Saturday, October 25, 2008

More News You Won't Hear Much About

Did you hear that there's a video of Barack Obama attending and participating in an event in honor of radical Islamist Rashid Khalidi (an event that reportedly was strongly anti-Jewish)--but because the public dissemination of such video would work against Obama, the LA Times is refusing to release it or tell where they got a copy? (Do you think for a moment they'd hold back on a video if it showed John McCain at the same gathering?)

Or that tough questions regarding Barack Obama's socialist tendencies in fiscal policies not only don't get answered, they get the questioning reporter banned from any further interviews with the Obama-Biden media coup... err, campaign?

Or that within hours of Joe the Plumber's talk with Barack Obama, government computers were illegally used to access supposedly private information... and that information was leaked by Obama politicos in an attempt to discredit and/or smear Joe Wurzelbacher, the man who dared to question Obama?

Or that while people are arguing about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes, no attention is being given to the $5+ million spent for the Greek Temple of Obama constructed for the Democrat's convention?

Or that Obama volunteers decided to withdraw their fraudulent Ohio ballots when they were told that they would face felony charges for voter fraud if they cast ballots without meeting the requirements?

Or that, in order to raise maximum funding while circumventing FEC regulations regarding overseas donations and untraceable funding, Barack Obama's donation website has purposely disabled all credit card security, allowing people to process credit card charges under false names and false addresses--the sort of thing that would result in a business's credit card processing account being shut down in days?

Unfortunately, you don't hear much about any of these things, because widespread national dissemination of this information might work against the media's attempted coronation of Barack Obama as the country's next President. But it's important for people to know that this is the modus operandi of the man who may become our next President.

As Orson Scott Card said, "would the last honest reporter please turn on the lights?"

19 comments:

JaniceG said...

Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here goes anyway:

* The Khalidi thing - I don't know enough about this to comment except to say that Obama's voting record and public statements have always been in support of Israel and that he picked a vice presidential candidate with one of the best pro-Israel voting records in the Senate. (As you can imagine, this issue is of some concern to me.)

* Or that tough questions regarding Barack Obama's socialist tendencies in fiscal policies not only don't get answered, they get the questioning reporter banned from any further interviews with the Obama-Biden media coup... err, campaign?

Have you watched the clip? Do you really think that quoting Karl Marx and asking whether Biden's running mate is a Marxist is a truly unbiased interview question?

* Or that within hours of Joe the Plumber's talk with Barack Obama, government computers were illegally used to access supposedly private information... and that information was leaked by Obama politicos in an attempt to discredit and/or smear Joe Wurzelbacher, the man who dared to question Obama?

Read the story in your link carefully. It says that although the records were accessed by accounts assigned to various offices, "test accounts" were used and there is absolutely no allegation in this story that the people who accessed the information were from Obama's campaign, given that no one yet knows who accessed the information -- overeager reporters is just as legitimate a guess and that's all this is, speculation.

* Or that while people are arguing about the cost of Sarah Palin's clothes, no attention is being given to the $5+ million spent for the Greek Temple of Obama constructed for the Democrat's convention?

The DNC spent money on the *Democratic Convention*, a legitimate expense. Even if they went overboard, the money they spent was given to the Democrats to be used for things related to the party, and it's hard to get much more relevant that the party's convention.

Palin's clothes, OTOH, are a personal expense that is forbidden, in a matter of sheer irony, by the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibits the use of campaign money for clothing, even if the RNC is wiggling out of it on a technicality. And apparently, Palin will have to declare the value of "renting" the clothing as income even if the clothing is ruled to officially belong to the RNC and later is donated to charity.

Which donors do you think feel more that their money was spent for the purpose they intended it: Democrats who gave money to the DNC that was spent on the DNC's convention, or Republicans who gave money to the RNC that was spent on designer clothing and shoes?

And, btw, most of the outrage about the clothing is because of the campaign's attempting to portray Palin as a typical middle-class hockey mom. They don't generally wear clothes from Nieman Marcus or Saks. And there is a wide range of price points for clothing, too.

(Actually, speaking of media coverage, I want to know why there wasn't more coverage about Palin buying a tanning bed for the governor's mansion -- even if she spent her own money, that's not exactly what you'd expect a middle-class mom with four kids to be spending her money on.)

* Or that Obama volunteers decided to withdraw their fraudulent Ohio ballots when they were told that they would face felony charges for voter fraud if they cast ballots without meeting the requirements?

I'll grant you this one, although apparently the staffers were from a Manhattan-based political action committee and were not directed to do this by the Obama campaign.

* Or that, in order to raise maximum funding while circumventing FEC regulations regarding overseas donations and untraceable funding, Barack Obama's donation website has purposely disabled all credit card security, allowing people to process credit card charges under false names and false addresses--the sort of thing that would result in a business's credit card processing account being shut down in days?

I must admit, I hadn't heard this one, but there are apparently counter-charges that are being made about McCain's fundraising also, and those also have not been covered by the press.

Lanny said...

I think Obama and those around him are so convinced his personal manifest destiny, that they believe the ends justify the means.

If one is 'destined' to rule, why let propriety stand in the way?

JaniceG said...

Lanny, I've tried to provide some perspective above.

Frankly, from my point of view, McCain and the people around him are so desperate for a victory that they are whipping up a frenzy of distrust and hatred that goes far beyond mere policy disagreements and petty charges into class warfare and outright lying about the opposing candidate. I truly, truly fear for the country if Obama wins but not for the same reason you and Cliff and others like you do - not only do I not know how he can govern people who have been whipped up into fear that he is an unpatriotic Muslim socialist terrorist, but more seriously, I fear that some nutjob will decide that it is his patriotic duty to use violence to remove Obama from the Presidency.

Lanny said...

janiceg-

You have expressed some of my other fears as well. It seems I do not fit so tightly into the group of "others like me" as you would think.

The rise of Obama is oddly timed and socially disproportionate in terms of it's fit with the average American mindset. Obama's campaign screams of foreign influence and blatant un-Americanism. A lot of people are acutely aware of this disconnect at a gut level and it bothers them. The details are ultimately less impacting than the felt 'wrongness'.

This much of a sweeping shift in American politics in such a short period of time is bound to create unrest and a unforeseen tide of social issues which will likely rock the foundations of this country for all time.

No matter the outcome of this election, someone will cry foul in the end and the resulting snowball effect will most likely generate a sad time for the United States. On top of that, our resulting perceived weakness will be a green light for those forces who seek this nation's demise to move forward with their plans to deconstruct the US both economically and as a military super power.

My biggest fear is that we are being sold out.

This country my not exist in 50 years.

"...divided we fall."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cliff said...

Regarding the access of Joe the Plumber's records: the information was disseminated by the Obama campaign less than 24 hours after the publicized conversation--so obviously someone with Omba affinities accessed the data and used it to benefit Obama, who has never spoken out against such a violation of privacy and the law.

And as to Biden--yes, I have watched the clip in question. Plagiarizin' Joe was treated far more fairly than Sarah Palin was treated by Katie Couric, for instance--but Palin chose to allow a free press to circumvent personalities, whereas Biden and Obama have a track record of personal retaliatiion against harsh (but legitimate) political questions. On most levels, Obama us a socialist--and in relation to the "from each according to his abilities..." quote, he agrees with core Marxist philosphies, based on his "spread the wealth" statement that he has subsequently re-assserted.

And it took Obama less than a day to backtrack on his pro-Israel "undivided Jerusalem" comment, as you can see at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/obama_backtracks_on_jerusalem.html

And Obama advisor Merrill McPeak has gone on record on multiple occasions as strongly advocating pressing Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, giving up the Golan Heights entirely.

I know of no one who has accused Obama of being a Muslim terrorist--but his tolerance within his circle of friends of terrorists like Ayers certainly leads me to doubt his judgment and integrity.

Independent reporters attempted to make phony donations (that is, donations using their real credit card numbers but phony names and addresses) to Obama and McCain. The Obama donations went through, because his campaign has intentionally deactivated all account verification software that is required by most online credit card processors; however, the McCain charges were rejected for failure to match cards with names/addresses.

(And this would be far less of an issue had Obama not lied regarding public financing of his campaign so that he could solicit donations, many of which are made with no verification of sources or identities.)

The lies and the personal attacks from Obama and Biden are much more severe than anything from McCain, as I see it--and the vicious and unfounded attacks on Sarah Palin (a woman with far more executive experience than Obama) have been particularly loathsome. Of course, Obama benefits because he has willing partners in the major media who are willing to carry the flag for him, waging those personal attacks that he and his supporters have set into motion.

Art said...

Well that's all very unfortunate, because he's going to be your next President. So be a true patriot and stand behind your President!

I don't have time to check every link as Janice G. did, but I've already read this Rashidi is a American-born professor at Columbia University. Like in the case of Ayers at the University of Illinois, I guess Columbia is just another supporter of "terrorists."

Lanny said...

He's not President yet and if we move further away from the US Constitution, the term patriot may end up being redefined.

IF Obama is elected, we will see his true nature one way or the other and we will reap the harvest be it bitter or sweet. We stand at a crossroad.

Ultimately, it's in God's hands. His will be done.

Art said...

Here is Obama addressing the Rashid issue himself. He's hardly running from it. You can also find video of him speaking to a B'nai Torah congregation.

This Rashid guy has also been a guest on Meet the Press, the McLaughlin group, every political TV show you can think of. Does that make them all terrorists?

cliff said...

First off, Obama isn't our president until the election is over, in spite of ACORN efforts.

As for Khalidi--the issue at hand is the gathering that Obama attended. Reports from those who were there was that many of the comments were strongly and insultingly anti-Israel. One news group has video of that event that would prove it to be true or not--and they have reported that it does show strong anti-Israel sentiment. However, that news medium refuses to release the video, since it would work against their attempts to see Obama elected. We now have news media openly refusing to reveal legitimate news because they don't like the effect it might have on the election--which means that they're not news media at all, but propaganda.

Should I point out, Art, that I didn't use the word terrorist at all--you did? My criticism was of the news media. We know that Khalidi is an enemy of Israel---he's made no secret of that--but the issue is that the newspaper in question is an enemy of news.

Paper-tigering the issue in an attempt to divert the true point doesn't work. The problem here is journalistic irresponsibility and subversion of truth in support of a chosen candidate.

JaniceG said...

Plagiarizin' Joe was treated far more fairly than Sarah Palin was treated by Katie Couric, for instance--but Palin chose to allow a free press to circumvent personalities,

What??? Palin has yet to give an open press conference. And you think that Couric asking Palin how her own claim that Alaska being close to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, or asking her what news media she accesses is somehow unfair treatment? But asking whether a candidate is socialist, going on to a different subject, and then coming back and quoting Marx and asking if a candidate is Marxist somehow is not?

And in what way is "trickle-down economics" any less "spreading the wealth" than giving tax breaks to the middle class and taxing those with a little more money slightly more?

And Obama advisor Merrill McPeak has gone on record on multiple occasions as strongly advocating pressing Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, giving up the Golan Heights entirely.

That is not Obama himself. As I've already mentioned, he's made several pro Israel statements, has a pro Israel voting record, and if you want to talk about people who are likely to influence his foreign policy, as I already mentioned, his vice presidential candidate is considered one of the most pro-Israel Senators in Congress.

The lies and the personal attacks from Obama and Biden are much more severe than anything from McCain, as I see it--and the vicious and unfounded attacks on Sarah Palin (a woman with far more executive experience than Obama) have been particularly loathsome. Of course, Obama benefits because he has willing partners in the major media who are willing to carry the flag for him, waging those personal attacks that he and his supporters have set into motion.


If you honestly believe this, there is no point in my ever having a political discussion here. Neither Obama nor Biden nor official Obama spokespeople have *ever*, repeat, *ever* attacked Palin personally, or her family either. They have stuck to the issues. The most they've been doing is trying to connect McCain to Bush.

Palin, OTOH, has accused Obama of not loving America the same way that Americans do, of palling around with terrorists, and of creating a country where "the people were not free."

Obama answered the Ayers question during the third debate. He answered the ACORN accusation during the debate. Palin and McCain keep claiming that Obama has not been truthful about these issues but if they have some other more damning evidence about them, why don't they present it instead of implying that there are some deep, dark secrets there?

And if you're going to talk about other people making surrogate statements for candidates, how about Michelle Bachmann claiming on national TV that Obama is anti-American? And the robocalls by the same operative who smeared McCain during his campaign against Bush that claim besides the Ayers connection, which has been blown all out of proportion by the McCain campaign to start with, that Obama wants to give "civil rights to terrorists" because he supported appeals for those held in Guantanamo Bay?

And Palin's much-vaunted "executive experience" is a red herring - if you look into it, you'll see that it doesn't amount to much at all: Alaska does not present many challenges to a governor given its resources due to oil money coming in, and its population is largely homongenous. Its population is about the size of Poughkeepsie, NY.

Obama's experience in dealing with national and international affairs might not be much compared to others in Congress but it's certainly more than Palin, who even if you do grant her "executive experience" in Alaska has never evidenced any curiosity about or interest in more wide-ranging national or global policy or affairs.

Look, everyone is entitled to disagree on policy or experience. Those are legitimate questions. But if you're going to argue that Obama and Biden have been waging more of an attack campaign than McCain and especially Palin, you're flying in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

cliff said...

"Trickle down economics," basically, is the philosophy that it's a good idea to let those who actually produce the wealth keep more of the money that they produce! That's only "spreading the wealth" if you actually believe that all wealth actually belongs to the government and any amount of money they let the productive members of society actually keep for themselves is somehow a government subsidy. I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

Doesn't matter how dismissive you are towards Alaska, Palin's experience running that state puts here ahead of Obama in executive experience by an enormous exponential factor.

Obama attempted to defuse the Ayers and the ACORN problems during that debate by dissembling and misrepresenting. He has yet to fully answer for his links to a known domestic terrorist and for his support of an organization involved in widespread voter fraud. And now we have the LA Times working with him to keep the public in the dark about his presence at an event that was reportedly quite anti-Israel. Did Obama object? Did he walk out? Did he speak up in favor of Israel in any way? We won't know, because the Times finds something worrisome enough in the video that they're withholding that news.

cliff said...

Forgot to say, Janice, that I'll give you the point that Obama and Biden have learned well to have their troops do the smearing and character assassination for them, rather than doing it themselves. I should have said "Obama and Biden's campaign," rather than the men themselves.

JaniceG said...

Doesn't matter how dismissive you are towards Alaska, Palin's experience running that state puts here ahead of Obama in executive experience by an enormous exponential factor.

I keep hearing this touted but I have no idea why "executive experience" as the governor of an isolated state is more relevant to success as VP or P than 8 years in the state legislature, graduating Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations, serving on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible fore U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the NATO.

More than that, though, he's exhibited curiosity and interest in government and foreign affairs, which is more than anyone has been able to say about Palin: all McCain can ever tout is her "executive experience" and record of reform, but many of the "reform" measures they cite were not successful or blatantly misrepresented, and she continued to lie about them even after facts about them came to light.

Obama attempted to defuse the Ayers and the ACORN problems during that debate by dissembling and misrepresenting. He has yet to fully answer for his links to a known domestic terrorist and for his support of an organization involved in widespread voter fraud

Are you listening to yourself? This is all total innuendo and is the high-stakes political equivalent of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Ayers committed his actions when Obama was *8 years old*, and the board on which he served with him was connected to Republican Walter Annenberg, for heaven's sake. And hosting one fundraiser for a local congressional candidate does not equal "palling around." If there were any more to this connection, believe me the staffs of either Hillary or McCain would have dug it up.

As for ACORN, McCain himself has praised their work in the past. They're not connected to the Obama campaign, and the campaign is not paying them.

As for the anti-Israel event, I notice that you have not dealt with my comments about his voting record and his picking Biden, one of the most pro-Israel senators in Congress, and a lot more likely to have influence on Obama's foreign policy than the people you cite here.

I'll give you the point that Obama and Biden have learned well to have their troops do the smearing and character assassination for them, rather than doing it themselves. I should have said "Obama and Biden's campaign," rather than the men themselves.

And once again, there's no defense for this: Oh, well, they didn't say but because it was said, of course they must have arranged it.

I'm not sure what "smearing and character assassination" you're referring to that you claim has come from people supportive of the Obama and Biden campaign. However, I doubt it's anywhere near the false, inciting, and divisive accusations of the actual candidates, McCain and especially Palin, that Obama is not as American as "real" Americans, has terrorist leanings, and will work to make Americans less free.

cliff said...

The fraudulent actions of ACORN on behalf of Obama are far from innuendo; the organization's representatives and organizers are on record as repeatedly touting ACORN's pro-Obama bias, their voter frauds have been documented for weeks, and Obama's links to them (including funding links between Obama and ACORN) are public record.

Obama's links to a domestic terrorist are more than casual. Furthermore, they show a dangerous tendency on Obama's part to seek out the support and involvement of dangerous fringe elements---a lack of judgment and prudence that is unacceptable in a president.

Obama's current actions, including his backtracking on the undivided Jerusalem issue, say as much to me as his voting record. If during a campaign he's willing to minimize his support for Israel, then I believe he will do much more than that should he win the election. And of course, the video that the LA Times refuses to reveal would show us just how anti-Israel the event was, and what if any response to that hostility was demonstrated by Obama. The fact that the paper won't produce the video leads us to assume that its contents aren't flattering at all to Obama.

JaniceG said...

The fraudulent actions of ACORN on behalf of Obama are far from innuendo; the organization's representatives and organizers are on record as repeatedly touting ACORN's pro-Obama bias, their voter frauds have been documented for weeks, and Obama's links to them (including funding links between Obama and ACORN) are public record.

Here is the research from Politifact. I don't judge this to be a case of Obama or his campaign trying to get fraudulent votes through ACORN or arranging or encouraging them to do so:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/politifact/6070356.html

Obama's links to a domestic terrorist are more than casual. Furthermore, they show a dangerous tendency on Obama's part to seek out the support and involvement of dangerous fringe elements---a lack of judgment and prudence that is unacceptable in a president.

Again, please provide facts to back up this statement. Obama explained his connection to Ayers in the debate. I have yet to see any proof that he had any connection other than the school board he mentioned, which was casual and limited to that issue, or one fundraiser years ago when he was first running for the state legislature. If you have seen other absolute facts that his links to "a domestic terrorist" that involve anything to do with domestic terrorism, or with Ayers actually somehow being connected with his campaign, his policies over the years, or providing "support and involvement," then please provide it. If you have proof besides the Ayers issue and the Khalidi thing that he is surround himself with "dangerous fringe elements," please provide it. Otherwise, this is pure innuendo, supposition, and scare tactics and is not supported by any reasonable facts.

then I believe he will do much more than that should he win the election. And of course, the video that the LA Times refuses to reveal would show us just how anti-Israel the event was, and what if any response to that hostility was demonstrated by Obama. The fact that the paper won't produce the video leads us to assume that its contents aren't flattering at all to Obama.

Again, no facts. "You believe" he will backtrack on Israel. I believe that his statements and his choosing of Biden show that he won't.

McCain and Palin have created a cloud of innuendo and doubt about Obama without providing actual factual information, or by taking a kernel of truth and blowing it up into something negative and appalling when the actual facts are not damning. I am truly sorry to see that this tactic has taken hold in someone whose judgment and character I otherwise respect greatly.

cliff said...

I wrote and posted a lengthy comment, Janice, then deleted it because I honestly felt it would serve no purpose other than to further anger you. You are quite convinced that Obama is the right man for the job; I am quite convinced that there are few men more wrong for the job than Obama. It is clear that we're not changing one another's mind, and that each of his has sources that the other considers biased. We see none of this through the same eyes. When we get to the point where each of us sees the other one as a victim of deception, then there's no need for further conversation; we're talking at one another, not to one another.

JaniceG said...

I must regretfully agree.

Art said...

FOX News even thinks Obama is pro-Isreal. Larry King said last night that CNN had also researched this Khalidi guy and didn't find anything to justify the McCain campaigns allegations. (Larry King is Jewish so I don't think he would be interested in defending a anti-Israel candidate.)