Friday, October 31, 2008

Even Tom Brokaw Admits He Has No Idea Who Barack Obama Is!

This is part of the transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show today. I found and posted the snippets from the interview earlier, and decided to re-post them in the context in which they were played. Rush played a "montage" from the Rose/Brokaw interview. To see the entire fifty four minute Charlie Rose interview, visit this link

The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 31, 2008, Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, on Charlie Rose Show last night on PBS. Are they doing their pledge drive yet? Is PBS doing their drive? Because, you know, "Without your Pledge, we cannot dust." He had on Tom Brokaw last night, ladies and gentlemen. Here's a montage. Now, this is last night. As you listen to this, keep in mind everything you've heard from Brokaw and others in the Drive-
Bys can for the past six months, three months, two months or whatever. This is a montage of Charlie Rose and Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

RUSH: Incredible! (laughing) Let's send the journalist to find out! Why, have you guys ever thought of that, Tom? Have you ever thought about sending a reporter to find out who the guy is? Charlie! You got plenty of reporters there at PBS, at least on the... Have you ever thought about sending anybody out to find out who he is, besides the two books? (laughing) I cannot believe this. We know who his heroes are -- and, of course, that's the point! We know who his heroes are, we know who his alliances are with. We know who his friends are. We know that he chose them all. But to hear...This is last night. This is, what, four days, five days before the election. These are two of
Obama's biggest media supporters! You gotta... I gotta hear this again. This is hilarious if it weren't so damn maddening, because the answer to this is, "Hey, Tom? Talk to the bureau chief in Washington, the new guy who replaced Russert. What you do is, you assign a reporter to go out and find out who Obama is."

ROSE: I don't know what Barack
Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

RUSH: Well, we know one of his heroes is a member of the Communist Party, Frank Davis. He mentored him in Hawaii. There's a lot we know, Tom. (laughing) Does this not ice it? Does this not ice...? We know as much as can be known about Obama, far more than he wants us to know, and here are these two pillars of Drive-By journalism. "I don't know. I don't know. It's an interesting question, Charlie. It's an interesting question." (laughing) I just think this is... "That's true." Two pillars of journalism, one has an audience and one doesn't, but it doesn't matter. They're both still pillars. Hey, Tom, Charlie, I think we can help here about his view of China. This was last night on MSNBC, and he was asked this question, Obama was. "Is there a possibility you could see in your first term if elected and we need an economic stimulus, an FDR style public works program?"

OBAMA: I've actually talk about this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China's doing right now. They, uh, er, uh -- Their trains are faster than us. Their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive Twenty-First Century economy, and we're not.

RUSH: Okay, Charlie? Tom? You just heard Obama say after you're wondering where he is on China, he thinks they're better than us! And, by the way, to be grammatical correct it would be "better than we." You don't say "better than us are." You say "better than we are." The trains run on time? All this infrastructure? Look at the infrastructure that cannot handle a .0001 earthquake! Basically a giant taking a couple of steps will crap some buildings over there. But here's Barack Obama singing, once again, the praises of China, a communist country -- and what? Criticizing the United States. It was an interesting point. It was a very interesting point to an interesting question. Tom Brokaw said it was "an interesting question," What is his attitude on China, the people advising him. Here it is. He loves China, he thinks the United States sucks. Barack Obama, last night on
PMSNBC.

END TRANSCRIPT

The End Of Journalism

I hate to copy articles here, and have done it rarely. I like to write the information for you myself, or direct you to webpages, but this one was excellent and I felt it worthy of posting here in its entirety. It's long, but well worth the read.

Sometime in 2008, journalism as we knew it died, and advocacy media took its place. 

By Victor Davis Hanson
[National Review Online, Oct. 31, 2008]

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored.

CAMPAIGN FINANCING
For years an axiom of the liberal establishment was the need for public campaign financing — and the corrosive role of private money in poisoning the election process. The most prominent Republican who crossed party lines to ensure the passage of national public campaign financing was John McCain — a maverick stance that cost him dearly among conservatives who resented bitterly federal interference in political expression. 

In contrast, Barack Obama, remember, promised that he would accept both public funding and the limitations that went along with it, and would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” Then in June 2008, Obama abruptly reneged, bowing out entirely from government financing, the first presidential nominee in the general election to do that since the system was created in 1976. 

Obama has now raised over $600 million, by far the largest campaign chest in American political history. In many states he enjoys a four-to-one advantage in campaign funding — most telling in his scheduled eleventh-hour, 30-minute specials that will not be answered by the publicly financed and poorer McCain campaign. 

The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

For all practical purposes, public financing of the presidential general election is now dead. No Republican will ever agree to it again. No Democrat can ever again dare to defend a system destroyed by Obama. All future worries about the dangers of big money and big politics will fall on deaf ears. 

Surely, there will come a time when the Democratic Party, whether for ethical or practical reasons, will sorely regret dismantling the very safeguards that for over three decades it had insisted were critical for the survival of the republic.

Imagine the reaction of the New York Times or the Washington Post had John McCain renounced his promise to participate in public campaign financing, proceeded instead to amass $600 million and outraise the publicly financed Barack Obama four-to-one, and begun airing special 30-minute unanswered infomercials during the last week of the campaign.

THE VP CANDIDATES
We know now almost all the details of Sarah Palin’s pregnancies, whether the trooper who tasered her nephew went to stun or half stun, the cost of her clothes, and her personal expenses — indeed, almost everything except how a mother of so many children gets elected councilwoman, mayor, and governor, routs an entrenched old-boy cadre, while maintaining near record levels of public support. 

Yet the American public knows almost nothing of what it should about the extraordinary career of Joe Biden, the 36-year veteran of the Senate. In unprecedented fashion, Biden has simply avoided the press for most of the last two months, confident that the media instead would deconstruct almost every word of “good looking” Sarah Palin’s numerous interviews with mostly hostile interrogators. 


By accepted standards of behavior, Biden has sadly proven wanting. He has committed almost every classical sin of character — plagiarism, false biography, racial insensitivity, and serial fabrication. And because of media silence, we don’t know whether he was kidding when he said America would not need to burn coal, or that Hezbollah was out of Lebanon, or that FDR addressed the nation on television as president in 1929 (surely a record for historical fictions in a single thought), or that the public would turn sour on Obama once he was challenged by our enemies abroad. In response, the media reported that the very public Sarah Palin was avoiding the press while the very private Joe Biden shunned interviews and was chained to the teleprompter.

For two months now, the media reaction to Biden’s inanity has been simply “that’s just ol’ Joe, now let’s turn to Palin,” who, in the space of two months, has been reduced from a popular successful governor to a backwoods creationist, who will ban books and champion white secessionist causes. The respective coverage of the two candidates is ironic in a variety of ways, but in one especially — almost every charge against Palin (that she is under wraps, untruthful, and inept) was applicable only to Biden. 

So we are about to elect a vice president about whom we know only that he has been around a long time, but little else — and nothing at all why exactly Joe Biden says the most astounding and often lunatic things. 

Imagine the reaction of Newsweek or Time had moose-hunting mom Sarah Palin claimed FDR went on television to address the nation as President in 1929, or warned America that our enemies abroad would test John McCain and that his response would result in a radical loss of his popularity at home. 

THE PAST AS PRESENT
In 2004, few Americans knew Barack Obama. In 2008, they may elect him. Surely his past was of more interest than his present serial denials of it. Whatever the media’s feelings about the current Barack Obama, there should have been some story that the Obama of 2008 is radically different from the Obama who was largely consistent and predictable for the prior 30 years. 

Each Obama metamorphosis in itself might be attributed to the normal evolution to the middle, as a candidate shifts from the primary to the general election. But in the case of Obama, we witnessed not a shift, but a complete transformation to an entirely new persona — in almost every imaginable sense of the word. Name an issue — FISA, NAFTA, guns, abortion, capital punishment, coal, nuclear power, drilling, Iran, Jerusalem, the surge — and Obama’s position today is not that of just a year ago.

Until 2005, Obama was in communication with Bill Ayers by e-mail and phone, despite Ayers reprehensible braggadocio in 2001 that he remained an unrepentant terrorist. Rev. Wright was an invaluable spiritual advisor — until spring of 2008. Father Pfleger was praised as an intimate friend in 2004 — and vanished off the radar in 2008. The media might have asked not just why these rather dubious figures were once so close to, and then so distant from, Obama; but why were there so many people like Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko in Obama’s past in the first place? 

Behind the Olympian calm of Obama, there was always a rather disturbing record of extra-electoral politics completely ignored by the media. If one were disturbed by the present shenanigans of ACORN or the bizarre national call for Americans simply to skip work on election day to help elect Obama (who would pay for that?), one would only have to remember that in 1996 Obama took the extraordinary step of suing to eliminate all his primary rivals by challenging their petition signatures of mostly African-American voters. 

In 2004, there was an even more remarkable chain of events in which the sealed divorce records of both his principle primary rival Blair Hull and general election foe, Jack Ryan, were mysteriously leaked, effectively ensuring Obama a Senate seat without serious opposition. These were not artifacts of a typical political career, but extraordinary events in themselves that might well have shed light on present campaign tactics — and yet largely remain unknown to the American people.

Imagine the reaction of CNN or NBC had John McCain’s pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years been revealed as a white supremacist who damned a multiracial United States, or had he been a close acquaintance until 2005 of an unrepentant terrorist bomber of abortion clinics, or had McCain himself sued to eliminate congressional opponents by challenging the validity of African-American voters who signed petitions, or had both his primary and general election senatorial rivals imploded once their sealed divorce records were mysteriously leaked.

SOCIALISM?
The eleventh-hour McCain allegations of Obama’s advocacy for a share-the-wealth socialism were generally ignored by the media, or if covered, written off as neo-McCarthyism. But there were two legitimate, but again neglected, issues. 

The first was the nature of the Obama tax plan. The problem was not merely upping the income tax rates on those who made $250,000 (or was it $200,000, or was it $150,000, or both, or none?), but its aggregate effect in combination with lifting the FICA ceilings on high incomes on top of existing Medicare contributions and often high state income taxes. 

In other words, Americans who live in high-tax, expensive states like a New York or California could in theory face collective confiscatory tax rates of 65 percent or so on much of their income. And, depending on the nature of Obama’s proposed tax exemptions, on the other end of the spectrum we might well see almost half the nation’s wage earners pay no federal income tax at all. 

Questions arise, but were again not explored: How wise is it to exempt one out of every two income earners from any worry over how the nation gathers its federal income tax revenue? And when credits are added to the plan, are we now essentially not cutting or raising taxes, but simply diverting wealth from those who pay into the system to those who do not? 

A practical effect of socialism is often defined as curbing productive incentives by ensuring the poorer need not endanger their exemptions and credits by seeking greater income; and discouraging the wealthy from seeking greater income, given that nearly two-thirds of additional wealth would be lost to taxes. Surely that discussion might have been of interest to the American people.

Second, the real story was not John McCain’s characterization of such plans, but both inadvertent, and serial descriptions of them, past and present, by Barack Obama himself. “Spreading the wealth around” gains currency when collated to past interviews in which Obama talked at length about, and in regret at, judicial impracticalities in accomplishing his own desire to redistribute income. “Tragedy” is frequent in the Obama vocabulary, but largely confined to two contexts: the tragic history of the United States (e.g., deemed analogous to that of Nazi Germany during World War II), and the tragic unwillingness or inability to use judicial means to correct economic inequality in non-democratic fashion.

In this regard, remember Obama’s revealing comment that he was interested only in “fairness” in increasing capital-gains taxes, despite the bothersome fact that past moderate reductions in rates had, in fact, brought in greater revenue to government. Again, fossilized ideology trumps empiricism.

Imagine the reaction of NPR and PBS had John McCain advocated something like abolishing all capital gains taxes, or repealing incomes taxes in favor of a national retail sales tax.

The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Pitbull T-Shirts

Well, girls, the left will stop at absolutely NOTHING. As many of you know, I have been selling t-shirts, which you will see pictured on the bottom right column of this site, the majority of the proceeds from which will go to various Down Syndrome charities. Well...someone has hacked into our paypal account and charged me quite a few bogus charges. Thankfully, Paypal has rectified the situation, however, I am pulling the paypal link from the site, and anyone else wishing to purchase a shirt should contact me directly through the site. I can bill you directly. 

I have had many comments left here today saying that I have no idea who hacked my account (as if they know the specifics...do they??). I have had a paypal account for years, and never once have had an issue. In the same week that I am getting middle of the night prank calls, threatening mail, threatening comments, etc...my personal paypal account, through which I am selling Sarah Palin t-shirts, gets hacked! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...especially when it has come to light that the Obama campaign is specifically targeting blogs and individual citizens such as Joe the plumber for exercising our rights to free speech which happen to strongly oppose his views. What I cannot wait to see is exactly where these charges came from. 

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Virtue of Selfishness

This morning, in Sarasota, Florida, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. plowed through another of his automated diatribes.  However, in the midst of his usual double speak, Obama's political split personality syndrome manifested itself in a moment of unguarded candor. 

The Obama before the 2008 presidential election campaign is not the presidential Obama who deals in the cheap currency of campaign promises.  The authentic Obama is the friend and associate of society's ideological subversives: Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Kahlidi to name a few. These are substantial associations and speak to the issue of character. Contrary to liberal ideology (and the Obama campaign), history is not malleable. 

This morning, perched on his sanctified dais, Obama responded to the accusation that he is, in fact, a socialist.  What was his enlightened response?  Obama did not deny the charge but simply retorted that selfishness has become a virtue.  Is this just Obama's version of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program) Apparently, it's selfish to keep what you've worked hard for.  It's selfish to not desire to relinquish your hard earned money to the Federal government so Congress can turn around and hand it over in another Democratic Party multi billion dollar bailout/handout session. It's selfish for the individual to desire to remain an individual and to succeed. Selfish for everyone except Obama, ensconced in his million dollar dacha. Maybe, Obama will balance the budget by the end of his first term, despite the 700 billion dollar welfare check to the big banks, by confiscating our hard earned dollars in an orgy of aggressive taxation. Biden thinks it's patriotic to pay confiscatory taxes.  Obama thinks that keeping more of your hard earned dollars is selfish.  You do the math. What do you think an Obama presidency will mean to your bank account? Click here for Obama in his own words

Obama and Friends

We are being encouraged to call the L.A. Times IMMEDIATELY at these numbers: 
(213) 237-5000
(213) 237-7679 (fax)

Editor: letters@latimes.com (see this link for guidelines)

Questions or concerns about the Times' journalistic standards and practices: readers.rep@latimes.com or 877-554-4000

Ask them to release the Obama/Khalidi tape immediately!

What's the big deal? See this link.

Gotta Love Those Bumper Stickers!

“I’ll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money.  You can keep THE CHANGE.”
Vote For McCain Palin 2008

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Do YOU See?

by Karen
When I see Trig, I see LIFE!


"Down Syndrome" should not be a death warrant!
90-94% of Down Syndrome diagnosed babies are currently aborted in our country.  In England, the rate is 95%.  Why do these mothers not want these children? What is the justification for taking a life just because it is not "perfect" enough?  

 ****************

When I see Trig, I see CONVICTION.


As Sarah puts it, it is one thing to "talk the talk." With the news that their baby would be born with Down Syndrome, they were being asked to "walk the walk." Upon hearing his baby would be born with this condition, Todd Palin's immediate response was, "We shouldn't be asking, 'Why us?' We should be saying, 'Well, why not us?'" I also love this from Sarah: "When I learned that Trig would have special needs, honestly, I had to prepare my heart...I did a lot of praying for understanding, and strength, and to see purpose. And what's been confirmed in me is every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. You know that there are the world's standards of perfection, and then there are God's, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake." 

Thank you, Sarah, for standing up for your values.

***************

When I see Trig, I see COMPASSION.


Children with Down Syndrome are complete! They are just a little bit more than complete. A "normal" person has 23 pairs of chromosomes, totaling 46. Through an improper cell division very early in their life, a person with DS has cells which carry an extra 21st chromosome, giving them a total of 47. You've no doubt noticed that people with Down Syndrome have some distinctive physical features. That is because the genetic makeup of those particular features resides on the 21st chromosome, which has a little too much material attached to it. Unfortunately, that extra chromosome also causes a degree of mental retardation. That doesn't mean many of these children can't learn to read and do many other things. They're just driving a slower vehicle than the rest of us. 

***************

When I see Trig, I see ACCEPTANCE.


I, too, have a child with special needs. When Down Syndrome came knocking at our front door, so to speak, wanting us to welcome it in to stay, I wasn't sure I had the courage to open that door. I knew our lives would never be the same again. I didn't want to face the stares and the whispers. I didn't know how to take care of a baby with special needs. Gradually, my heart changed from fear to acceptance. I learned to see and love my son for who he is. Somehow the stares and whispers don't matter anymore. 

In Sarah, I see a beautiful acceptance of her son's disabilities. In a speech in Pennsylvania, she recently said, "As for our baby boy, Trig, for Todd and me he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don't feel scared anymore. We feel
 blessed."

***************

When I see Trig, I see a little boy.


One of the things I wondered about most when my own son was born, was what he would be like. It didn't take us long to realize he is every bit a boy. He loves Thomas the Tank Engine, Cars, and baseball. He plays with trains and cars and knows how to run the DVD player. He wrestles with his big brothers and has water pistol fights with them. He's everyone's little brother, and they love him. Trig will bring the same life, love, and vitality to the Palin's home. 

***************

When I see Trig, I see hope.

Nothing warmed my heart more than seeing the Palin's passing little Trig back and forth on the stage at the Republican National Convention. Having that little boy in the spotlight , bringing the nation's gaze on the love in their family, hearing Sarah say to parents of special needs kids, "You will have an advocate in the White House!"--it all gives me hope. 

"There's purpose in this for a greater good to be met... I feel so privileged and blessed to have been chosen to have Trig in our lives. I do want it to help us in our cause... in allowing America to be a more welcoming nation for all of our children. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are most vulnerable."
--Sarah Palin

***************

When I see Trig, I see courage.


Sarah deserves praise, not criticism. Trig deserves love, not hatred. It takes courage and character to stand up for what you believe in, and to "walk the walk," as Sarah puts it. Character is what is sorely lacking in Washington! Let's put some of it back there [on November 4th]! 

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The "H" Word

What's in a name?  Well, a lot, I think.  A person's name carries intrinsic meaning, as well as historic, geographic, and familial context.  Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? A name evokes the image of the artifact since it embodies all that we have come to know about the object, through experience and association. So, what of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?  What's in this name?  And, why so much controversy?  The Obama campaign has forbidden the media from using the "H" word, Obama's middle name: Hussein.  It seems, as with the man, there is much to hide.  To use this name brings shouts of derision from the left and accusations of racism.  The Orwellian Ministry of Truth would not have us linger on the implications of Obama's philosophic lineage.  Obama's name has become a metaphor for all that he would wish to remain hidden.  It is an uncomfortable truth and representative of all that is suspect about his character. He is a pretender to the American tradition and a usurper of our constitutional liberties.  Obama views the constitution as merely a collection of "negative liberties."  Obama would fashion a socialist constitution in which Big Brother's obligations and authority would grow to encompass the dream of the welfare state: the centralized planning of each citizen's duties and responsibilities from cradle to grave. Taxation has been redefined as patriotic duty. Our fore bearers declared that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The incremental destruction of free markets through central planning and the creeping erosion of individual liberties are the necessary outcomes of Obama's spread the wealth plan. Obama's association with William Ayers is suppressed, as well as, his 20 year relationship with the infamous racist, Reverend Wright.  How does a man sit under the tutelage of an avowed racist, anti-capitalist, and America hater and not give assent to the subversive content of Wright's rabble rousing? Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. sat under the ravings of the radical Reverend Wright for decades, nodding his head, maybe belting out the occasional "Amen" but yet we are to believe that now Obama loves his fellow Americans, irrespective of race or creed.  This strains credulity. A long association of this nature, at the very least, suggests a tacit approval of the racist, afro-centric propaganda propounded by Wright.  Obama has much more to hide than just his middle name. Just as the "H" word is off limits, so too is Obama's association with ACORN. History will fully develop the insidious nature of ACORN and its role in the derailing of the Bush boom economy. ACORN is directly responsible for intimidating and bullying the banking industry (through crony Washington lobbyists) into providing loans to minorities who would not otherwise have qualified. Frank, Reid, and Pelosi were all complicitous in this dingy deed. Through their bumbling, millions of Americans are struggling financially. The Ministry of Truth seeks to suppress and forbid discourse that does not comport with it's political doctrines.  But, suppression only breeds rebellion in the hearts of true Americans and leads men and women of thought to wonder what dark and ignoble deeds lie obfuscated behind the threats and intimidation. 
      

Another Made Up Smear At Sarah: NOT TRUE

For those of you who are visiting the site for the first time and you wish to read about the issues, please be sure to visit the "blog archives" on the right of this screen near the bottom. We have covered pretty much everything there is to be covered about Sarah as a person, Sarah and Senator McCain on the issues, and the smears and other garbage that needs to be sifted through. You will also find link after link giving you helpful information as you try to stay informed before hitting the polls either to early vote this week, or next Tuesday, Election Day. 

To help you along the way, I am forwarding you to a post this morning over at Michelle Malkin's blog, Obama Cultists Cry Wolf: N-Word Yelled at Palin Rally! NOT!  It's very sad that, in this last week of perhaps the most important election of our lifetime, we are forced to have to defend ourselves against such typical nonsense. It's nothing new, we expect it...just roll with it and remember who and what we're up against. 

What the left wants is to distract us, so be careful folks. Stay focused on the task at hand: getting John McCain and Sarah Palin elected. Do not be discouraged! The polls (the ones that were THE most accurate last time) indicate that, even after Obama has spent millions more than McCain, this race is essentially tied. This is bad news for Obama, and it's why they are trying so hard to bully us by using the race card, denying Socialism is what it is, and all the other garbage that is out there. With the entire mainstream media (with the exception of FOX) in the tank for Obama--it's pretty remarkable what McCain Palin have done! So, keep smiling, keep encouraging others to get out and vote, PRAY and lets get 'er done!! We have 6 DAYS to go! 

Monday, October 27, 2008

McCain Palin Healthcare Plan


To get a better explanation of the McCain Palin healthcare plan, and to have the Obama lies regarding this issue corrected, see this link

The Clothing Issue...AGAIN.

Hmmmm, turns out Sarah Palin never got $150,000 worth of clothes--so all that stink the libs made was for naught. The amount that was actually spent was 1/3 of that amount, and she never went shopping herself. Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard, says it was a McCain Palin Staffer, Nicole Wallace. According to Barnes, Nicole went and purchased many different clothes in many sizes for Sarah and family to try. It was not solicited. Shame on Nicole Wallace, or whoever did this, for allowing Sarah Palin to take the heat for this mess all this time when it was her own doing in the first place. It will be interesting to see how this plays out--who is this staffer, an Obama plant?? ;-)

Oh, and before you go thinking the McCain Palin campaign has gone to hell in a hand basket, remember where the news of that started, and read more on it here

Remember girls, we are dealing with a media that is COMPLETELY in the tank for Obama. Nothing they say can be trusted, and yes I did just say that! They mix truth with fiction and you are left to sift through the garbage and figure it out on your own. Thank God we have outlets like Fox News, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others to help us--at least we hear balance on FOX, and the libs cannot stand having even ONE channel that does that. Get ready folks, if Obama is elected it's very possible you won't hear it anywhere!

Press on girls! This race isn't over!! Get out the vote--remember, we have to cancel out all the dead people and cartoon characters that are casting their votes. 

**Update: Nicole Wallace says it wasn't her, so we'll watch for the news on this and update you as soon as we can find a reputable source. 

Hard Hitting Ad: THE TRUTH

See this link and donate to GOPTrust.com if you wish to help them run this ad in the battleground states. 

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Truth, Or Lack Thereof, In Journalism

This article first appeared in The Rhonocerous Times in Greensboro, North Carolina, and has since been rerun in many national publications. I was trying to work on a piece on this very subject today when a reader, Jan, forwarded this article to me. It's long, but well worth the time it takes to read. 

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
October 5, 2008

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading
All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled
"Do Facts Matter?":  "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

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.