More Democrats for McCain?

Can't say whether this report is true or not but it feels right:

Tonight we spoke with a friend from Hillary Clinton’s campaign who is now working for McCain/Palin — and is specifically working with Democrats for McCain in Pennsylvania. We worked with her in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for Hillary and have spent many LONG hours with her in the trenches in all of those states. She’s smart, doesn’t BS, and never lies.

She says the same thing we do: John McCain will win Pennsylvania.

On November 4th, the news networks are going to be spinning and sputtering and playing catchup, but everything we see on the ground in PA is what we saw during the primaries: Obama has no shot of winning the Keystone State.

Here is specifically what we talked about tonight: never in any of our careers have any of us ever seen members of one party switching sides and voting for the other party as we see in this election with Democrats for McCain. There has never been anything like it. Not even the “Reagan Democrats” who voted for Reagan over Carter, for the simple fact that these “Reagan Democrats” weren’t identified and labeled until AFTER the election.

No, Democrats for McCain are real, are voting for McCain right now, and are open and organized, as well as self-identifying. Lynn Rothschild might be our poster gal, as one of the most prominent of our ranks, but it’s telling that everyone from Team Hillary that we know now works for McCain. ALL OF US. Whether they are open about it, like we are, or are working quietly behind the scenes, we can’t think of a single person we worked with on a daily basis for Hillary who is now working on behalf of Obama.

We all truly believe that John McCain will work more closely with Hillary Clinton in the Senate and make it a priority to team up with her on legislation than Obama ever would. We also believe Obama winning this election means his supporters would actively seek to eliminate all Clinton loyalists from the Democratic Party, to consolidate his power base and purge anyone who is not 100% loyal to him. For obvious reasons, those of us loyal to the Clintons will not let that happen without a fight.

But, this is all talking about leadership, and those of us who have invested two years of our lives in all of this — and have, in all honesty, spent every cent we had on this campaign. What about the regular voters?

Union members repeatedly tell all of us that they are lying to pollsters because the unions have been polling these people — and the unions will threaten people’s jobs if they don’t tow the union line. So, the people lie when asked whom they are supporting. But, the unions can’t control who they vote for on Election Day. And that’s when things are going to get interesting.

We do not believe Obama will carry Pittsburgh or Harrisburg in PA. He’ll win Philly, but not by the large margin he needs to take the state. You’ve heard Governor Ed Rendell is “worried” about Obama’s chances in Pennsylvania. That is an understatement. Obama will lose a state that hasn’t gone red in generations.

What’s happening here that’s not being reported is that “Reagan Democrats” who vote Republican whenever they feel that Democrats are out of touch, socialist, or too liberal are voting for McCain…and these people are being joined by PUMAs, DeMcCrats for McCain, Hillocrats, whatever you want to call them, who don’t like or trust Obama and who believe McCain/Palin would address the wants and needs of centrist Democrats much better than Obama ever would.

We personally believe this here at HillBuzz. That’s why we are doing this. We do not believe Obama will put the best interests of Americans first — instead, Obama will do what is best for Obama, the way he has always done. We do not trust this man or his socialist Kool-Aid and want no part of him.

In Pennsylvania, we are not alone.

The same people who ran the board for us in the primary — who assured us daily that the polls the media was pushing were wrong in claiming Obama would beat Clinton in PA — tell us on a daily basis that McCain is going to win Pennsylvania. There’s a damn good chance this won’t even be close, if what people are seeing on the ground right now holds, and is indicative of the whole state.

DEMOCRATS are staffing McCain offices across the state. DEMOCRATS are phone banking and canvassing for McCain. DEMOCRATS are raising large sums to fund this last week of campaigning.

DEMOCRATS.

This has NEVER happened before — and the media is ignoring it. The media consistently claims that Obama enjoys the support of 85% of Democrats, versus only 80% of Republicans who supposedly are supporting McCain. We call BS on all of this — we’d say 90% of Republicans are supporting McCain, and 65-70% of Democrats are actually supporting Obama. At least that’s the case in Pennsylvania, and in Ohio too. Our mission this next week is to reach out to every Democrat we can and let them know it’s okay to vote Republican this year — because the Republican is the better choice.

There are two things Hillary Clinton and John McCain have in common that we’re thinking about right now: (1) both love America more than anything and truly want what’s best for the country, and not themselves and (2) Clinton has a framed photo of McCain in her office, while McCain has a similar photo of Clinton in his.

Clinton and McCain are friends for a reason — and we know they will work well together these next four years. We’re going to face some tough challenges in McCain’s administration, and we sincerely do pledge to all Republicans reading this that the bipartisan spirit we’ve fostered during this campaign working together with Republicans to elect McCain will continue in these next 4 years, because America needs us working together.

We are all Americans right now — working together to stop a socialist from becoming president and taking all of us down a very dangerous path. Hillary’s Army is strong and mobilized, and is working its hard out for McCain/Palin. If you Republicans can match our enthusiasm and dedication, we will win this, and not just in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but all across the country.

We have the potential to make this a crippling loss not just for Obama, but for the far-left liberal wing of the Democratic party and the liberal elite media itself. We have the potential to wipe all of these kooks and loons off the political landscape with a loud, resounding loss for all of them on November 4th.

What we have learned about the state of Pennsylvania tells us our continued efforts are paying off — and that we just need to stay focused and keep working hard the next 7 days to win this for McCain/Palin and, in all honesty, win this for AMERICA too.

It’s an honor to be in this fight with all of you — if we work hard, we will indeed win.

Obama "Redistribution" Comments Gone Viral

The Obama audio comments about "redistributing wealth" from a 2001 Chicago Public Radio program have gone viral.

Posted on YouTube on Sunday, in less than 48 hours it has received over 1.7 million views and garnered over 17,000 comments. UPDATE: Now over 2 million views and 25,000 comments!

It was the most-viewed video on YouTube yesterday by far, and #8 for the week.

Dick Morris just said on Hannity and Colmes he's "hemorrhaging votes" over this.

See here for a transcript.

Spread the word!

Ace summarizes:

Translation [ace]: As lefties are suggesting idiotic interpretations, and even some on the right are getting it wrong, here's what he's saying:

1. The Supreme Court never considered "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice" among the guarantees provided to citizens.

2. Even the Warren Court was not "radical" enough to do so -- to impose real "redistributive change" on the nation.

3. The courts have generally provided negative constraints on the government rather than positive obligations the government owes to its citizens (specifically, here, such as economic justice and redistribution of wealth).

4. Therefore, it is a "tragedy" that the civil rights movement became so courts-focused, because it limited what redress they could actually obtain -- and it took attention away from the "community organizing" efforts which could assemble "coalitions of power" (political power, that is) to actually achieve "redistributive change." Such change simply could not be had in the courts, still laboring under the "constraints" imposed by the Founding Fathers.

5. "And in some ways we still suffer from that."

And do note that Obama is currently on the brink of achieving the ultimate "community organizing" position, the ultimate assembler of "coalitions of power," and the current top legislative position (and yes, the President is the most important legislator in the country, through proposing/advocating legislation and signing it into law) that will allow him to pursue the "redistributive change" the Warren Court was, tragically, insufficiently radical to contemplate.

Obama's SS

Here is Obama calling for a "Civilian National Security Force", as a parallel army "just as well funded" and "just as powerful" as our current military!

Because "we cannot continue to rely only on our military" to achieve his goals!

Obama needs a more reliable and pliant National Security Force? Did he just suggest that?

What in the world would somebody need a whole new parallel National Security Force for?!? What could possibly be its purpose?

This is exactly what Hitler did in creating the SS, as it would be more loyal than the regular army.

This is patently insane.

UPDATE: This clip is from a July 2, 2008 speech. Apparently Obama deviated from his prepared remarks to deliver these lines. Bloggers (but not the MSM) picked it up at the time, affirming that it needed further explanation. As Hot Air said,

Note to desperate Obama apologists: the Peace Corps is not a “national security force”.

Obama's Evil Communist Tactics

Report your parents for ThoughtCrimes, kids! Use emotional blackmail!

These are the tactics described at Obama Campaign Headquarters for kids to use, which cross the line into sheer evil:

The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! "Precious" needs to get on the phone and say, "Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It's about my future. It's about the world I will be living in. It's about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!"

...The really great part of this strategy is that everything you could possibly say to your grandparents about how important Barack's election is for you is one hundred percent true.

When it comes to your family, you are Barack's most effective advocate. There are less than two weeks left in this election. If you haven't already talked to your family, now is the time.

If you've already talked to your parents and grandparents about Barack and what's at stake in this election, let us know how it went, and what advice you would offer fellow supporters who are thinking about having the talk themselves.

Using children as emotional political weapons against their parents and grandparents!

And then REPORT BACK on how your parents will vote!

No, this isn't a "different kind of politics."

This is old-school communism. This is how the Maoist Cultural Revolution started.

One great irony of the Socialist Education Movement is that it called for grassroots action, yet was directed by Mao himself. This movement, aimed primarily at schoolchildren, did not have any immediate effect on Chinese politics, but it did influence a generation of youths, from whom Mao could draw support in the future.

It didn't end until a million people were murdered by the student Red Guards.

Marketing to children is generally restricted, but not when it comes to indoctrination by The One.

Here is the campaign's official page on how to have "the Talk" with your parents to Vote Barack:

Are you sure if your parents are voting for Obama?

If not, you may be the only person who can convince them. If you haven’t already, it’s time for you to have “The Talk” with your parents and other family members.

And tell all your friends to do the same!

By the way,

He [Barack Obama] supports measures that would make it easier for young people to vote, such as Election-Day registration and no-excuse absentee balloting.

Children and illegal aliens running the country.

Not directly affiliated with the campaign is this group, TrueLoveWaitsForADemocrat, which takes a different approach to healing rifts in our society:

THIS ELECTION SEASON SEXY DEMOCRATS ARE TAKING A STAND:

“Just Say No to Sex with Republicans.”

Breakthrough video from an award-winning team of top fashion and advertising creatives,
makes its debut on YouTube. The video takes a tongue in cheek look at the Republican led abstinence movement and turns it on it’s head. In on-camera statements, lovely, scantily-clad patriots, both men and women, pledge to ‘save themselves’ for people who vote Democrat.

Lovely how they mock the notion of abstinence and use sex as a political weapon.

One commenter however points out,

In other words vote conservative and avoid contracting crotch rot from one of these skanks at their next hot tub party! (Thanks for the warning)

These are classic totalitarian tactics.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Get out and fight!

Obama 2001 Bombshell on Redistributing Wealth

Here is a shocking audio interview with Barack Obama from 2001 on WBEZ-FM, Chicago Public Radio, in which Obama laments that in spite of the progress of the Civil Rights Movement,

the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

He goes on to state the Warren Court was not radical enough in that it adhered to the notion of the Constitution restricting government power, instead of decreeing what government must provide to you!

He also says one of the "tragedies" of the Civil Rights Movement was it was too court-focused and did not succeed in creating the coalitions of power to legislatively seek what he then calls (twice!) "redistributive...change."

But, he doesn't think it's too late to make the "administrative" changes to do so legislatively.

He also says,

Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Is is clear: Obama is a radical Marxist.

His policies will ruin us all.

When he calls for "Change!" I'm sure many of his duped supporters don't realize he means "Redistributive Change."

As in, taking your money.

UPDATE: Here is a full transcript:

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

No Truer Words

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
...
Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama's multicultural background -- a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas -- a reflection of themselves. "We do not consider him an African American," said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. "We consider him an African."

U.S. Presidents should be natural-born Americans not only in the technical sense required by the Constitution, but also in spirit. Clearly that is the intent of the requirement, as it would be meaningless otherwise.

As an aside, those left-leaning Obama-apologists at Snopes.com, the supposedly definitive source for urban legend debunking/verification, confidently declare the claims that Obama is not even technically qualified to be Presdident are false.

But as for McCain's technical qualification?

They call it "undetermined."

I Must Be Racist

Just got a charming comment from an Obama supporter!

Erica has left a new comment on your post "Just Spreading the Wealth":

Do you seriously listen to yourself??? Anti-Christ???

Actually I said I didn't know. But Obama's comments about building a Kingdom on Earth are...interesting...and those votive candles with his likeness sure are cute !

Hey Bush has destroyed this country along with his cronies...how are people overlooking the last 8 years AT LEAST!!!

Even if true that Bush destroyed the country, which is ridiculous, he and his administration are not up for re-election.

In regards to your stupid act against that hard working waitress that SERVED you, YOU ARE DISGUSTING!

To anyone who can read it would be clear I was relating a story from someone else.

And a moment's thought would reveal it is likely an apocryphal story, meant as a metaphor.

Of course it's unfair! That's the point of showing how unfair Obama's plan of "spreading the wealth" is!

Obama may give that homeless man more job opportunities so he can provide for himself, but Obama is not going to "redistribute" anyone's wealth to give someone who is not working a free check

Giving further tax breaks to people already paying no income tax sounds like a free check to me.

Do you have a personal issue with an African-American as President? Be honest with yourself...maybe that explains why you will believe ANYTHING negative about him!

And there it is! I must oppose Obama because I'm a racist, rather than because he's a Marxist!

AntiChrist

Is Obama the AntiChrist?

I don't know.

But the more he talks like this, the more I worry:

GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) -- Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told Sunday worshippers.

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Whoa, isn't that what Jesus is supposed to do?

From the mouth of Obama himself!

In Christian eschatology, the Antichrist or anti-Christ means a person, office, or group recognized as fulfilling the Biblical prophecies about one who will oppose Christ and substitute himself in Christ's place.

'Antichrist' is translated from the combination of two ancient Greek words αντί + Χριστός (anti + Christos). In Greek, Χριστός means “anointed one” and Christians apply it to Jesus of Nazareth.[1] αντί means not only anti in the sense of “against” and “opposite of”, but also “in place of".[2] Therefore, an antichrist opposes Christ by substituting himself for Christ.

Interesting.

Paul writes that this Man of Sin (sometimes translated son of perdition) will possess a number of characteristics. These include "sitting in the temple", opposing himself against anything that is worshiped, claiming divine authority,[11] working all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs,[12] and doing all kinds of evil.[13] Paul notes that "the mystery of lawlessness"[14] (though not the Man of Sin himself) was working in secret already during his day and will continue to function until being destroyed on the Last Day.[15] His identity is to be revealed after that which is restraining him is removed.[9][15]

The term is also often applied to prophecies regarding a "Little horn" power in Daniel 7,[16]. Daniel 9:27 mentions an "abomination that causes desolations" setting itself up in a "wing" or a "pinnacle" of the temple.[17].

A "wing"?

The West Wing, perhaps?

Some Futurists hold that sometime prior to the expected return of Jesus, there will be a period of "great tribulation"[40] during which the Antichrist, indwelt and controlled by Satan, will attempt to win supporters with false peace, supernatural signs.

This is not an original observation, of course:

The London Sunday Times Online ran a brilliant satire piece called "He ventured forth to bring light into the world."

A sample paragraph: "When he was 12 years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organization with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: 'Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?'"

The AntiChrist is also associated with deception, and the destruction of Jerusalem -- Iran, anyone?

As a final sign of the Apocalypse, check out these votary candles on sale in San Francisco:

Democrats for McCain

Just Spreading the Wealth

Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth around", for fairness reasons, whether or not it results in greater revenue for the government (lower taxes tend to promote growth and hence actually increase tax revenue).

An interesting experiment, found on a comment page attributed to a reader of the Eagle Tribune:

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Interestingly, Obama claims he'll give a tax break to "95% of Americans" when only about 60% pay income taxes.

That means the 40% who already pay no income taxes are going to be just handed cash.

Your cash.

That's welfare, not a tax cut!

Indeed, that 5% that would not get a tax cut is already paying HALF of all taxes collected!

Imagine suddenly everyone were given twice as much money as they had before, but no actual productive increase in goods or services had taken place -- that's what handing money to people is like.

Because the cash did not come from generating wealth in the form of new goods or services, prices of everything will quickly double to absorb the extra money (because things are just as scarce as they were before), and nobody gets ahead!

Indeed, the disincentive to work will cause a contraction of living standards for all.

That's Obama's socialism.

They argue people pay other taxes, however; as the Wall Street Journal points out, giving someone a Social Security tax refund out of Income Tax revenue is a shell game.

Another complaint is "tax cuts benefit the rich" -- well if they benefit you too, why not? The rich are paying much more to start with anyway. This explanation of unknown origin is actually close to correct numerically:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I'. 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Media Smears Average Americans

All pretense of objective journalism is gone.

This has gone from "too far" to total war: the media is now smearing half the country as racists...unless they vote Obama:

Hate-filled attacks on Obama have many roots

WASHINGTON — An ugly line has been crossed in this presidential campaign, one in which some people don't mind calling Barack Obama a dangerous Muslim, a terrorist and worse.

...

Experts agree on the reasons: Obama, the Democratic nominee, is different from any other major presidential candidate in history in many ways, and people often don't accept such change gracefully.

The implication is this rejection is because he's black.

No, it's because he's socialist!

"A great many people think they're about to lose power. The world is changing around them, and they can't stop that change. So their anger is boiling over," said Mark Potok , the director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Center , which tracks hate groups.

The nonstop bile flowing toward Obama has been expressed in many ways:

— Racism. People for the American Way has found that since the McCain campaign very publicly has accused ACORN, a grass-roots community group with strong ties to liberal politicians, of widespread voter-registration fraud, "ACORN offices across the nation have been subjected to an onslaught of racist and threatening voice mails and e-mails."

The fraud is pretty clear-cut; notice how ACORN's illegal activities and Obama's ties to ACORN are deflected by charging the critics are racists.

In addition, Pier said, many older voters grew up when racial segregation was still legal, haven't necessarily accepted blacks in positions of power and are afraid of having a black president.

"Everything these people have stood for is sort of being questioned and to some degree eliminated by Obama," said David Bositis, a senior research associate at Washington's Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies , which studies African-American voting trends.

The angry voters have a 21st-century way to come together instantly and share misinformation. No longer do most people get news from newspapers or major television networks; instead they can access talk shows or Internet sites that are sympathetic to their own views.

So being against Obama is, a priori, racism.

And the internet will have to be regulated for hate speech to correct the misinformation by the Ministry of Truth.

This is the last straw in a rapid series of ever-more outrageous partisanship by the media:

Orson Scott Card lays out a laundry list of one-sided reporting, including the role of Democrats in the Mortgage Crisis, in an open letter to the media:

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

A vile non-newsworthy attack piece on Cindy McCain makes the front page of the New York Times...but where is any such scrutiny of Michelle Obama?

Numerous questions about Obama go unasked by the media, such as Obama's apparently illegal acceptance of speaking fees while in state government, or his associations with self-proclaimed anti-Americans like Rev. "God damn Amerikkka" Wright and William "We set bombs" Ayers, or shady characters like slumlord Tony Rezko and Saddam Hussein's financier and international criminal Nadhmi Auchi, or his membership in the socialist New Party...

...yet "Joe the Plumber" gets reamed with an in-depth media probe for the audacity of asking Obama a question when picked out at random for a photo-op!

Which resulted in the unguarded comment that Obama wished to "spread the wealth around."

So Obama then had to mock the plumber. Mocking an average working American at a public campaign rally!

Not to mention the disproportionate scrutiny, e-mail-hacking, and social savaging of Sarah Palin.

But no, it's poor Obama who is the victim...

And yet, all the real violence and thuggery is coming from the Left:

Item: McCain's Straight Talk Express bus was reported to have been hit with paint pellets and a window broken by a .22 rifle bullet this weekend in New Mexico.

Item: intimidation directed at McCain supporters by Obamatrons who were exhorted to "get in their faces" by Barack himself. Just following Dear Leader's orders...

Item: A woman with a McCain sign in New York City has the sign torn away by an enraged Obama-supporting man who then beats her with it.

Oh, and those supposed shouts of "Kill him!" at a McCain rally that Obama complained about at the last debate?

Never happened! The Secret Service investigated and nobody could corroborate the reporter's story -- he was the only witness who heard that said. Everyone else thought it was "Tell them!"

Here is the Real Barack Obama.

Find out all about his friends here.

Here is Obama's Rhetoric vs Record.

Vote accordingly.

Obama's Terrorist Pal

Obama says unrepentant terrorist William Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood."



Seems there's more to their associations.

Ayers also mentions Obama by name in his book (page 82!).

And a few weeks before Obama's review was published, on Nov 20 1997, Obama and Ayers were both on a panel organized by Michelle Obama:

Children who kill are called "super predators," "people with no conscience," "feral pre-social beings" -- and "adults."

William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says "We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn't suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?"

Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop. The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center's monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago. The event is free and open to the public.

Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system...

... the system is "overcrowded, under-funded, over-centralized and racist," Ayers said.

Michelle Obama, Associate Dean of Student Services and Director of the University Community Service Center, hopes bringing issues like this to campus will open a dialogue between members of the University community and the broader community.

Not to mention the fundraiser for Obama in the living room of Ayers and the even more loathesome terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, which during the last debate Obama simply dismissed as "untrue" -- which can only be accurate if he's splitting hairs over the claim it "launched his political career" or not, as the event surely happened.

And not to mention Ayers getting Obama a position on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board where they gave out money to support educational "reform."

Reform, as viewed by an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist domestic bomber who likes to say "guilty as hell, free as a bird!"

Educational reform, from this person:

The Weatherman leadership, including Bill Ayers, pushed for a radical reformulation of sexual relations under the slogan "Smash Monogamy"

Why does Obama not only associate with such terrorists, but then tries to deny it?

Why the ridiculous counter-claim that Obama was "only 8 years old" when the Weathermen were bombing things? That's not the point.

The point is lefties see Ayers as an acceptable member of society, but not Sarah Palin.

Note the odious defense of Ayers by the token leftie at the Wall Street Journal in which the author expresses astonishment at the vilification of Ayers, because he himself is a friend of Ayers just like Obama, and Ayers is some kind of inspiring humanitarian, and a "model citizen"!!!

He volunteers for everything. He may once have been wanted by the FBI, but in the intervening years the man has become such a good citizen he ought to be an honorary Eagle Scout.

No, he ought to be in prison.

Now, factcheck.org makes light of the Obama-Ayers associations.

Interestingly, factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation -- yeah, the same foundation that funded Ayers and Obama to give out money for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Worth Another Look

Liked this video lecture before, well worth another look now:

How Modern Liberals Think



"Good is Evil, and Evil is the victim of Good."

Hubris

Nation could face short Election Night

Network news executives said they are preparing for an unusual Election Night challenge: How to be honest with the audience, and still keep them tuned in, if the race between John McCain and Barack Obama is effectively decided before most Americans have finished dinner.

After two elections in which the suspense went far into the evening (and, in the case of 2000, for 36 days afterward), the executives said they are contemplating how to manage their newscasts in the event of an Obama blowout — in which the Democrat’s victory would be obvious while polls are still open in most of the country.

Effectively decided?

They mean, as the article makes clear, that if they can "call" Virginia for Obama the moment the polls close at 7 pm, the race is "effectively" over.

If it is clear on Nov. 4 that Obama has won in Virginia by the time polls there close at 7 p.m. — it will still be daylight west of the Mississippi — the obvious conclusion will be that Obama is headed to the White House.

Of course, calling a state the moment polls close relies on unreliable exit polling data.

Or so we're told.

In "effect", it relies on simply the media's "declaration" of an Obama victory the moment polls close, which the 2004 election showed us can be in error.

What they will in "effect" be doing is attempting to influence voting in western states where polls are still open, to discourage turnout by McCain supporters by declaring an early 7 pm victory for Senator Government, whether it's true or not.

That's the cynical way of looking at it. At the very least, this eagerness to view the outcome as simply a question of the size of Obama's victory is a sign of uncontrolled hubris.

One wonders why they're even waiting until Nov. 4.

Silver Lining

Economic woes chill effort to stop global warming

Only months ago, the prospect of climate legislation passing in the next Congress and becoming law looked promising. Both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain support mandatory emission cuts and a Democratic majority vowed to act on the problem early in the new year.

But the most popular remedy for slowing global warming, a mechanism known as cap-and-trade, could put further stress on a teetering economy by raising energy prices.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have unveiled draft climate bills. But their supporters acknowledge that the bills may have to be changed, given the economic situation. For example, a proposal to auction off emission permits — a source of money to help refocus the nation's use of energy away from fossil fuels — may have to be abandoned with permits distributed for free.

But some Republicans argue the whole idea of a climate bill ought to be scrapped for the time being. Limits of carbon dioxide would increase energy costs and lead the country "off the economic cliff," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Frivolity being put aside when it collides with reality, what a quaint notion!

McCain Unleashed

And they said McCain would suffer once the debates turned to economic issues!



Pwned!

What Just Happened?

Hear the Democrats on tape in their own words:



Example, Barney Frank (D-MA): "But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness [of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] are an issue and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as a kind of general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue."

He received $42,350 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie.

In more detail, tape from 2004 Congressional hearings in which Republicans desperately call for more regulations as Democrats insist nothing is wrong, and throw the regulators under the bus; incredibly shocking:

Who Created the Subprime Credit Crisis?

Over-leveraged banks are at the core of the problem.

But why did they make so many loans to people who couldn't afford them?

Simple greed?

Or were class- and race-based politics involved?

See this well-documented revealing video!



The villains are Democrats Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, and Barney Frank, using the government-sponsored agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to direct patronage in the form of govt-backed mortgages to their non-credit-worthy constituents.

Banks that balked were threatened with lawsuits for being racist, by lawyers like Barack Obama...

Who (along with other dirty Congressmen, mostly Democrats) then received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from those government agencies...

And who then turned around and employed the same corrupt officers of those institutions in their campaigns!

John McCain and President Bush tried to reform the agencies at various times but were rebuffed...

And the Democrats have the gall to accuse the Republicans of causing the crisis!

See the video.

The highest receivers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions, directly, are:
1. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), $165,000
2. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), $126,000
3. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), $111,000

How does a junior Senator like Obama get so much money, even more than Kerry? Talk about machine politics!

John McCain received a whopping $862 from Fannie Mae between 1989 and 2008, according to the video.

Bottom line, the housing bubble and subsequent subprime loan crisis was pumped up not by poorly-regulated markets or by "failed economic policies of the Bush administration", but by Democrat political meddling and shenanigans.

Find out more at the video creator's homesite.

Iraq Now A Success

Well what do you know, the public is now seeing the Iraq War as a success!

For the first time since Rasmussen Reports began polling on the issue, a plurality of voters in September say the U.S. mission in Iraq will be viewed as a success in the long term.

In a national telephone survey Monday night, 41% said history will rate the war in Iraq a success versus 39% who said it will be seen as a failure, with 20% undecided (see crosstabs). These findings echo those of the previous two weeks (see trends).

By contrast, in August of last year, 57% believed history would judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a failure, and only 29% disagreed.

Similarly, 46% say the United States is safer today than before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, but 34% disagree.

Funny how this breaks down:

The partisan gap on these questions is enormous. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans say the U.S. mission in Iraq will be viewed as a success in the long-term, but only 16% of Democrats agree. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans say the situation in Iraq will get better in the next six months versus 23% of Democrats. Just over half of unaffiliated voters (51%) think the situation will improve.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans say the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, but only 36% of Democrats agree, as do 52% of unaffiliateds.

Democrats: invested in failure.

Even if one dismisses the Republican optimism (and the reality on the ground), the stark difference between the Democrat pessimism and the evenly-divided stance of the unaffiliated voter (with apparently no political ax to grind) is revealing.