of what the rules should be.
The Community Reinvestment Act, first passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, was intended to increase minority homeownership. It grew out of charges that banks were "redlining" entire inner-city neighborhoods as bad credit risks. Banks now were forced to perform outreach to these areas.
In the '70s and '80s, banks could show that they were trying to do that by advertising in minority newspapers and having representatives sit on the boards of local groups. In other words, they were rated on the effort made and not on the results achieved. Creditworthiness still mattered.
In 1995, as Howard Husock pointed out eight years ago in City Journal, "the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance."
Creditworthiness and due diligence no longer mattered. As a 1999 New York Times editorial observed: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and felt pressure to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
On Frank's and Clinton's watch, the Community Reinvestment Act was changed to force the issuance of bad loans. Banks would be rated on the number of loans, not on their soundness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then encouraged to buy them up. It was all about affordable housing, even if the housing was unaffordable.
"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said back in 1999. "If they fail, the government will have to step in and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
That prediction came true, but it didn't have to.
On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.
When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded for Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform, Frank responded: "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Democrats believe in affordable housing even if it's at the expense of the vast majority who watch their credit, work hard and pay their mortgages on time. But for the deadbeats, particularly Democratic constituencies, they have ways to make affordable the housing you couldn't afford. So first, they forced them into housing they couldn't afford, and now they give them a financial mulligan.
In the vice presidential debate, Sen. Joe Biden said that "what we should be doing now — and Barack Obama and I support it — we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal you owe."
To get this bill passed, Obama made a lot of phone calls — particularly to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including caucus chief Rep. James Clyburn — assuring this would happen.
Those paying their mortgages on time don't get that break.
Rep. Elijah Cummings said Obama told him that, if elected president, he would direct a Treasury Department official to work with homeowners in foreclosure to restructure their loans. Cummings said Obama also told him he'd seek changes in bankruptcy laws allowing judges to reduce what borrowers owe on their home loans.
Section 110 of the rescue legislation has the Orwellian title of "Assistance to Homeowners" — but only for the deadbeats.
It describes somebody called a "Federal property manager" who "holds, owns or controls mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate."
Section 110 speaks of "modifications" that this manager can make to these mortgages including not only the reduction of interest rates but the reduction of loan principal.
Not only is Uncle Sam now the world's largest landlord. He can also arbitrarily set the value of property and the amount owed on it at will, thus distorting the free market.
The vast majority of homeowners who pay their mortgages on time get the shaft. They're the ones who'll take up the others' slack.
Why? And why is the Community Reinvestment Act still law?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Financial Rescue: Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Now Obama and Biden want bankruptcy judges to bail out the same deadbeat homeowners. And once again, Barney Frank is helping.
It's been said that history is a lie agreed upon. Democrats are trying to rewrite history by blaming the Bush administration for the current crisis and claiming that the rescue bill is necessary to save the economy from Republican mismanagement.
More blarney from Barney.
Last Thursday on Fox News, when Bill O'Reilly tried to suggest that both parties might share the blame, House Finance Committee Chairman Frank, in a not atypical meltdown, disowned any responsibility for his lack of oversight over the last two years and his complicity before that.
Frank also claimed: "The fact is, it was 1994 that we passed a bill to tell the Fed to stop the subprime lending. We tried to get them to do it." In other words, those rascally Republicans did it all when they took control of Congress that November.
The legislation he spoke of was the Homeowners Equity Protection Act. It was supposed to empower the Federal Reserve to set the rules on mortgages. Problem was, the Clinton administration had its own ideas of what the rules should be.
The Community Reinvestment Act, first passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter, was intended to increase minority homeownership. It grew out of charges that banks were "redlining" entire inner-city neighborhoods as bad credit risks. Banks now were forced to perform outreach to these areas.
In the '70s and '80s, banks could show that they were trying to do that by advertising in minority newspapers and having representatives sit on the boards of local groups. In other words, they were rated on the effort made and not on the results achieved. Creditworthiness still mattered.
In 1995, as Howard Husock pointed out eight years ago in City Journal, "the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance."
Creditworthiness and due diligence no longer mattered. As a 1999 New York Times editorial observed: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and felt pressure to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
On Frank's and Clinton's watch, the Community Reinvestment Act was changed to force the issuance of bad loans. Banks would be rated on the number of loans, not on their soundness. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were then encouraged to buy them up. It was all about affordable housing, even if the housing was unaffordable.
"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said back in 1999. "If they fail, the government will have to step in and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."
That prediction came true, but it didn't have to.
On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie. The new agency would have had the authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.
When former Treasury Secretary John Snow pleaded for Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform, Frank responded: "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Democrats believe in affordable housing even if it's at the expense of the vast majority who watch their credit, work hard and pay their mortgages on time. But for the deadbeats, particularly Democratic constituencies, they have ways to make affordable the housing you couldn't afford. So first, they forced them into housing they couldn't afford, and now they give them a financial mulligan.
In the vice presidential debate, Sen. Joe Biden said that "what we should be doing now — and Barack Obama and I support it — we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal you owe."
To get this bill passed, Obama made a lot of phone calls — particularly to members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including caucus chief Rep. James Clyburn — assuring this would happen.
Those paying their mortgages on time don't get that break.
Rep. Elijah Cummings said Obama told him that, if elected president, he would direct a Treasury Department official to work with homeowners in foreclosure to restructure their loans. Cummings said Obama also told him he'd seek changes in bankruptcy laws allowing judges to reduce what borrowers owe on their home loans.
Section 110 of the rescue legislation has the Orwellian title of "Assistance to Homeowners" — but only for the deadbeats.
It describes somebody called a "Federal property manager" who "holds, owns or controls mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate."
Section 110 speaks of "modifications" that this manager can make to these mortgages including not only the reduction of interest rates but the reduction of loan principal.
Not only is Uncle Sam now the world's largest landlord. He can also arbitrarily set the value of property and the amount owed on it at will, thus distorting the free market.
The vast majority of homeowners who pay their mortgages on time get the shaft. They're the ones who'll take up the others' slack.
Why? And why is the Community Reinvestment Act still law?
Spinning Into Orbit
Spinning Into Orbit
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: It's worth noting when someone as distinguished as actor Jon Voight directly warned media Saturday to quit lying in this election, if only for the sake of democracy. But lying is exactly what's been stepped up.
The latest manifestation of media bias was a bizarre Associated Press "analysis" claiming racism in Sarah Palin's warning over the weekend about Barack Obama's long association with Bill Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground terror organization.
AP reporter Douglass K. Daniels claimed that Palin's questioning of Obama's association with the white radical child of privilege was "racially tinged." The verbal stink bomb keyed off Palin's statement that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see it as a force of good in this world." To Daniels, this was the same as saying Obama is "not like us."
It was the latest instance of increasingly undisguised media efforts to act as an unofficial branch of the Obama campaign.
Actor Jon Voight, who was at the Palin rally in Southern California Saturday, pointed this out as the media clamored to interview him ahead of the event.
"What I would like to see is the press put partisanship aside," Voight said. "This is crucial, because it otherwise does not allow people to make informed voting decisions. Somebody's got to be able to report things properly. Every slander and every rumor ever produced, they report like news!"
Palin, of course, knows all about this. Obama-linked blogs like the Daily Kos invent charges out of whole cloth, like the time one claimed Palin wasn't the mother of her own baby. The media reported that as news.
Meanwhile, ad agency personnel linked to the Obama campaign faked charges in videos that Palin belonged to an Alaska secessionist group. The media picked that up too.
How did the AP's "racial" analysis come up? It may have been based on the event itself. Palin noted the "diversity" in the crowd of about 15,000, and we did too — even if media reports didn't.
We noticed thousands of Mexican-American, Asian-American, and, yes, African-Americans waving Palin signs and cheering. This could be seen as a threat to the Obama campaign, which claims to have a hammerlock on these votes.
Was the "racial tinge" given to Palin's remarks a warning to the new Republican voters to get back to the Democratic fold? Or was it a way to silence discussion about Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist whose reemergence in the news is panicking the Obama camp?
In contrast to the cheering at Saturday's event, reporters in the two press sections grumbled about hating Palin and assured one another they were only there only by assignment. Just being professional, some may argue, but we saw plenty of cheering from the press at the Democratic Convention in Denver.
Voight told them to quit spreading rumors and go back to reporting facts. "Nobody's vetting Obama's past, this fellow of strange associations," the actor said. "Nobody's talking about his effort to radicalize Chicago schools."
Though the media got the face time they wanted with the Academy Award-winner, not many put Voight's pointed warnings to them about their coverage on the nightly news.
But there's no sign of it going away, even in small ways. The San Francisco Chronicle claimed Palin spent more time fundraising in well-heeled Costa Mesa than addressing the crowd of well wishers at the Home Depot Center in working-class Carson.
It's a small thing, we suppose. But Palin spent much more time signing autographs in Carson than the 15 minutes the Chronicle reported. We were there, and saw Palin smiling and shaking hands for at least a half hour, long enough to get lots of camera-angle photos, until her aides hustled her out shortly before 5 p.m.
The more we observe media bias in action, the more we're amazed by its new ways of distorting and concealing news. When it takes a Hollywood actor to call them on it, we know there's a problem.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Media Bias: It's worth noting when someone as distinguished as actor Jon Voight directly warned media Saturday to quit lying in this election, if only for the sake of democracy. But lying is exactly what's been stepped up.
The latest manifestation of media bias was a bizarre Associated Press "analysis" claiming racism in Sarah Palin's warning over the weekend about Barack Obama's long association with Bill Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground terror organization.
AP reporter Douglass K. Daniels claimed that Palin's questioning of Obama's association with the white radical child of privilege was "racially tinged." The verbal stink bomb keyed off Palin's statement that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see it as a force of good in this world." To Daniels, this was the same as saying Obama is "not like us."
It was the latest instance of increasingly undisguised media efforts to act as an unofficial branch of the Obama campaign.
Actor Jon Voight, who was at the Palin rally in Southern California Saturday, pointed this out as the media clamored to interview him ahead of the event.
"What I would like to see is the press put partisanship aside," Voight said. "This is crucial, because it otherwise does not allow people to make informed voting decisions. Somebody's got to be able to report things properly. Every slander and every rumor ever produced, they report like news!"
Palin, of course, knows all about this. Obama-linked blogs like the Daily Kos invent charges out of whole cloth, like the time one claimed Palin wasn't the mother of her own baby. The media reported that as news.
Meanwhile, ad agency personnel linked to the Obama campaign faked charges in videos that Palin belonged to an Alaska secessionist group. The media picked that up too.
How did the AP's "racial" analysis come up? It may have been based on the event itself. Palin noted the "diversity" in the crowd of about 15,000, and we did too — even if media reports didn't.
We noticed thousands of Mexican-American, Asian-American, and, yes, African-Americans waving Palin signs and cheering. This could be seen as a threat to the Obama campaign, which claims to have a hammerlock on these votes.
Was the "racial tinge" given to Palin's remarks a warning to the new Republican voters to get back to the Democratic fold? Or was it a way to silence discussion about Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist whose reemergence in the news is panicking the Obama camp?
In contrast to the cheering at Saturday's event, reporters in the two press sections grumbled about hating Palin and assured one another they were only there only by assignment. Just being professional, some may argue, but we saw plenty of cheering from the press at the Democratic Convention in Denver.
Voight told them to quit spreading rumors and go back to reporting facts. "Nobody's vetting Obama's past, this fellow of strange associations," the actor said. "Nobody's talking about his effort to radicalize Chicago schools."
Though the media got the face time they wanted with the Academy Award-winner, not many put Voight's pointed warnings to them about their coverage on the nightly news.
But there's no sign of it going away, even in small ways. The San Francisco Chronicle claimed Palin spent more time fundraising in well-heeled Costa Mesa than addressing the crowd of well wishers at the Home Depot Center in working-class Carson.
It's a small thing, we suppose. But Palin spent much more time signing autographs in Carson than the 15 minutes the Chronicle reported. We were there, and saw Palin smiling and shaking hands for at least a half hour, long enough to get lots of camera-angle photos, until her aides hustled her out shortly before 5 p.m.
The more we observe media bias in action, the more we're amazed by its new ways of distorting and concealing news. When it takes a Hollywood actor to call them on it, we know there's a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
