With the terrible debt that our country has been in, and with the trillions of dollars that Obama has pumped into failing businesses, banks, and liberal businesses with his "stimulus" plan, i would imagine that a candidate with a shining past record of turning huge debt into profit might be just what the country wants in 2012.
here are some of this candidates qualifications, according to a wikipedia bio:
"In 1990, [CANDIDATE] was asked to return to [FORMER EMPLOYER], which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, [CANDIDATE] managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led [FORMER EMPLOYER] through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.
[CANDIDATE] left [FORMER EMPLOYER] in 1998 to head [AN INTERNATIONAL EVENT]'S Organizing Committee.
[CANDIDATE] served as president and CEO of the [INTERNATIONAL EVENT] held in a [WESTERN CITY]. In 1999, before [CANDIDATE] was hired, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the [EVENT] to compensate for the fiscal crisis. The [EVENT] was also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then [EVENT]'S President and CEO Frank J. J and [EVENT] vice president Dave J were forced to resign.
On February 11, 1999, [CANDIDATE] was hired as the new president and CEO of the [EVENT] Organizing Committee. [CANDIDATE] revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets, and boosted fund raising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the [EVENT] following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the [EVENT] ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.
[CANDIDATE] contributed $1 million to the [EVENT], and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.
[CANDIDATE] was sworn in as the 70th governor of [EASTERN STATE] on January 2, 2003. Upon entering office, [CANDIDATE] faced a projected $3 billion deficit, but a previously enacted $1.3 billion capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion. Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $700 million surplus and was able to cut taxes.
[CANDIDATE] supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including raising fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses. [CANDIDATE] increased the state gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional tax revenue. [CANDIDATE] also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years. The state legislature, with [CANDIDATE]'s support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns. The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63% ..."
So, as you can see, despite a few maneuvers that probably angered some people, three times in a decade he managed to change huge deficits to profits. to see it in numbers:
Failing business: Financial Collapse to Profitability (without losing partners, while increasing fiscal transparency)
[EVENT]: -$379,000,000 short of goal to $100,000,000 profit (he also added a $300,000,000 cost - a security budget - which was filled with $224,500,000 in contributions from outside sources)
State: -$1,200,000,000 deficit to $700,000,000 profit
Amazingly also for an East-coast politician, there are no scandals in his background. He's always been straightforward in his dealings and faithful to his wife (who suffers from MS). In fact, the only two complaints that his competition were able to dredge up about him are that over the course of his political career he has "changed" his views on a couple issues (abortion and gay marriage), and that he's a devout member of an organized religion (which really shouldn't worry anyone, because his religion doesn't hover over him and direct his political decisions, and having a 'religious test' for president is in violation of the U.S. constitution. Past presidents Kennedy and Reagan both dealt with this).
If these minor things trouble you, consider this: It is perfectly normal for a person, over the course of their career, to learn and re-evaluate their opinions on subject matter. What sets this particular candidate apart from others (like flip-flopping Kerry or promise-breaker Obama) is that our new candidate is pretty starightforward with his views and hasn't employed the same bait-and-switch politics as many of our current Dems.
While i agree with his views on abortion (he is pro-life) and gay marriage (he is pro traditional marriage), i may be in disagreement with his pro-gun-control stance ... however i am not completely certain what that is.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
Yesterday there was a tragic accidental shooting in a small town near here. A 14 year old girl was visiting the apartment where a 12 year old boy lived, and she found a gun in a closet. As she checked to see if the gun was unloaded, it fired, striking the boy in the head and killing him.
Our news out in this part of the country is pretty moderate, and respectful of the circumstances. There is always still an element of humanly compassion, and our reporters are cautious in their balance between sensitively portraying a news story and portraying the story so it would be interesting.
The blog of a local reporter is no exception, and she posted the story, and then asked for comments addressing the following:
*Should this young girl face charges?
*If not, who should be held responsible? The owner of the gun?
*What can be done to educate our kids about gun safety?
*How do you feel about the free gun locks? Would you use one?
The majority of those who responded seemed concerned for the girl. This was, after all, an accident, and she will replay those terrible moments in her mind throughout the rest of her life.
A handful of respondents wanted to place blame on the parents, who "left a loaded gun where children could find it." While this seems to be an accurate assessment, we won't ever know if the girl actually loaded it herself, or if the gun wasn't chambered until she played with it. We can assume, however, that the parents had never experienced any danger with their son in regard to the firearm. he doesn't seem to have midhandled it previously ... so how could they forsee the danger?
If you attempt to work your way back into the story a little further, we know the boy and the girl had known each other for a long time, and that theitr families were friends. It would be reasonable too, then, to assume she'd never previously mishandled the gun.
I attempted to respond, but (as usual?) my comments were too long for the allotted space, so I've reprinted them here:
Response to http://blogs.ktvb.com/maggie/2009/05/acc
As a gun owner with children myself, I have to look at this situation the same way as i look at our own:
1 - Kids are curious about things. Guns are no exception. If they're curious, they're going to get into it - that's a given.
2 - I own guns for personal (extends to my family) protection. If an intruder is threatening my family (and the police can't be everywhere at once), how likely am i to scare away an intruder who sees a gun lock hanging from my weapon?
Do i want to risk my kids playing with a gun and hurting themselves or others? No.
Do i want to risk my family being harmed by an intruder because i can't access my weapon? No.
A firearms instructor i spoke to recently said the best way to make your kids safe around guns is to expose them to guns until their curiosity is satiated. Our boy goes to the range with us, he now helps clean the guns, and he helps clean up leftover brass. The guns are not that mysterious and exciting to him now, and he no longer jumps at the opportunity to go shooting.
We also don't allow other children *in* our home. We don't want our own kids to be out of sight or in situations where something bad could happen to them, so they aren't allowed to go into a friend's house, and we extend the same courtesy to our children's friends' parents.
Is education and the attempt to keep other kids away enough? No. All our guns are stored and transported unloaded. All of my firearms - but one - are locked in cases/with trigger locks, and kept in a locked room. The one which is not is my primary self-defense weapon, a semi-automatic handgun. Having a clip allows me to store the ammunition and weapon separately, but with easy access for me (who knows where each of the two pieces is hidden) to load the gun quickly, if needed.
Part of the reason for accidental shootings is unfamiliarity and fascination with weapons. This is a result of our "anti gun but pro violent games/movies" society. Kids grow up assuming they "know" about guns, and when they come across one that wasn't stored safely, accidents can happen.
I am sad for the family of the boy and for this girl. Accidents should not be prosecuted. She is going to live with the horror of this moment for the rest of her life. The owner of the gun is going to likewise. Neither intended to commit a crime, and it serves no purpose to charge either with one (other than politics or revenge). If there was a lesson to be learned, it unfortunately has been learned as thoroughly as it ever could be.
I heard the other day, that until 1969, most public high schools taught gun safety, and there were sporting events and shooting clubs. I know when I was in Junior High here in Idaho, the schools offered Hunters education courses, which also taught safety. Boy Scouts was another place where we learned firearms safety.
I think the best way to prevent these accidents is to educate children on the realities of firearms. They kick. They make loud noises. Things are destroyed or die. They have to be taken care of. There are a lot of rules involved. Perhaps the biggest reality is that nearly everything they show on TV or in Film (and CERTAINLY video games) is dangerous, false, and irresponsible. That probably comes from the screenwriters living in two of the most restrictive anti-firearms states in the country: New York and California.
Do we want their ignorance to teach our children?
- Wher'bouts:Rural America
- Weather:
sad - Yodel:"Ghetto Cowboy" - Bone Thugz-n-Harmony
OA Homland Security Commander, Janet Napolotino has decided that the war on terror should be primarily fought against the following:
- most people who buy a lot of ammunition
- returned "disgruntled" vets ("because Timothy McVeigh was a disgruntled vet")
- people who oppose abortion
- people who don't like "Big Government"
- people unhappy with the economy
- people unhappy with taxes
these targets are pretty vague, and the DHS is on the look out for anyone fitting this description. This policy sets up the OA's "anyone on the DHS watch list shouldn't be allowed to have a gun" plan. interesting.
also interesting is that there was no mention of the numerous "left-wing" terrorist groups with a proven record of crime: the ELF, Obama's friend's "The Weathermen", etc.
On the 15th, thousands and thousands of people turned out for the "Tea Party" protests. In towns as small as Boise, Idaho, the numbers were in the thousands (Boise had over 2,500 protesters). Some reports indicated some East Coast towns with as many as 20,000. This/these event(s) are interesting because:
- they were non-violent, non-destructive, and within the law (in stark contrast to the Liberal Socialist Democrats' usual "protests")
- they happened across the country
- they involved U.S. citizens from both major parties
- they indicated a united desire for eklected officials to stop raising taxes and spending the people's money without the people's approval.
- most major news outlets ignored the priotests, and the few who aired them greatly underestimated the numbers (in one notable clip, the camera scans the bottom of a seemingly endless sea of protestors, and the commentator announces "only about two thousand people showed up"), or picked-and-chose the most "redneck" or unknowledgable people to interview, attempting to slant the protests as staged by ignorant and unreasonable people. THEY FAILED.
in (possibly - still having trouble believing this) GOOD news, today has brought the following two stories that (if true0 i am kind of excited about:
- Obama announced a national high-speed train service. It's actually not as good of news as it sounds ... it's really just some high-speed public transport for a handful (like 5?) major metropolitan areas, so it is unlikely most of america will get any use out of them ... but having better mass transit in major cities will reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce (a little bit) air pollution, etc. Having lived in a major city that had a similar public transportation system, i can say that it is not a perfect solution - it will still be too expensive for many people, inconvenient to get to boarding places, subject to frequent break-downs (which will stop entire cities if that is the main form of transport), make populations more vulnerable to disease epidemics, create more vulnerable terror targets AND be terrible options for large-scale evactuations (like tsunamis, volcanos, missiles, etc) ... but hey! traffic will be better and the environment will be a little better off (except where the train is racing through - look out, gray wolves!)
- Obama said he is "backing down' from reinstating the "assault weapons ban". This is a WISE choice because it serves no purpose for the public good (no crime has ever been proven to decrease as a result), and it allows our citizens to defend themselves from criminals with effective weapons.
the thing is ... i don't believe this headline. it's ... too easy. maybe the answer lies in a plan to destroy the firearm-related economy ... not putting the ban into effect will destroy the high value of the weapons and ruins their collectability. maybe the thing we're not hearing is "Obama is not going to go after the ban, but that won't stop the rest of the OA".
anyway, if true, cool. if not, it's just another broken promise to add to the broken promise tracker,.
- Wher'bouts:The Left Coast, USA
- Weather:
cranky - Yodel:Human League
This is not correct.
The Democrats have control of the presidency.
The Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, and of the Senate ( = "Congress")
Only the Judicial branch (The U.S. Supreme Court) has not fallen. Though not partisan like the other branches, of 9 Justices, 3 were appointed by Democratic Presidents, and 6 by Republicans.
This means the Democrats have 2 1/3 out of 3 under their control.
Obama has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who "have empathy for the pregnant teenage girl with nowhere to go for help", among other promises. Effectively, this is a threat by Obama to appoint Justices, if the option becomes available, who will rule based on emotion or political stance, and not by an unbiased attempt to interpret the law.
So despite my errant claim that "all 3 pillars are under control, thereby eliminating our system of 'checks & balances'", The desperate attempt to move in the direction of complete control IS under way. It would not surprise me if they are already hard at work trying to find legal ways of trapping and eliminating persons and laws that are in the way of total domination. Given the heavy use of the barrage of lies (where a new 'big story' would erupt as the last one was being retracted), and knowing that 'the people' are easily distracted, it also would not surprise me if the Obama administration resorted to _____ a handful of the current supreme court justices, because they know that regardless the secret combinations used to place their own, the public won't be able to put 2+2 together if we're distracted long enough.
Look closely at these definitions, and see if they fit anything currently underway:
SOCIALISM:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
[SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s
COMMUNISM:
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
[SOURCE: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c
if you need some help, read through some of my prior posts, and look for key phrases, like "spread the wealth around" and economic and social programs that put more control over the economy (housing, credit, lenders, welfare, banking, retirement, social security, 401k's) in the control of the government [remember, the republicans wanted to add the option of 'privatized' social security, healthcare, etc for people, while the democrats wanted to keep it under the control of government, adding more control to some and eliminating others - like the 401k, which is on the chopping block right now under Pelosi]. Also look to see if you can find any examples of government control over social activity: programs meant to eliminate 'racial profiling' and 'discrimination' against 'gay marriage', promoting 'abortion', implementing tax credits and programs to support single mothers while also claiming to support fatherhood ...
these are social programs. though they are always sold as 'aiding' the 'poor' or 'minorities' or whatever, the programs and laws implemented allow the government more control over the social makeup of society.
for example, offering tax breaks to single moms promotes the growth of the 'single mom' social group. attacking the mythical 'racial profiling' gives additional 'justification' to people who are a product of hateful and distrusting parents who don't trust the prior government. legalizing 'gay marriage' breaks down the individual rights of churches, because it promotes a behavior that is contrary to the beliefs of those institutions, while making it illegal for those institutions to ignore or shut out that social group: it is legislation of the state to impact the internal workings of the church.
TOTALITARIAN:
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Know any strong parties that absolutely do not tolerate parties of differing opinion? The popular answer is "yeah, the republicans!" ... but the opposite is true.
Which party protests, riots, vandalizes, starts fires, throws bricks at the police, and accuses everyone else of hate? Democrats. During the RNC, who rioted? Democrats. During the DNC, who rioted? Democrats. During the Seattle WTO riots in 2000, who rioted? Democrats. The historical, verifiable, substantiated and undeniable truth is that the followers of the Democratic/Liberal/Progressive party are far less tolerant of those of differing opinions than those they oppose. While "the right" might not agree with abortion, homosexuality, gun control, a democratic candidate, some welfare programs, or a particular war, it is rare that their protests, statements or other actions escalate to violence, vandalism, arson, and hateful words. On the other hand, the "left" rarely doesn't escalate their 'protests' to riot stage. They can scream, burn, throw rocks and threaten "peace" all they want, they are not a peaceful party.
What party wants to have control over many aspects of life?
Obama has a plan to take away my freedom to buy guns and ammo, and anything i would need to repair them if they break. Obama wants to tax my business a huge amount AND make me pay my worklers even more money, so he can 'spread the wealth' from my tiny town to the "urban areas". Obama wants our kids to get abortions without our permission ... while at the same time wants us to sign waivers and permission slips to let them go on a field trip to a museum. Obama wants to scare television stations into not running ads that oppose him.
Obama wants to 'destroy syndicated radio", meaning if i don't live in Missouri or wherever, i can't listen to my favorite talk show. This has SEVERE implications on our freedom of communication!
Think about it: in February, 2009 (a couple weeks after he takes office), broadcast television will cease to exist. You can still watch television if you have cable or satellite, or if you buy an expensive converter box that can (hopefully) pick up the weaker digital signals in the rural area (or shielded ares, if urban) where you live. This means A LOT OF PEOPLE WON'T HAVE TELEVISION. When he destroys radio networks ("to give smaller local minority stations an opportunity"), instead of hearing "ABC News" on the radio, you're going to hear joe-bob from the next town over. Instead of hearing how the president may be doing things that are dangerous or corrupt, you'll hear about joe-bob's brother's new cow, or Credenza's cousin's new rap group. The only 'syndicated' or 'network' radio would be the government Emergency Broadcast System. Who determines the 'emergency'?
We've already seen Obama's group exercise control over the 'thought' of others. With a lot of strategically networked players hiding behind the 'grass roots' facade, and with a $600 million budget for advertising, we watched the masses of ignorant "gimmie gimmies" have their political ideas molded and groomed by a steady stream of ads spreading twisted truths and genuine myths. No one wants to admit they were 'duped', but 51% of America was ... and they bought into it and are still buying into it because they were given a bunch of magical promises, and told they were worth something ...
In keeping with the MO, however, you're not going to see the scam until it is too late, and you might not see it then, either, because some new promise or scam is going to take hold of your greedy grubby little blame-pointing fingers.
So let's look at what is going on:
Aided by discontent of the lower class in the late 1990's, some motivators and speculators began to put together websites and organizations dedicated to profiting off of the gripes and grumbles of the self-proclaimed 'trodden'. these sites and groups began to pick up momentum when it was discovered that their platforms were a quick and easy way (and with no overhead!) to disseminate carefully crafted information to the hungry masses. Other forms of media quickly jumped on the bandwagon, and some of the shady characters in the background turned their attention - and more importantly their pocketbooks - to these smaller groups, giving them even more widespread power, and enabling them to hire better graphic artists, lawyers, researchers, and social manipulators.
Seeing an opening for a 'progressive' movement, one sponsoring hard-to-sell ideologies, like abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, gun control, military withdrawal, and other programs traditionally viewed as 'too left' for mass consumption, these groups began to stir conspiracy and slowly inject manipulated 'facts' stripped of context, interspersed with little lies (and sometimes big lies, like the forged documents claiming Bush ditched his NG duties).
Unsuccessful in overthrowing the conservatives in 2000 (and made more difficult by a terrorist attack, which rallied some of the 'on the fencers' to the 'right'), these groups spent the next 4 years solidifying their network, refining their battle plans, and saturating the market - literally, via magazines, actor testimonials, movies and television - with their propaganda.
This propaganda served a few purposes, one of the more obvious being to attack the president and his administration, building a thick portrayal of inefficiency, crookedness and 'stupidity', which polarized some of the nation against him. Another, bigger purpose, was to sow the seeds of unrest, which helped give more power to their movement, as discontent people, and people just looking for some easy action began to donate time and money to the various causes, both through their main bodies, as well as through their smaller, seemingly unrelated 'non profits'. This surge in support promoted another important factor in their rise to power: a military tactic used by PSYOP: to shake the foundations of belief by simultaneously flooding the senses with propaganda promoting a 'good world' or movement that is against the target, while also undermining the authority and view of the target (if it were a religious target, calling that religion into question. for a political target, in this case Bush, they shook up his image so some of his supporters began to doubt).
Losing the election again in 2004 wasn't a complete loss: they were able to seize control of congress, creating a lot of friction, partisanship, and stalemate between these two pillars (executive & congress). This friction helped further gain support, and the next four years provided the time and momentum needed to further saturate all forms of media with their propaganda. They were able to convince some conservatives that their views were discriminatory, raising the fear that opposing sin was against the desire of their God. They were able to use the image of the unpopular (by their making) president to somehow tie him to a candidate who was no way tied politically with him. They were able to light fires of 'Change!' and 'Hope!' , campaigning on the abstract instead of any concrete platform.
The LSD (Liberal Social Democratic) party moved on to victory, selling their grand illusion, and securing the second of the three pillars of our government's checks-and-balances system. With 2 1/3 of the 3 tiers (78%) of government, they are boldly setting up their dramatic change, and have threatened to make use of "Executive order' to immediately implement much of that change, rushing it past the other two tiers and putting it into law. Some laws (as reported yesterday) are sitting in the House, waiting for the moment of attack.
Some of the things at risk:
- immediate withdrawal from the war. this would invalidate the deaths of those americans who bravely fought for the freedoms of the iraqi people, as well as our security at home. leaving the job undone will turn many friendly iraqis against us, and that creates fertile ground for renewed recruitment into terrorist groups. immediate withdrawal could also offset the balance in the middle east, sparking larger scale worldwide war, as well as further distancing ourselves from our allies.
- immediate suppression of our 'right to bear arms'. Obama has already threatened permanent action against some firearms, and there is a bill sitting in the house right now, waiting to be voted into effect. the restrictions would ban several types of firearms, all of which can be used for hunting, nne of which have been even a minimal threat to the safety of the public, and all of which would be good weapons to have in the event of more riots.
- immediate tampering with our nation's supplies of oil
- immediate higher taxation
- 'spreading the wealth' from the wealthy businesses to the inner-city poor (but not the rural poor)
- increased government support of non-wed couples (single parents), which provides additional incentive to abandon the traditional (and necessary!) unit of The family.
- he has threatened to 'undo much of what Bush has done', and i really hope that doesn't mean thinning down terrorists, getting reparations from former terrorists and terrorist countries, agreeing to protect countries like Taiwan from oppressors like China, etc.
The LSD party is moving into full control, and at a rate that threatens to overtake the American people and our freedoms in a short space of time. Beware! And try to figure out how we can resist without violence.
- Weather:
contemplative
Soros' philanthropy has involved funding Blacks in apartheid South Africa, and funding dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. Soros claimed to have helped his mother kill herself, and supports physician-assisted suicide. Soros has declared that he is not religious, and does not believe in God, though he also refers to himself as a 'successful jew', and attributes antisemitism to policies of Israel and biases towards businessmen like himself. At a Jewish Forum in NYC, Soros said:
"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies... If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can't see how one could confront it directly... I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world... As an unintended consequence of my actions... I also contribute to that image"
Open Society Institute - a private grantmaking foundation that aims to shape public policy to promote 'democratic governance', economic, legal, and social reform, and its own version of 'human rights'. It was created by George Soros to support his businesses ("foundations") in Central and eastern Europe and the former Soveit Union. A controversial OSI project is the Lindesmith Center, which conducts studies aimed at minimizing the harm of narcotics (rather than eliminating them), and which also strongly supports the legalization of marijuana. It advocates making drugs available to 'select adults' in a way similar to America's liquor laws. OSI also has caused controversy in Uganda, where OSI sought to educate prostitutes on 'human rights', and officials felt the methods used were supporting the legalization of prostitution. OSI also funds the Tides Foundation, SAFE Colorado, and the Million Mom March. OSI also promotes physician-Assisted Suicide through the Hemlock Society and the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.
Center for American Progress - A liberal political policy research and advocacy organization. It uses email, a newsletter, and YouTube to spread its POV on global warming and climate change, along with strategic appearances on The Al Franken Show, Air America Radio, and the Bill press Show. It is also funded by George Soros.
In 2008 (03/27/2008), Think Progress, a blog run by Faiz Shakir (one of the main authors of CAP's daily email) incorrectly blogged an article that accused McCain of plagarising a 1996 speech by Admiral Timothy Zeimer. When it turned out that the speech was McCain's own work from 1995, Think Progress posted a retraction that said Zeimer had apparently plagarised McCain. CAP also runs "Campus Progress", an effort to indoctrinate college kids into the beliefs of leftist politics, and groom a new generation of 'progressive leaders' saturated in the dogma of liberalism. Its website, CampusProgress.org, uses cartoons and interviews with prominent democrats to entice these young adults into believing the propaganda while their minds are still malleable. CAP provides financial support for more than 50 campus publications, ensuring their views are always readily accessible and continuously dominating the biases of these campus papres, they provide support for campus entertainment (film screenings, speaking programs, debates), and they use 'national issue campaigns' and action grants to further lure college students, using issues the students care about - student debt, the Iraq "war", 'golbal warming', and something they call 'academic freedom', which promotes narrow-minded attacks on what they call 'neo-conservatives', as well as bigotry against persons who have beliefs rooted in the teachings of organized religion. CAP also promotes a 'National Student Conference', which is a one-sided rally that features prominent liberal politicians (Bill Clinton in 2005, Barack Obama in 2006, Nancy Pelosi in 2007), which is consistyent with their intent on saturating colleges with one-sided liberal political propaganda.
CAP also has their own lobbying branch, which is separated from the main body of the group to maintain legality, and is also primarily funded by world billionaire and government pupetteer George Soros. CAP's PAC is called "Center For American Progress Action Fund".
CAP also released a controversial report called "Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio", where (by manipulating statistics), it stated that "out of 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91% of daily talk shows are conservative, while 9% is progressive (liberal)". The report did not include analysis of other radio providers, including Universities and Public Radio
America Coming Together - A liberal PAC that "does not specifically endorse any political party", but mostly works on behalf of Democrat candidates, targeting voters with phone calls and door-step propaganda. Funded by George Soros and Steve Rosenthal, a former AFL-CIO director. ACT was featured in a Frontline documentary "The Persuaders". ACT violated several campaign finance laws during the 2004 US Presidential campaign, and in August 2007, reached a settlement with the Federal Election Commission in which ACT agreed to pay $775,000 in fines.
Annenberg Foundation - a charitable family trust with initial funding of $1.2 Billion, which came from the sale of Triangle Publications. Their charitable contributions are largely in the field of media. Annenberg runs a nonprofit organization that claims to be nonpartisan and a 'consumer advocate' called FactCheck.org. Despite being 'nonpartisan', Annenberg also funds the Brady Campaign (for example, providing $100,000 in 2005, and $50,000 in 2007). Barack Obama was the chairperson of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and with co-chair, terrorist Bill Ayers, channeled money into other leftist organizations.
Bill Ayers - In 1969, Ayers himself planted a bomb that blew up a statue dedicated to police casualties in the Haymarket Riot (1886), shattering nearly 100 windows and hurling pieces onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway. After the statue was rebuilt with a replica, the Weathermen blew it up again in 1970. Later in 1970, Ayers and several fellow WU terrorists 'went underground' after the Greenwich Village Townhouse Explosion
which killed Ted Gold, Ayer's close friend and roommate Terry Robbins, and Ayer's girlfriend Diana Oughton while they were making a bomb. Ayers participated in the bombings of the NYC Police headquarters later in 1970, bombed the U.S. Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, becoming one of the most prolific domestic terrorists of the time. Charges against Ayers and other Weathermen were dropped in 1976 and 77 because of "prosecutional misconduct" (prosecution didn't follow the right procedure with some evidence so everything was thrown out, despite Ayer's greatly detailed admissions in his autobiographical work "Fugitive days: A Memoir" and in interviews. Ayers claims "we weren't terrorists ... because we did not commit random acts of terror against people", as if committing planned violent acts to shock, frighten, and otherwise draw attention to their 'cause' justifies their bombings of government buildings, but these claims followed the 9/11 attacks, and immediately prior to the attacks Ayers had professed "no regrets" and that he'd "do it again" in his book and some of the promotional interviews, including one with the New York Times that was published the morning of September 11, 2001, and due to the coincidence has probably attracted more gravity than it might have otherwise.
Ayers is also affiliated with the Annenberg Challenge, which is where his close affiliation with Obama comes into the picture. Both Obama and Ayers served as chairs of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - an organization that provides money and support to other leftist organizations. Not surprisingly, in 1995, Ayers characterized his political beliefs of that time (1995) as well as in the past as "radical, leftist, and communist with a small 'c", and continued "the ethics of Communism still appeal to me." Ayer's and the WU also pushed for a radical reformation of sexual relations under the slogan "Smash Monogamy". Ayers more recent statements pointing to lack of remorse and his continued support for the fundamental schools of thought that led to his formation of the Weather Underground in the first place are the primary cause for concern, in view of the Obama campaign's statement that "the detestable acts that Ayers committed decades before occurred when Senator Obama was 8 years old".
Brady Campaign - a political party lobbying group aimed at promoting 'gun control' through strict bans and misrepresentation of facts. It was founded in 1974 as the 'National Council to Control Handguns' (NCCH). In 1980, and through 2001, they called themselves "Handgun Control, Inc", and in 2001 they changed their name to 'The Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence'. They are recognized in the U.S. as the chief gun-control advocacy organization. The organization (like most fetted against the Constitution) uses fear to take advatage of the ignorance of their followers and potential voters, using phrases like the following (taken from their main page today):
"The legislation passed by the House will endanger public safety in a city that is already a target for terrorists. It will allow dangerous people to stockpile dangerous weapons and make it harder for the people of D.C. to combat gun violence in their community." [source: bradycampaign.org on 09/27/2008]
MoveOn.org - is an American 'progressive', non-profit liberal public policy advocacy group and political action committee (PAC) that has raised millions of dollars for the Democratic Party. It was first formed (in response to Bill Clinton's impeachment) by Joan Blades (writer of two books on how to Divorce, and contributor to the Huffington Post) and Wes Boyd. To comply with U.S. law, MoveOn is broken into two legal entities: MoveOn.org Civic Action, a nonprofit organization formally known as 'moveon.org', and MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, formally known as MoveOn PAC. They give money to politicians across the country to help elect and influence selected political candidates. MoveOn uses various media to exploit the population's ignorance, bombarding them with messages on internet sites, in message boards, through email, through traditional print and broadcast media, on bus signs, billboards, and bumper stickers, many of which are available as downloads on their website. MoveOn also uses sites like facebook and Meetup.com to further their recruitment and organize terroristic street demonstrations, as well as benign bake sales, house parties, and other opportunities to glean cash from people looking for a quasi-intellectual social organization in which to participate. During the 2004 election, MoveOn created an offensive ad that attempted to draw parallels between George Bush and Adolf Hitler, angering Jewish advocacy groups. MoveOn has an ongoing campaign against the formerly 'shockingly liberal' fox network, in particular Fox News, in retaliation for two of its opinion talk-show hosts arguing that MoveOn "owns the democratic party" (in actuality, MoveOn only rents it). MoveOn also stopped to personal attacks on the name of General Petraeus, running an ad in the NY Times calling him 'General Betray Us'. As a result, a unanimous vote (unanimous means 'Republicans AND Democrats) for an amendment designed to 'strongly condemn personal attacks' passed in September 2007. Also in 2007, MoveOn also worked in conjunction with Google to remove ads for Maine Senator Susan Collins, but later backed down from their positions because it was pointed out that doing so was denying people the freedom of expression. MoveOn is also funded by George Soros, and other millionaires.
It is truly a tragedy at this time of widespread laziness and short-attention spans that MoveOn and similar groups have slithered in to take advantage of the weaknesses of our 'civilized' society. On any particular day, a person can go to MoveOn's website and see incredibly biased "news" and tabloid-style stories that trump by a landslide any 'biased' reporting from any 'conservative' news (unbiased and informative FoxNews being their biggest target). The worrisome thing is that the legions of lazy 'liberal' college kids and 40-something wannabe protesters who receive MoveOn's daily emails or frequent the site actually believe what they're told. This gross lack of discernment, this slothful ignorance and non-desire to 'check for themselves' will be, and likely soon, the grand downfall of American society. And Soros again stands to make money.
Call for Change - an arm of MoveOn.org, used to solicit potential voters. Call for Change contacts registered voters in select districts, and attempts to influence their knowledge of the candidates through push-polling and well-planned remarks.
Avaaz.org
Huffington Post - a liberal news site and weblog founded by Arianna Huffington, who made her billions by divorcing her openly bisexual husband and Kenneth Leher a liberal media executive for CBS, and previously AOL Time Warner. The Huffington Post is 'yet another' media-oriented arm of the liberal movement, but in the past has proven to be a little better at strategy, and usually backs up its stories with more believable 'fact' than MoveOn. Huffington attempted to be at the forefront of the 'save the earth and stop wasting fossil fuels' rage in the early part of the millenium, but was 'caught' and openly ridiculed for having her own private jet, which she used to fly from coast to coast, spreading her take on environmental issues. When cornered and asked how she could burn so much fossil fuel on her silly little trips, in her own private jet, she replied "i didn't go anywhere where (the jet) wasn't going already."
Democracy Now! - claims to focus on news that is "underreported or ignored by mainstream news", and that does seem to be the case, as many of it's 'news' stories are interviews with bizarre 'authorities' on various subjects of importance to america haters, and though an occassional important issue involved in news elsewhere is reported, the bulk of the programming is a stage for liberal 'public access' and 'michael moore'-type shows. The tagline for the program is "the Exception to the Rulers", a title that is is darky humorous in light of the program's furthering of George Suros' agenda. Democracy Now! claims no corporate, government or CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) funding, stating that the independence of their programming might be compromised, but they have accepted various grants, including $150,000 from the Ford Foundation (2004), and around $350,000 from the Lannan Foundation in 2001. The poor, oppressed show is aired nationally on the Pacifica radio network, NPR, most community radio stations, Public Access Cable stations (i was surprised to learn you can air a syndicated show on Public Access!), and manages podcasts and streaming video. While attempting to incite a riot during the 2008 Republican National Convention, several DN! members, including Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Elizabeth Press and Nicole Salazar were arrested for (gasp!) "probable cause for riot" while filming police arresting protesters and vandals, and 'egging them on'. Their press release claimed the arrest of the producers was 'unlawful', and a "clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights". (because it's ok for the press to start riots and interfere with police, but it's not ok for Republicans to assemble peacably in their meeting, or for the NRA to air ads that reveal Obama's voting record, or for anyone to use Obama's middle name, or ...). Despite DN!'s incredibly amateurish video, and lengthy interviews with strange people (see one of my prior posts), they have won numerous awards, all of which are from foundations and groups dedicated to promoting liberalism and 'progressive' society. (that's like Britney Spears winning numerous awards from her mother).
Ford Foundation - begun by reciprocal Hitler fan, Henry Ford, the foundation continues to fund social and environmental programs with a 'liberal' strance, despite having detached itself from Ford Motors ("Big Car Manufacturers") about 30 years ago. Though successful in some of its environmental endeavors, The Ford Foundation has been involved in some serious scandals: In 1968, the foundation gave $12 million to law schools to create 'law school clinics' that claimed to be vehicles for law students to gain practical experience while providing pro bono support for the poor. It was later discovered that the clinics instead provided a venue for the professors to engage in political activism. The Ford Foundation also gave big donations to a CIA front-organization (the foundation supported the CIA), which linked them to involvement in the Marshall Plan, and allegations that they therefore fund "anti-leftist human rights groups that focus on attacking human rights violations in adversarial countries". In 2003, the Jewish telegraphic news Agency and others accused the foundation of supporting Palestinian NGOs that performed anti-Zionist activities at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. (Summary: Hitler fan starts organization. Organization corrupts law schools, gives a lot of money to the CIA, and then supports anti-Jew Palestinians in their little hate party at the WCAR. But hey! at least they're saving the environment with 'green buildings' and funding 'Democracy Now!')
Lannan Foundation - runs the Lannan Literary Awards, a series of awards and fellowships given out in various fields. Winners are chosen from a pool of persons who represent (to the foundation) the liberal ideal of 'diversity' (i.e, any one other than a straight, "white" man or woman who attends church in an organized religion and who loves the United States). While it is awesome to see 'minorities' represented, and great the foundation exists to help people who were, at one time, 'oppressed', it is sad to see the exclusion of this pariah of civilization, the educated, middle-class, God-oriented, patriotic Caucasian, from their version of 'diversity'.
- Wher'bouts:The Left Coast, USA
- Weather: cranky
I had intended on posting the entire text to this Journal (LJ-Cut, of course), but it exceeded the 64k allowed per post, and i was too lazy to break it up. You can find the full transcript online, but then you'll have to do all the color-coding work and "um" editing yourself.
Anyway, i'm still digging through it, but i can certainly state a couple things:
Obama is usually a good speaker, but his manner (cold, brooding) was distracting, and he stumbled through things a lot, probably because he had a lot on his mind, trying to keep the propaganda straight. Amazingly, McCain, who normally looks like a creaking dinosaur, was a lot more 'at ease' and straightforward in his speech. Obama registered about 3 "Uh"'s per paragraph, while McCain averaged about one per 1.5 paragraphs.
A lot of facts were in question, and i was particularly tickled when McCain brought up how Obama is on some board overseeing NATO, but Obama hasn't been present for any of their meetings, and then Obama responds with "Spain is a member of NATO." ha ha! it was hilarious!
Equally as funny was when Obama was putting words in McCain's mouth, and looking a different direction, and the mediator had to twice ask Obama to look McCain in the face when he said it, and When Obama finally did, and nervously repeated the line of his speech, McCain goes "what, did you think i couldn't hear?".
Even so, the general public (CNN reporters said most of those polled had expressed that they are 'democrats', leading the reporters to suppose more D's than R's viewed the debates -- which is likely, since we all have jobs & don't have the time to sit on our butts collecting welfare, smoking weed and watching television) viewed Obama as having "won" the debate (with all the Dem's watching, the narrow 'win' of 51% should be a little worrisome).
McCain is a little boring to listen to, because he (despite his sense of humor) is calm and steady all the time, like a hypnotist ... while Obama employs much more inflexion in his voice, and frequently pounds the podium,
Just today, for example, the Propaganda party released an ad pointing out that McCain never once mentioned "middle class" in the debate. Obama, for the record, mentions the 'middle class' three times, the first time after using the word "orgy", and all three times while using the 'middle class' (something he is financially quite distant from) as a point of speech, placed just after an unfounded argument against 'thebushadministrationconservativesrepub
Something i question, is why the Obama campaign would create such an ad, where, if Obama was making real, substantiated points in the debate, they should have had an hour's worth of stronger material to attack McCain on? Why waste the money on an ad that revolves around McCain not mentioning the 'middle class' in this one debate? McCain did say we need to take focus off of Wall Street and put it on Main Street - that's referring to the 'middle class', right?
I didn't hear Obama mention "poor", or "indian" or "muslim" in his speeches - and we already know where he stands on those demographics - shouldn't the republicans attack him for that? No way! not when they have so much material! Let's play "Fact and Obama":
Obama: "we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"
Fact: the worst financial crisis since the great depression was during the 1970's, when the Democrats were 'in charge' (Carter Administration). Personally, i'm surprised at this fact, but then again, i was a baby and wasn't paying much attention back then. Most Probamaites are my age or younger. Furthermore, economists are in agreement that, as bad as things are, it won't get as bad as the great depression.
Obama: "we've got to make sure we're helping the homeowners, because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are taking place all over the country"
Fact: ok, partly right. Foreclosures are related to the problem: they are the result of the problem. The root of the problem is greed and credit. Taking up the example of democrat politicians, many Americans spend-spend-spend, and expect money to start pouring out of the rocks that are hit with the magic stick of liberalism. The public welfare system, for example, teaches Americans it's ok to live off of society, because society owes them. No real effort is made to monitor who takes the money, what it is spent on, or how hard the person spending it is trying to work. The welfare system is so backward, in fact, many Americans actually quit their jobs because they 'make' more money through welfare. I'm not speaking with the same theory and third-party assumptions as Obama - i've SEEN this happen.
Saying the 'root problem here has to do with foreclosures' is like saying the 'root problem of drunk driving accidents has to do with death'. No, Obama ... that is a result.
Obama: "10 days ago, (McCain) said the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
Fact: McCain was actually stating that the fundamentals of the economy are the goodness and strength of the American worker, America's productivity, our innovation - and those things are sound.
Obama: "Senator McCain is proposing $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country"
Fact: The United States businesses pay the 2nd highest business tax in the world: 35%. As a result, businesses in the United States are forced to cut costs, whether that means laying off workers, importing cheaper materials and products, or outsourcing American jobs to other countries. McCain's proposed business tax cuts are designed to keep jobs in our country, for our people, and would help ALL businesses, from tech giants HP and Micron (both of which recently laid off thousands of employees) down to little family owned businesses, like mine. Obama wants you to be confused and (see above) think the 'root' of the problems people are facing is 'foreclosures', but the real root, or something closer to it than what he'd have you believe, is lack of jobs. Foreclosures happen when people can't pay their bills. People can't pay their bills when they've been laid off from Boeing and gas is so expensive they can't commute into the city to look for more work. If we magically get rid of foreclosures (essentially robbing banks and lending companies of their freedom to conduct business), well ... it wouldn't work - even the most socialist countries in the world don't give their people free homes - but if it did, Joe and Sally MainStreet still can't afford food, medical bills, gas for transportation and diapers for their children (or, to put it in terms more Dems will understand, Dweezil and Dumpster Muffin won't be able to buy any more imported beer and pot, and eventually they're going to need more tofu and organic squash, and maybe some oil for their bicycle chains, and there won't be enough money in middle-America's wallet to give them handouts anymore!), so yeah, if Obama gets his way, life at the bottom of the food chain is going to suffer too. Beware!
Obama: "There are so many loopholes written into the tax code, oftentimes with the support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses effectively pay one of the lowest taxes in the world".
Fact: There are no legitimate examples of McCain supporting loopholes, while there are several examples of Obama supporting them (Energy Bill, for example). Even so, these loopholes do NOT put America's business taxes anywhere near the 'lowest in the world'. Straight talk: Obama again fabricated his 'points'. Anyone who can stand to get off their butt for very long can look up the actual facts of who voted for what - it's a matter of public record.
I want to step aside from the Obama vs The Truth game for a second here. Since I'm going in chronological order through the debate, it is fitting that i now use an awesome example of Obama's deflection of the issue. In this scene, he uses his "Oh crap! They brought up me not going to work!" strategy: REDIRECTING TO BIDEN, his running-mate, a senator with almost as much 'showing up for work' time as McCain:
McCain: "Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversight's NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he's never been to a hearing."
Lehrer: "What about that point?"
Obama: "Which point? He raised a whole bunch of them."
Lehrer: "Let's go to the latter point, and then back up. The point about your not having been ..."
Obama: "Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden ...."
Obama: "But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that violence has been reduced ..."
Wow. I hope if our nation is ever unfortunate enough to elect this inexperienced smooth-talker into the office of president, we are never faced with any serious dialog (about war, the economy, foreign relations, etc).
Factcheck.org (an organization primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who also funds many anti-conservative organizations, like the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-ban organization) has a big long story on their site meant to bore or confuse the reader into believing McCain lied when he said that, but if you read it (or take notice that Obama never addressed it, and actually dodged it quite a bit), you'll see that McCain's one-liner was incredibly accurate, and did not 'distort the facts' one bit.
I've got something else to blog about.
- Wher'bouts:The United States of America
- Weather: bored
i'm not a good writer when i'm stressing out about something, and the "abortion topic" has been in the news a bit more lately than normal, and having been victimized by the whole "Pro-Choice" philosophy, i'm strongly opposed to it.
i wish i could say "i don't care about how anyone feels about abortion, we should all be able to do our own thing" ... but i can't. i know first-hand that "pro choice" permits choice for one of three immediate parties (mother, father, unborn child), or two parties, if you buy into that "when does life really begin/mass of tissue" scam ... but even then, that means the 'choice' is a freedom that only 50% involved enjoy ... despite both adults (rape excluded) being party to the act that got them there in the first place ...
i suppose i'm angry that the same people who want to rob me of my freedom in a parental role (if abortion is involved) use that argument that "no life is lost" in the "procedure" ... also want to ban my 'right to bear arms' because an attacking criminal has a life that is valuable, or an animal i need for food has a life that is valuable. often, the same folks who want it to be ok for individuals to choose whether or not to kill a baby also want to outlaw a group of peers and a judge from condemning a murderer to death.
i recognize the same logic can be used against me ... i want to be able to shoot a nuisance bird to eat for dinner, but i think a disputed mass of tissue/baby should be spared at all costs, and that may be a contradiction to some. i think, however, i have nature at my defense ... we're built to eat flesh, but we don't have a 'reset' or 'eject' button on the maternal side of the race.
anyway, i've been grouchy lately because of the political atmosphere. i'm pretty certain i don't have a single friend who would agree with me politically, but i'm scared of Obama/Democrats this year. The only thing Obama has a record for is his attempts at molesting the constitution and trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. that's as scary as having your right to free speech taken away, or your freedom to assemble. it's like having a politician actively trying to have laws passed that eliminate congress, or declare a national curfew. Even if you are creeped out by guns, you have to recognize that a law banning private citizen's right to own them is in direct conflict with what our forefathers intended. I'm frightened by Biden, and his idea of dividing up a foreign nation ... segregating them by religion and race ... because it's not our place! if it's not appropriate in our (currently) free society, it shouldn't be appropriate in any! As mentioned numerous times, i am terrified by their party's support of abortion. I don't a few other issues, and there are a handful of minor issues i do agree with ... but a party where taking away my guns and killing my babies are two of the only clear platforms, i don't care how iconic a speaker the main guy is, i cannot support them.
There's an Aesop story that has been around for a long time, that illustrates the 'swift change' of liberalism, and the slow, calculated steps of conservatism. It's known as "The Tortoise and the Hare", and its meaning seems to have been lost to modern society - especially in America. While it is annoying often to wait and wait for change, only to see a few little adjustments, history has shown that only rarely has radical change been for the overall good ... and even when you look at these few radical shifts closely, you find they were usually implemented at a slow and cautious pace (civil rights/suffrage issues). History shows a massive record of 'big change' implemented too quickly or too drastically, and i know the liberal-minded are aware of them, because some are brought up to place blame on their opposition: the US providing weapons to countries/groups in the 1980's that we're now fighting [Afghanistan, Iran/Contra, etc], Thalidomide, FDR's "New Deal", The Patriot Act, the HPV Vaccine ...
Perhaps in a few years we'll look back and be ready to admit the ethanol requirements were a bad idea, the welfare program failed miserably, social security didn't work, the Federal Reserve bailing out shaky businesses was a bad idea, etc.
- Wher'bouts:The United States of America
- Weather: bitchy
- Yodel:"Jerusalem" - Matisyahu
WHAT?! yep. here's one article (biased, so it's nice in its terminology of the segregation plan, calling it "soft partitioning") from back in June of 2007: CBS News: IRAQ: A PROBLEMATIC PARTITIONING - Why Biden's "Plan Z" Is Destined For Failure. the article contains the following run-down of Biden's segregation plan:
As redacted by Etzioni in a paper titled "Plan Z: For a Community Based Security Plan for Iraq," the Biden proposal calls for a "high devolution state" in Mesopotamia. Iraq would be broken up into districts with Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia majorities, and such considerable local control as to render the Iraqi national state almost nonexistent. The Etzioni paper included a number of statements to which I objected, based on my own consultations with Iraqi Arab (both Shia and Sunni) and Kurdish intellectuals and clerics, as well my experience in the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina, thanks to the Dayton Agreement of 1995, was repeatedly invoked as a success story for partition.
A better (and humorous, though accurate) dialog of the reason this is in the news now is posted on the Glenn Beck website: Obama/Biden pro segregation?
an excerpt of that dialogue:
So now Iraq is saying this guy is a nightmare. He's the guy this is the last guy that the Democrats should be picking for their vice presidential nominee. The head of Iraq said that the Biden plan would be a disaster for Iraq. Not only a disaster for Iraq but the entire region. Now, here's what I find interesting. As I understand this, as I understand this proposal, the vice presidential nominee of the one that was selected by the first African American is actually for segregation. Not only did he propose segregation and it's not just segregation. It's not like they just go home what he proposes is forced segregation. So if you're of a different race, you've got to move up north and you have to I mean, just move you out of your home and you've got to move up north. He's not only for segregation, he's for forced segregation and Barack Obama is neutral on it.
further on in the dialogue, they played a couple of shocking audio clips, one in which Biden is displaying shocking racism in remarks he made linking Indian Americans to the stereotypes regarding their employment:
Sen. Joseph Biden: "In Delaware the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7 11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
and Sen. Barack Obama: "We don't always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist. It might be Mohammed the cabdriver."
Adding this to the sneaky way they cleansed the streets of Denver of filthy the homeless, to the strange militant support the masses are giving to this great orator with no political record, to the greek temple props, the self-made revision of the presidential seal, and so on and so forth ... WHY AREN'T WE AFRAID? What kind of people are supporting this party?
Last night and this morning, i was considering softening up on Obama. i was feeling like maybe he's an ok guy, and i'm just freaked out because of his party's stances on promoting certain offensive and unnatural practices. i was thinking maybe i just didn't like him because of how repulsed i am by his supporters (same reason i never could get into the Grateful Dead or american football). I was trying to think of something nice to say, when i suddenly realised that Obama had made speeches condemning mudslinging & sounding like an upright man, and then he started attacking the republicans in the very way he spoke out against! i realised that (this is strange!) Obama is attacking the Republican vice-president nominee ... isn't that weird? And the propaganda mill (which suspiciously seems to have borrowed some man-power and evil serum from the defunct Clinton campaign) is now on the prowl to attack Palin. they've accused her of 'hating eskimos' (seriously!) - despite her husband (and therefore children!) being of Alaskan Native blood.
Oh! and this whole thing about her allegedly firing someone because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex husband from his job as a state trooper ...
this guy ... the state trooper ... had threatened to kill his estranged wife (and palin)'s father, he had tasered their 13-year old son, he had been suspended for driving his marked patrol car with an open container of alcohol, etc. he was a pretty rotten guy. the accusation that she'd fired someone specifically for not firing the trooper came from the guy who was fired ... he'd actually been fired for failing to fulfill his job duties, including filling existing vacancies in the state's police force. Palin followed the legal process to have him removed from his position, and has cooporated completely with the investigation (the investigation being a formality because the accusation was made).
now ... thinking about this ...
let's imagine the accusation is correct. in fact, even better ... imagine Palin didn't do anything, and the diggers were looking for dirt. wouldn't it have been worse to have a governor whose brother in law was drinking and driving in his patrol car, had tasered his 13-year old son, had threatened to kill an elderly man "conveniently" overlooking this behavior? yeah.
well, regardless ... this policeman - the long list of freaky stuff is not disputed - is still on patrol in the neighborhood where the elderly man lives. (according to the news i heard earlier today).
The dems are also attacking Palin for changing her mind on the so-called "road to nowhere". I guess she'd initially been on board for the project, but when the cost was going to double the budgeted amount, she backed out of the project. Funny thing ... and not sure why they were careless enough to draw attention to this ... Biden voted for it too, as did Obama (one of the few times Obama voted), but when the budget was reviewed ... when Palin 'changed her mind' and backed out ... when the option to kill the project and divert funds to support the Katrina devastation in Louisiana ... Obama and Biden still voted to continue the expensive and (by that point) decidedly pointless project.
hmmm. so yeah, Palin changed her mind ... because it wasn't worth the cost and money was needed more elsewhere. Obama and Biden voted to continue wasting taxpayer money, even at the expense of the victims of Katrina. (what?! oh ... wait ... they must have looked poor or homeless!)
HOW MUCH LONGER ARE THESE RIDICULOUS FOOLS GOING TO HAVE FOLLOWERS?
- Wher'bouts:The United States of America
- Weather:
confused - Yodel:TALK RADIO
I heard a report protesters at the DNC were blocking traffic (bad guys!), breaking laws (criminals!) and otherwise annoying people and being naughty, and several had been arrested.
To be fair, i must denounce them, no matter how just their cause might be!
but yeah, breaking the law and hurting people's rights (to get to work on time, etc), is never good, and i hope they are all thrown in jail and deported to wherever the DNC sent the homeless ...
i'm pretty anxious to see the news articles about this, and to see some images that i can loot for my anti-protester blogs, but ... no one is reporting it! argh!
wait! i've found it:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-65524 "Riot Police Block Protesters in Denver"
hmmm. weird. it's an iReport, so its from a 'regular person', but these reports are sometimes flawed (or completely fabricated) ... several, for example, are form-letter reports posted by 'volunteers' for moveon.org ...
the thing about this link (which i got from the article on increased security for the R & D's big parties here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/25/c
is the reason this content is not available ... that it was fabricated? or that CNN (and all the other major news outlets) need to verify the event before reporting it and then getting squished in the backlash when it turns out they reported false news? (which happens sometimes, like when they made up the stuff about Bush's military record, and then it turned out the documents were forged) ...
or, an alternate conspiracy:
the major news outlets are actually controlled by the republicans, who have been secretly feeding stories that make conservatives, republicans, and the bush administration look bad for the past 8 years, just so liberals would trust them, and now - their moment of action - they are suppressing the news of the protests so it will look like protesters only broke the law when they were protesting the republicans convention!
even better, maybe the Secret Republican Illuminati Propaganda Task Force (S.R.I.P.T.F.) is confiscating the footage so they can use it when they fabricate news of a violent protest at the Republican convention in MN! yeah!
anyway, i don't believe either theory. i'm sure there were some bad-guy protesters, and i'm sure there will be 50,000 of them in Minnesota ...
In Denver, the protest permits were only issued for areas far removed from the parade route and the actual DNC convention, but in MN, the republicans are allowing the protesters to come a little closer to the 'action' (which, in my opinion, is a freaking retarded thing to do! i wouldn't let 50,000 screaming, unruly anarchists within miles of me if it were my big party ...
i'd really like to see this news! it's driving me crazy! i swear i heard it on the radio this morning!
doing a search for "riots in Denver" brings up a bunch of reports of Rush Limbaugh allegedly trying to get people to riot in Denver during the DNC (which may be true, though i think regular listeners to his program would see it as satire, because conservatives just don't resort to chaos and violence, while liberals do.
wow ... an actual transcript of what Rush DID say:
--------
CALLER: Actually they would be demonstrating as Americans --
RUSH: We don't riot.
CALLER: -- that they're more out of control.
RUSH: We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does. We need the American left -- and this is another great thing about Operation Chaos; nothing to do with my ego. We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) "I'm dreaming of riots in Denver." Remember 1968? And which party did that? It was the radicals in that party, the anti-war radicals, the same bunch of clowns that are running around defining the Democrat Party today. What the world thinks of us? There was an analogy just this week about somebody in the world. I'm drawing a mental blank about this. But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton.
He was throwing down the gauntlet to the superdelegates: "You take this election away from Barack Obama, and there's gonna be trouble. There's going to be trouble in Denver." As for the rest of the world and what they think of us, you know, there's nothing that frustrates me more than to hear that. What part of the world do we care about? What part of the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from the Europeans who have gone so damn wussy that they cannot -- they could not if they had to -- mount a military defense of themselves if they were attacked? Not even with NATO, because it has been allowed to lapse. Is it those people that we want the approval from? Do we want approval from people like Robert Mugabe? Do we want approval from some of the warlords and terrorists of Al-Qaeda? Who in the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from Hamas, like Jimmy Carter does? We have the approval of our allies. We have the approval of the UK. We have the approval of the Australians. Do we want the approval of the Chinese? Do we want the approval of Kim Jong Il.
Who do we want to love us? What is this? I guarantee you: You live your life this way as an individual, and you are forever going to be confused and unhappy because you will be embarking on something that's impossible, and that is, A, to make everybody like you; and, B, respect you. This is something that has to be earned, particularly on the side of respect -- and respect is earned with strength. Nobody is going to respect you if they figure out you're doing whatever you have to do to get their approval. They're going to laugh at you! They're going to think you're a weak-kneed wuss. So the hell with that! We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only ones in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense, unless we elect Democrats. We don't farm out our protection against attack and national security, unless we elect Democrats. We don't farm out our economy and tear it up in the name of a hoax called global warming, unless we elect Democrats. Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats -- and that's the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don't elect Democrats!
[commercial]
RUSH: Let me tell you something, folks. If there are riots in Denver, the world is gonna just think that we're just like them, and we have something in common with them, and isn't that what we want to say: "We're all the same"?
SOURCE: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/s
--------
(i'm still looking for a reliable report of riots in Denver)
it is incredibly strange to me that:
a) it would be a 'major news story' that Rush Limbaugh, a freaking talk show host, was "trying to incite riots in Denver"
b) and he wasn't even saying that ... he was saying that the Dems regularly resort to rioting, while "we" don't do that.
c) then there was a mysterious news story (i heard it on the radio, and CNN's iReport reported it) that the protesters had rioted in Denver
d) but the news story was mysteriously (and quickly) retracted!
wait! it's not strange at all!
the propagandists took Rush's dialogue and severely edited it to remove its true character and intention, twisting it around to say Rush was asking his listeners to commit crime (riot) at the DNC.
they were likely trying to raise fear in the Dems (who would stage a counter-protest, which would help to escalate rioting), and maybe (in a longshot) fool conservatives into showing up to fight.
not knowing the extent of the riot, they had some of their comrades in Hollywood edit some film and build a 'clash' ...
distributing various angles to their undercover 'iReporters' (i'm guessing this was moveon.org, as they are the most frequent abusers of iReport, as well as well-known fabricators of news).
i'd imagine they were hoping for at least a little clash, which would enable them to blow an existing thing way out of proportion, at which point the iReporters would spring their form-letter press kits into action, hopefully getting picked up by the AP and other news, knowing that once it was discovered that riot news was faked, it would be 'too late' to retract the event from all of the public's mind, and the retraction would go unnoticed and without punishment.
i suppose what ended up happening, is that when there was no riot, the entity in charge (moveon.org?) sent out a memo to tell their embedded reporters to not follow through with the plan, but someone didn't get the memo ...
(alt theory: in keeping with their practice of 'proving' their sources by linking to their volunteer's blogs and other shaky material, moveon.org was going to report that news of the violence was 'supressed' by the news. ???)
SO here i am, a bit shaken ...
i'd planned on fairly reporting that Conservatives were just as protest and riot-friendly as Liberals, that some misguided Republicans staged a protest that degraded into criminal activity ...
but not being a good reporter, and being a terrible writer, i was doing my research as i wrote, figuring anyone who bothered to read this might better relate to my search if i wrote it in 'real time' ...
i figured the climax of the story would come by the time i wrapped it up, and i could paste some photos from the scene ...
but i am SHOCKED, and should be pleased (?) that this event just didn't seem to have happened. the report i heard on the radio seems to have had no substance to back it up ...
WAIT! i think i found it!
an iReport titled: ABORTION FOES OUTSIDE CONVENTION http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-66090
never mind. its just a video of some kid with pink hair trying to harass a bunch of old people who are praying and wheeling around big crosses. (they were actually really nice, and he was really nice to them. the video ends with them all laughing together & shaking hands).
his description is this:
"I ask what they're doing at the DNC and then ask them to pray that I get in."
two comments that describe it:
"While I think you clearly posted this to make fun of them, I think it shows "abortion foes" in a much more positive light than you anticipated. They were very friendly and resectful. Thanks for posting."
"This is probably one of the most accurate videos of a typical abortion protest that I have seen. Something the big media companies would never produce. Thanks for sharing."
the events that take place with the protesters at the republican convention, when viewed alongside the order and peace displayed by the protesters at the DNC will be telling.
- Wher'bouts:The United States of America
- Weather: confused
First of all, I've supported McCain as a 'good human being' since 2001 or so, and was kind of disappointed he didn't run during the last election.
Obama has also been a favourite - indeed, if i were to choose from the democrats running this year, he is my top pick.
That said, here's where i stand:
Obama is a 'personality'. Like Hitler, the ghost of his persona will echo throughout history. His political record is pretty low-key, and he hasn't had much to say about anything on his platform, but like a revival preacher, he's got people up and jumping.
McCain has no 'personality', at least publicly, other than that of a quiet but solid older guy. He is quick to apologize when the employees of his campaign speak out unfairly, and he has a strong record of not backing down from positions, even when under pressure from his own party.
I've admired McCain for his lack of mudslinging. Conversely, I'm generally against the democratic party for adopting mudslining as a core value, and always being quick to place blame on their opponents.
Recently, McCain finally ran an attack ad, likening Obama to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. bad move, but justified ... after all, it is common knowledge among both parties and anyone who cares to listen that Obama is more a face and a voice than a politician. Still, it was disappointing to see McCain sling a little 'mean' that direction.
Obama, not surprisingly, responded by putting a little seeds out there:
"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said in Springfield, Missouri, echoing earlier remarks. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making." [from Obama's comments on 07/30/08in Missouri]
basically, because he couldn't directly refute that McCain was right about his 'personality' status, he decided to lay the groundwork for attacks on his race, his 'un-patriotism' and name (the last two had been points on which he was attacked by the Clinton campaign, who stealthily started email fwds and other 'grass roots' misinformation campaigns to draw attention to the ONE time obama forgot to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem, and to draw attention to his middle name (Hussein) and attempt to make connections to radical islam by pushing photos of Obama in a turban). For someone who actually filed lawsuits against people for using his middle name, this was an interesting move ...
McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis responded by saying:
"Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
McCain allegedly later agreed with Mr. Davis' remarks.
Is there truth to the "race card" accusation? of course there is. It was a non-issue with the McCain group and had not played a part in anything said or represented, until Obama started the ball rolling. It is a divisive, negative and shameful maneuver ... people are uncomfortable about race (moreso the ways of dealing with differences more than actual race itself), and by making this a 'race' issue, Obama is guilt-tripping you into voting for him, or at least not supporting old, white McCain!
Really, if this were about race (or gender, for that matter!), Condi should be in the running ... she's at least far more qualified than any of the people in either party who are running! (and honestly, regardless of race/gender 'firsts', i hope she runs in the next election, because she rocks!)
anyway ...
so here's our play by play:
1) McCain accuses Obama of being just another personality. [ opinion, but cvan be backed up by political record, number of personalities supporting their buddies, etc ]
2) Obama somehow twists that into an opportunity to bring up race, his "funny name" (to quote he himself), and bring attention to his political faux pas ...
3) McCain's manager says it's low that he played the 'race card' [ Obama played the 'Race Card': TRUE ]
and now ...
4) Obama releases an ad claiming McCain received $2 Million in campaign contributions from "Big Oil Companies", and that McCain wants to give $4 Billion in tax reductions to 'big oil'.
big problem with this: it's a flat-out lie.
Corporations are not allowed to contribute to candidates, and employees who are eligible to contribute have contributed to Obama as well as McCain.
John McCain has never asked for any tax reductions or special deals for oil companies (he has asked for general tax cuts for all corporations to help build the economy and strengthen job security, AS WELL AS asking to reduce taxes on individuals.)
Currently, next to Japan, The US has the highest corporate taxes of any nation in the world. McCain is simply trying to lower taxes to match other countries in the world.
McCain's ads have been funny (comparing Obabma to moses, paris hilton, britney spears), but Obama's are purely dishonest. Do the american people really want a dishonest president in office?
- Wher'bouts:The Left Coast, USA
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
inforodeo- inforodeo
- www.inforodeo.com
Syndicate
