Trick Or Treat

TRICK OR TREAT

Everyone agrees that one of these candidates, if elected, would be a disaster for America.

If you are an American voter, all you have to do is to decide which …and then vote for the other guy.

Happy Halloween,
and good luck to us all!

Read More Dry Bones by Yaakov Kirschen

No Dissent Sign – Cartoon

My latest cartoon:

Thanks to:  NetRight Nation

A Project of Americans for Limited Government

Palin Burned For Obama’s Petty Cash

PALIN BURNED FOR OBAMA’S PETTY CASH

Andrew Bolt

Tracee Hutchison is firmly of the far-Left, and has bought the lines that Sarah Palin isn’t smart and that $150,000 really was spent on her clothes. (Fact check here.)

But even she can smell a witch-burning and has the integrity to protest:

Palin is not the first ill-experienced or ill-equipped person to run for high political office. The big difference is that these people are usually men and they are never — repeat never — subjected to the same scrutiny or reduced to the same kind of personal attacks as women.

The hullaballoo over her $150,000 clothing allowance is a classic example. Has anyone writing this stuff actually been shopping for women’s clothes? Do any of them know how much hair and make-up costs? The woman is running for vice-president of the United States. Not secretary of Wasilla hockey club. If I were Sarah Palin I’d have a personal hair and make-up person too. Can you imagine the carry-on if she appeared onstage or on the telly looking as if she’d been caught in a wind-tunnel? Or if she stepped out in something that looked a little too hokey?

Why aren’t we similarly learning about the price of Barack Obama’s suits? Or what it cost to deck out Michelle and the kids in those colour-toned matching outfits at the nomination acceptance? I’d estimate $25,000 for the four of them on that night alone — minimum.

It is plainly absurd, but the stories of Palin’s clothing extravagances squeezed her and Cindy McCain back into jeans this week as a counter-blow while Obama spent millions of dollars on a single ad.

And just why has Palin become such juicy fodder for comedians when comment on Obama’s race and colour are completely off limits? Clearly it’s OK to pillory women but it’s not OK to pillory people of colour. Why?

Palin tends to agree, but is too classy to complain too loudly. But where is the rest of the feminist army, protesting on her behalf?

While so much of the media is in such a happy froth over the $150,000 that was (not) spent on Palin, what is astonishing is that they’re largely OK with the unprecedented US$639 million being spent on Obama’s campaign.

If the Republicans were outspending the Democrats two to one, rather than vice versa, wouldn’t the media be full of stories about the corruption of democracy by the power of money? Wouldn’t they demand to know just who is stumping up all that cash, and why their identities are being concealed? Wouldn’t they be horrified to find that a sizeable part of that war-chest was donated by foreigners and people using fake names?

But, no, a trumped up story about Palin’s big spending fits does the job that’s actually required.

UPDATE

A statistical analysis of media bias. It’s pervasive, and not all that new.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Americans BEWARE Australian internet to be CENSORED by Australian Labor Party

By Ridge

(The Australian Labor Party share the same Political ideals as the US Democratic Party)

Australians fell hook line and sinker for the “Need for change” mantra (code for Communism.. oops sorry Socialism) in November 2007, the UN and its Australian lick spittle lackey, Dear Leader Lu Kewan aka Kevin Rudd are starting to tighten the chains around Australians necks, the CENSORSHIP of the internet was one they were hoping Australians would not notice.

Australia’s Dear Leader Kevin Rudd aka Lu Kewan in the 2007 election campaign telling Australians of the Great Changes he and his Socialist party will bring to Australia, for ‘working families” and how Australia will be a fairer nation once he has shared the wealth.
In the 10 months since Dear Leader has been elected Australia’s “working families” have never been worse off 3 interest rate rises and unemployment rising to traditional Labor Party levels (10 plus%)

Americans be warned, think before you vote, unfortunately for Australia, on November 7 2007 most Australians did not, …..think that is.

Australia’s “Dear Leader” Socialist Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Lu Kewan, came to power promising everything the American Democratic candidate Barack Obama is promising the American people should he be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America. Mr Rudd is an Obama / UN / Islam / Multiculturalist apologist , who sees Australia and her Judeo / Christian middle class majority as nothing more than a blight and an affront to the Socialist ideology, to be eliminated in any way possible so as to ensure the implementation of the United Nations international socialism.

Like Mr Obama, Mr Rudd was a political nobody, with no experience of running anything of worth, let alone a country, he was an adviser to the former socialist Queensland Goss government, and he is famous for ordering the shredding of all documentation into the police investigation of a two times gang rape of a young Aboriginal child, this high point in Mr Rudd’s career is known as the Heiner affair. He was known by his peers in the Queensland government of Wayne Goss as Dr Death. As far as I am aware Mr Rudd did not achieve the high office of “community organizer” perhaps if he did he would just do to his wife / partner (or the ladies at Scores NY “Gentlemans Club” ) what he and his party are doing to my country.

*Re Scores New York Night Club It must be noted that Mr Rudd still maintains that he was too drunk to remember what happened when he was there, or can remember what activities took place whilst he was there, but he denies behaving the way management says caused them to escort Mr Rudd from the premises, Mr Rudd also maintains that in spite of not doing anything that would be regarded as unacceptable behavior for a married man he did call his partner /wife Ms Therese Rein / Mrs Rudd, in the early hours of the morning following his ejection from Scores NY to apologise for the behavior he was accused of by the Scores NY management. Please note Mr Rudd at all times has maintained that he did nothing that would warrant making an apology for even though he felt compelled to apologise to his partner / wife just in case he did do something wrong, however he denies doing any of the things Scores NY say he did… hey makes sense to me…… I think.

Mr Rudd’s election campaign was riddled with almost every slogan and bumper sticker that I see written and spoken in Mr Obama’s campaign, that is not so surprising, I guess when you consider that the Democratic Party sent to Australia before and 2007 election campaign began some of their top spin doctors to oversee and advise the Australian Labor Party on how to best sell the socialist message, the Chinese Government at the invitation or the Australian Labor Party also sent their Chinese government adviser’s to “counsel” the large Chinese “communities” in crucial electorates, (former conservative PM John Howard’s seat of Bennelong been one of them) on who to vote for, in order for the Chinese Government’s Australian (branch) ideological soul mates, to win the 2007 Australian federal election. Dear Leader Lu Kewan, Wooops sorry, Australian PM Kevin Rudd.

The article below is from the Sydney, Daily Telegraph on page 4 29 10 08 I have not been able to find this story on news.com.au web site I have scanned the page from the paper and reproduced it here.

Compulsory censorship for internet.

Daily Telegraph 29 10 08 Pg. 4

THE Federal Government will make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia and anorexia. Australia’s level of net censorship will put it in the same league as China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

The Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter. Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy said the Government’s $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers – one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a “clean feed”, censoring adult material. Despite planning to hold “live trials” before the end of the year, Senator Conroy said it was not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia or pro anorexia sites on the chopping block. “We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material,” he said.

‘Australia’s level of net censorship will put it in the same league as China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea. The Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

That Pesky Hole In The Ozone Layer

Oh! Oh!

Remember the monstrously huge hole in the Ozone Layer back in the Eighties. Man, that was really frightening.

I’m so glad we solved that problem when we did. Phew! Dodged a real bullet there.

Remember those dastardly chlorofluorocarbons? (CFC’s)

Remember how those scientists threw their science at us telling us that the science proved conclusively that those CFC’s were the cause of this. Remember how Governments threw taxpayer dollars at those scientists to further investigate. Remember how those scientists, (now critically aware that those taxpayer funded grants might dry up if it was not correct) then categorically proved to us that it was, in fact, the case, and the baffling convoluted science was broken down to the usual seven second sound byte. Those CFC’s were burning the hole in that Ozone layer from the inside. Remember how it all sounded so believable. Remember how we were all sucked in. Remember how we trusted those guys to be telling us the unbiased truth. Remember how we all believed them, because the science that we could not understand was so logically put to us.

Remember then, how at enormous expense we changed every spray can of every spray product away from using those really harsh CFC’s as the propellant. Remember how we changed over all those deadly ‘Freon’ based gases in every airconditioner and every refrigerator in every building and every house and every car. Remember how the new replacement gas meant that all those new fridges and aircon units cost that whole mess of money more. Remember how we had to get rid of perfectly good operating refrigerators and aircon units and buy the new ones, or else spend an inordinate amount of money to have them regassed, an amount inflated, as it was found to be a good way to cash in. Remember how that new gas was not as efficient as the old one, and the units could not operate as cold as they once did. Remember how huge amounts of money were siphoned off to a grateful media who sucked it all up, producing advertisements that exhorted us that we were destroying the Earth’s surface. Remember the huge scare campaign. Remember how the sunscreen people cashed in on producing sunscreens with a higher SPF factor. Remember how those makeup manufacturers included it as a great new marketing ploy, with new and improved (and more costly) products that protected our skin from the increased harm from the different types of Solar UV radiation, the use of that word making the argument more emotive.

Remember how the huge hole was letting more of the Sun’s heat through, and this was going to melt the Antarctic Ice Sheet, kill all the Krill that the whales ate, and endangering a lot of the World’s animal species.

We had some absolutely despicable cases here in Australia. Well intentioned school teachers in dark tones told wide eyed students of the dangers, and how those deadly CFC’s were a component in ….. wait for it ….. Asthma puffers that kids used to alleviate their condition. Those asthma sufferers were then shunned, vilified, isolated, and banished as even their friends turned on them, calling them destroyers of the Earth. There were fights in school yards as bullies thrashed Asthma sufferers for using their puffers to help with their breathing. Kids were actually hospitalised here when they were too scared to use their puffers at school for fear of being beaten up, and had full blown asthma attacks. The teachers justified it later by saying children had a right to be informed, and actually used it as an example of how emotive this terrible situation was, not for the kid in hospital, but the fact that the kids puffers aroused ‘positive’ emotions. The puffers were subsequently changed and regulations introduced in schools so that asthmatic children were not allowed to have their puffers, the school had to be informed, any puffers handed into the school medical centre, the upshot being if the kid had an asthma attack in the playground then he had to somehow find a way to the school medical centre, and no other kid would help them because the asthmatic kid was now worse than a leper because he was contributing to the destruction of the Earth. Don’t tell me I’m going over the top because it actually happened, and was not an isolated case, but almost commonplace.

Remember Halon fire extinguishers, the best type of extinguisher there was. Useless, and not allowed to be used, and all removed from service.

Remember the never ending hype we were subjected to. Remember that everything became that little bit more expensive.

Well, it was all worth it.

The Montreal Protocol of 1987 solved the Hole in the Ozone Layer thing once and for all, and those scientists later declared the atmosphere totally free of those CFC’s, all gone. Thank heavens. Now, we have none of those filthy rotten CFC’s in anything.

Well, wait a minute then.

Noted scientists across the World have noticed that later this year that hole in the Ozone Layer (remember that) will be bigger than it has been for decades and the biggest since long before the panic of the mid Eighties.

It now seems that the hole is due to cosmic ion bombardment from outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and not from those CFC’s ‘melting’ it from the inside.

Read this story. It’s not a ‘Lone Ranger’ either. There are a lot of them, all saying the same thing.

So, let me get this right. Surely we weren’t hoodwinked were we?

Surely not???

This is surely the most Inconvenient of all Truths.

I wonder if Al Gore is going to say sorry. I wonder if they’ll take back all his awards.

I wonder how those scientists feel now. They’ll all be saying, not me. I didn’t say that.

Now, allow me some leeway here.

This is not me just making this up. This is actual scientists coming out with, not just theories, but actual proven fact. This is quite obviously observable. This is the truth, and it’s not just one scientist trying to prove one point. This is observable by all of them who are now looking. The map you’ll see after taking the link shows the hole, and just how large it is. There are no CFC’s left out there, so it can’t be throwback to that. They’ve told us, shown us, and proved to us that they are not there any more.

Now that this theory from the Eighties has been blasted out of the water, why oh why should we believe these same scientists who shifted from the solved problem to a new theory, the one of Global Warming, which now also proved that we might actually be cooling, so they conveniently change the name to Climate Change. Why should we even allow them oxygen.

Too late. Politics is on board now, and there’s a buck in it.

Never stand between a Politician and a bucket of money.

It’s now been proved that we really are gullible. Once enough bucks have been made, it’ll just quietly go the way of that pesky hole in the Ozone Layer.

If you tell the public often enough that one plus one equals three, pretty soon they’ll start to believe, and once enough people believe, pretty soon we’ll have a movement. Worst thing of all, those who question it are shot out down in flames. Don’t buck the trend buddy, the science proves it.

Yeah! Right!

It’s what I’ve been saying all along.

It has nothing to do with the environment. It’s just about the money.

Last Advice Before Election Day: VOTE for NATIONAL SURVIVAL!

Our friend and colleague Dr. Walid Phares is an author and terrorism expert who emailed the commentary below to a select group of people around the country. He has a keen grasp of the ideology at the root of Islamic terrorism and books he has written, such as Future Jihad, are high on our recommended reading list.

As we have made clear, ACT! for America does not endorse candidates. We provide information and education on issues related to national security and Islamic terrorism. With respect to the issues of national security and Islamic terrorism, Dr. Phares’ analysis of what is at issue and at stake in this election is invaluable reading. We strongly encourage you to make the time to read this and then forward it on to others.

---

After Comparing McCain and Obama’s agendas on Terror wars: I made my choice.

Dr. Walid Phares

In short, the financial drama that we’ve been living through is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of an attack against America. As I argued in previous writings, the first volley was OPEC’s driving the prices at the pumps as high as needed to crack our economic resilience. The hard core (and ideological) oil-producing regimes have been trying to affect the minds of millions of Americans in the same way al Qaeda’s propagandists did with the upset Spanish voters in March 2004.

Today OPEC launched its second offensive – possibly its last before election day – to reduce petrol production as prices fell very low. After hitting US citizens with an economic meltdown, it wants to smack them with a goods shortage crisis to force them into making the ultimate decision: jump into another realm. The current economically-induced crisis is only a treatment to provoke a regime change in America. As odd as it is, the forces pushing for the change “they need” have set the US Presidential election as a mechanism to morph this democracy into the uncharted future that awaits it, if the polls are on target.

Today Americans are readying, some have already begun, to elect a new President. This testimony I am putting forth aims at explaining my vision of this electoral benchmark in view of future developments, beyond November 4^th, the next four to eight years and throughout the first part of the twenty-first century. This vote, more than any previous ones, can transform America’s destiny radically, and with it, the future of many nations, particularly those civil societies suffering from oppression around the world. [Emphasis mine.  ---ed]

Most likely my analysis will be reviewed by a few thousand faithful readers. It is not sent out to influence the outcome of the election for it is too small in a universe of extremely powerful winds driving the electorate, on both sides of the debate. The arguments I am advancing in this piece are the least visible in the agendas of both camps, at least in the next few days. But in the next decade and perhaps as early as the next few years or even months, historians and citizens will re-examine the dimensions of this discussion of the overarching grave menace hovering over US national security. This is why, as a scholar studying conflicts, I am writing about this particular election.

As an academic and counter-terrorism expert, I do not get involved in partisan and strictly political processes. But as in 2004’s Presidential election, this week’s voting choice will affect the current and future national defense and survival of this country. Hence it is my duty as a citizen with knowledge in this field to share my views and projections with fellow citizens: For the choices given to voters are dramatically opposed in terms of defining the direction in which this country will move to defend its democracy and freedom around the world.

The United States’ Presidency is endowed with powers that can impact global history in addition to the evolution of America as a democracy and as a nation. In this era of confrontation with the global Jihadi threats and of proliferation of catastrophic weapons, the direction selected by the next US President will affect not only this generation but the next one as well. Hence, regardless of the voting results on the 4^th and beyond, it is important to testify beforehand in writing, so that future readers would draw the lessons when confronted with similar choices. Therefore, my words will be rough and direct.

The national security experience

The US primaries produced two leaders and their running mates. With the utmost respect to their personal histories, sacrifices and achievements, are these three men and one woman the ultimate choice that could have been given to Americans? Their supporters feel it is the case while many others, including the partisans of those who were defeated in the parties’ primaries, claim otherwise. In my realm of study and concentration the question is different, simply because I believe national survival trumps everything else, in these times of world threats.

I frame it as follows: are the four contending politicians as aware of the enemy as the leaders of the enemy are aware of America’s weaknesses and resources? We will see. But I argue that we’ve seen US Presidents learning on the job, including the current president. On the evening of September 10, 2001, President George W Bush knew much less than Senators McCain and Obama on the evening of November 3, 2008; yet he confronted the country’s enemies for seven years while learning on the job.

Today, the average citizen’s instincts know more about the threat we’re facing than the combined advisors of Presidents Clinton and Bush before the War on Terror, as per the 9/11 Commission findings. So based on their records, speeches, length of service and publications regarding the national threat, one can project that the four leaders America has to consider for the two top offices would be ranked as follows: Senator John McCain comes first, Senator Joe Biden comes second and Senator Barack Obama and Governor Sarah Palin come equally third. This ranking is quantitative and verifiable. Based on a simple examination of past decades regarding McCain and Biden, and years regarding Obama and Palin, the strict “experience factor” in matters of war and peace, national security and defense, undoubtedly among the four, McCain would be the top man for the job, followed by Biden.

Hence since the Senator from Arizona has selected Palin as his running mate, he thus would assume the responsibility of her choice as his replacement if God forbid the worse were to happen. On the experience factor alone, it is ineluctable that, according to the famous phrase of Senator Hillary Clinton, I would trust the judgment of the former Navy Pilot, if awakened at 3 AM to address a national security calamity. But let’s go beyond the mere “experience factor.”

(To continue reading, please click here)

Thanks to ACT for this Critical Message!  —ed

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

Snoozing In The Pews During The Obama Worship Hour

SNOOZING IN THE PEWS DURING THE OBAMA WORSHIP HOUR

Pam Meister

Amber waves of grain. Children waving flags. Happy veterans. Glowing young couples. These are just some of the images seen on the Obama Worship Hour (otherwise known as a half hour paid political advertisement) last evening, broadcast on five channels: NBC, MSNBC, CBS, Fox and Univision. CNN declined the generous offer; ABC was unable to reschedule its Wednesday lineup in time. FOX News was not even invited to join the other supplicants at the altar.

Slickly produced, the 30-minute spot, with its soft music, emotive images and tearjerker stories of hardworking Americans going through difficult times (hey, why wasn’t I auditioned for this?), reminds one more of a movie on the Lifetime, Oxygen or Hallmark channels than a political ad. The kind of movie that makes you squirm uncomfortably in your seat in embarrassment, wondering when the commercial will come so you can run to the kitchen for a bracing jolt of caffeinated soda (or something stronger). But then you remember: the whole thing is a commercial!

(Cue shower music from Psycho…)

Those emotive images I mentioned? One of them includes Obama speaking to a group of retirees whose pensions were cut. He’s standing in the middle of a gazebo, the sun shining on his hair in a way that’s reminiscent of a – wait for it – halo. Yes, The One has indeed come back to lead the faithful to nirvana.

After two years on the stump and over a quarter of a million dollars spent, Obama has yet to close the deal with the American people. Was he able to convince them last night? That depends on how much of a tolerance the American people have for schmooze and snooze – which is pretty much what the Obama Worship Hour was from start to finish.

After the first profile of a struggling family, Obama blamed the recent market fallout on “eight years of failed policy” and said our economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression. He’s been saying this now for a number of weeks, hoping you won’t realize that really, we’re in the worst shape since the Carter administration. (Let’s play “Guess That Party!”)

Among his promises were those famous tax cuts for everyone making less than $200,000 a year. Of course, earlier this year the threshold was $300,000 and as recently as the last debate it was $250,000. And if you ask Joe Biden, the number is $150,000. But hey, who’s counting? Especially when the tax cut he’s promising for 95% of Americans actually amounts to a freebie from the government, since approximately one third of tax filers end up owing no income tax after taking their deductions and credits allowed by the IRS. Who gets to pay for this largesse? Higher-income bracket people – you know, rich people.

In other words, spreading the wealth. Oops.

He also promised loans for small businesses to help pay their workers “just like after 9/11.” I thought politicizing 9/11 was taboo. Oh right, that’s only Republicans. Gotcha. But wouldn’t those loans be unnecessary if he said, “Let’s NOT raise taxes” on anyone? Sorry, my brain sometimes goes all logical on me. I promise it won’t happen again.

Basically, Obama wants to “restore fairness to the American economy and fulfill our commitments to the American people.” The word “fairness” is more code for socialism: it’s not fair that some people are able to earn more, so we have to “level the playing field” by taking from some and giving it to others. And about those commitments: our Founders felt that the government’s biggest commitment was to stay out of our way. However, since Obama feels the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day,” it’s not surprising that he thinks that it’s his job to change government’s role in a way that has not been seen since Johnson’s (not so) Great Society. (Rush Limbaugh touched on this during his program yesterday in a “prebuttal” to Obama’s infomercial.)

Watching this, I must admit, I’m appalled at the way Obama has a tendency to drop his Gs in order to sound more folksy. According to Peggy Noonan, such talk is a “new vulgarization in American politics.” Oh wait, that note was for Sarah Palin. Move along, nothing to see here…

Ah, here we come to energy policy. Obama wants to invest $15 billion in renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels, claiming that 5 million jobs “that can never be outsourced” will be created. But is it the government’s job to invest money in what has, until now, been the domain of the private sector and free market? He’s also promising to help our automakers “retool” so they can build fuel-efficient cars. “Retool” here is another word for government handout to private corporations. Haven’t Americans had enough of bailouts? Maybe if the automakers would give the unions the boot they’d stand more of a chance at making a buck.

Besides, we’ve seen how the government handles investments through the muck-up of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Do we really want them handling more of our financial affairs?

Standing With McCain

By Gary Bernsten

Seven years ago this week, I was inserted into the mountains of Afghanistan as leader of a team of CIA Officers that would work in tandem with U.S. Army Special Forces. The goal: to bolster a fading force of the Northern Alliance as it prepared to do battle with a significantly larger and superior force of Taliban and al Qaeda.

It was a cold far away place with no assurance of a good outcome. The media experts were critical of our efforts and predicted calamity.

They cited the failed military campaigns of Britain and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and reviewed the math in terms of the numbers of fighters on the ground; they emphasized the Afghans’ superior knowledge of the terrain. Nevertheless the underdogs, a small force of dedicated Americans, affirmed their commitment to one another and to the nation, and incurred the hazards of war. We would ultimately prevail.

Much has passed since those early days of November 2001. The world of politics presents a different type of conflict, and I am involved yet again. This time I stand with Sen. John McCain.

This Presidential election provides a choice between two very different men who have vastly different world views and plans for America.

Sen. John McCain, the underdog, has a story of service, sacrifice and commitment to comrades and nation that makes him a living icon. With the media elites, Hollywood, and polls arrayed against him, Sen. McCain doesn’t flinch. He is all about principle. He knows that the election will be settled by the average American on Main Street. He has been left for dead before, only to return steel-eyed with a newfound sense of purpose.

Sen. Barak Obama, the favorite, is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the product of the Chicago political machine. At a time when more Americans are murdered on the streets of Chicago than lost to combat in Baghdad, Sen. Obama bases his campaign on a preemptive withdrawal from Iraq and a mantra of change. Further, Sen. Obama’s launch into politics and arrival on the national scene was made possible by a line-up of surly America-hating friends. His community organizing disciples and surrogates at ACORN have worked hard to corrupt the electoral process. And his straight-faced denial of leveraging ACORN with U.S. tax dollars to support his candidacy says much about his character.

Both men have addressed how they will deal with the significant economic problems facing the nation. An Obama victory will include a massive transfer of wealth directed by the government. The tax increases of a potential President Obama are likely to significantly damage the investment climate on which economic growth depends. Sen. Obama’s goal will be to reward and expand his voter base with the hard earned dollars of others.

Sen. McCain will fight to reduce the capital gains tax. But with a Democrat Congress, this will not be easy. He will be forced to discipline Congress and restrict wasteful spending using the veto. Only a McCain Presidency will halt the frenzied creation of Scandinavian-style socialism by Sen. Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in America. I visited Europe on my way back from Afghanistan this past summer and got to experience the wonders of the $12 dollar Big Mac. So much for the softer side of Marx and Engels.

America will not be able to tax its way out of its current problems. A focus on the proper exploitation of domestic and clean energy sources must be paramount. Sen. McCain is the only candidate in this race with a record of crossing the political aisle. He has the political will, courage and determination to fight for each and every American. It is simply not in his DNA to leave anyone behind. Digging out of recession and the reestablishment of a healthy and transparent financial sector will be a critical component of a McCain administration.

Sen. Obama is an eloquent and talented speaker. However, words mean little in a world of such grave danger. Sen. McCain’s experience, wisdom and judgment are the qualities that will secure the future of our families in the years ahead.

Gary Berntsen is a former CIA Senior Operations Officer and author of the bestselling book Jawbreaker, The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He is also the author of The Walk-in and the recently released policy book Human Intelligence Counterterrorism and National Leadership, A Practical Guide. Mr. Berntsen is the Chairman of New York Veterans Coalition for John McCain.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Elite Media and Goofy Ideas Try to Trash Governor Palin

Dr Yale Kramer

Things have gotten so wild and panicky in the field of political journalism these days that very goofy ideas can now get by editorial gatekeepers. One of the goofiest has been allowed to escape into the political ether from the romantically overheated brain of journalist Kathleen Parker.

She wants us to believe that John McCain chose his running mate because he went gaga over her. That her beauty, like Cleopatra’s, had clouded his judgment and rationality, and made him forget all of the more qualified possibilities like Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Joe Lieberman. She has no evidence for this except her sexual intuition, her perfervid imagination, and, oh yes, science. Journalists often resort to “science” when they have no facts to back up their views, and also do not know how science really works.

Parker latched on to an inexpensive little study done by a couple of young faculty members, one of thousands done each year in order to publish something to keep from perishing from their field of psychology. The experiment studies the narrow economic behavior of students and is thus largely irrelevant to the complexities of life and politics. But what Parker must have thought was so cute about this study was that it used the well known fact that men (and women) are attracted by beauty in the opposite sex – duh.

It is not a strange or deadly phenomenon, this observation that in most forms of animal life – birds, elephants, humans – the attraction of beauty and the fact that it is a powerful factor in evolutionary biology. The reason is that beauty is often correlated with states of good health and robustness. So that it is probable that when two beautiful people get together they are more likely to have their progeny survive.

So, contrary to Parker’s goofy idea that Sarah Palin swept John McCain off his feet, gave him a haircut, and took over his mind, astute politician that he is, he saw that Sarah Palin was prettier than Mitt Romney, more personally charming than Ron Paul, and younger, more assertive and livelier than Joe Lieberman. Perhaps more than journalists, politicians understand the effect of beauty and charm on the electorate. He knew what he needed on his ticket to win, and he was right.

One last point. Parker seems to feel that Sarah Palin’s qualifications are not up to standard. According to the Constitution there are no qualifications for President and Vice President except to be a naturally-born American and to be at least 35 years old, suggesting that what meant something to the founding Fathers was maturity and a sense of allegiance.

Why did they not write in an obvious list of job pre-requisites – solid knowledge of world history, major in micro and macro economics, five years in diplomacy and foreign policy, etc?  Because it’s not really necessary. Experts are a dime a dozen. What our Founding Fathers knew was needed was good judgment, a love of country, and uncommon sense.

And as for Palin, I’m sure she’ll be able to spell potato better than Dan Quayle and count the number of letters in j-o-b-s more accurately than Joe Biden.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Yale Kramer, a former faculty member and graduate of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, psychoanalyst and former Clinical Professor at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is the author of Talking Back to Liberal Power.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Palin Makes A Fool Of Her Critics

Andrew Bolt

Elaine Lafferty, former editor-in-chief of Ms magazine, says only the dumb think that Sarah Palin is, too:

It’s difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin’s “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS’s Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I’m agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin.

Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart…

Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Obama’s Hope ‘n Change Smells More Like Socialism

OBAMA’S HOPE ‘n CHANGE SMELLS MORE LIKE SOCIALISM

Pam Meister

Barack Obama promises change. But can America afford the change he’s promising?

Joe the Plumber’s question to Obama about taxes, to which Obama answered “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody,” just scratched the surface of the candidate’s plans. A Chicago radio interview of Obama in 2001 has surfaced and it paints a detailed picture of Obama’s guiding political philosophy.

The most significant part of the clip is below (emphasis mine):

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth,and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.In some ways we still suffer from that.

Joe Biden wanted to know if WFTV-Channel 9’s Barbara West was “joking” when she asked, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” After hearing this interview, perhaps Joe might want to amend his answer.

In a nutshell: Obama thinks the Constitution stands in the way of government meddling in the way you and I live our lives.

A Gallup poll in June indicated that Americans oppose redistribution of wealth by the government 84% to 13%, preferring that the government do what it can to improve the overall economic situation. I find it hard to believe they’ve changed their minds in just a few months. So if a majority of Americans are against socialism, how would Obama enact it?

Simple: judges.

The next president will likely make appointments to the Supreme Court – possibly as many as three. Tommy Vietor, Obama spokesman, explained that “Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.” Denver Post columnist David Harnsanyi points out that

“Justices solemnly swear to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from “protecting” the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.

To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.

Could this latest bombshell be why Americans have not been privy to Obama’s college records and writings? The Obama campaign is calling this latest revelation a distraction. I call it critical information.

Tom Blumer, writing for Pajamas Media, says, “No wonder Team Obama is pushing the travesty known as ‘early voting’ so hard. They’re praying that as many Obama voters as possible will cast their ballots without learning the true nature of the person they are supporting.”

Voters who have been enthralled by Obama’s flowery teleprompter speeches and promises of hope, change, lollipops and unicorns owe it to themselves to look beyond the information being offered by the mainstream media in this last significant week before the election.

As the saying goes, forewarned is forearmed.

Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

The Shape Of Things To Come And Joe Biden’s Test

STEPPING STONES

I’m going to carefully set out a path of stepping stones here that have their Genesis with the last Shah of (Persia) Iran, long since dead, leading to the statement from Joe Biden about how Obama will be tested if he assumes the Presidency.

The late Shah ruled Iran benevolently, and some might say the opposite, but at least he moved progressively towards giving women rights, something taken away when the Mullahs took over. He reigned for 38 years, and was finally exiled at the time of the revolution in Iran, after the Ayotollah Khomeini returned.

The Shah had health issues and chose to be treated in the US, something president Jimmy Carter was none too keen about and he made it felt that the Shah was not really welcome in the US.

The revolution resulted in the disastrous hostage fiasco, and the series of bungles that followed, something not resolved until President Reagan came to Office.

Iran had always had border problems with Iraq and these developed into full blown war, a war that lasted for 8 years before it tuned into a stalemate. The US offered some support for Iraq, which only exacerbated the feelings in Iran, who hated the US with a passion, and their tacit siding with Iraq only made matters worse.

Iran always desperately hated the US, and over the years that hatred has only intensified. They may have got some sort of obscure satisfaction when the US finally put down the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and this continuing conflict we have there now.

This story that has received little publicity is where we now stand. The war is grinding to its inevitable conclusion, and the US is making headway right now that is not being reported upon in the runup to the election, probably for two reasons, the first being that all media eyes are on the election, so that mainstream media has taken their eyes off that situation to concentrate on having Obama elected. The second is due to the fact that now headway is being made, and the Taliban have stated that they will be removing themselves from the conflict in Iraq to concentrate elsewhere. This wouldn’t be reported because in effect that would tend to support the other side of politics and the media thinking would be that this might actually negate Obama’s Anti war stance, now it looks like it might no longer be an issue.

So, if Obama does win, as they incessantly keep telling us, what is the vision of the future?

Enter Joe Biden and the comment that Obama will be tested if he does win. Where does that fit in with all of this mentioned previously?

Obama has said that he will be bringing home the troops from Iraq. There’s around 100,000 of them there now, and when they do come home, there will be no real reason to keep them in the Military any more, something borne out when Joe Biden has already flagged cuts of up to 25% in the Military, to numbers and the budget. After all the Democrats have always run down the numbers in the Military, so why should anything change now. Besides, that money is needed elsewhere, you know, the need to spread the wealth around, the need to find money to pay for universal health care for the US and the aliens as well.

Once the huge military presence has been removed from Iraq, numbers significantly reduced at home, equipment mothballed and sold off, cutbacks introduced in all areas associated with the Military, then picture this.

A strong Iran now invades a weakened Iraq, a country they hate with a passion similar to their hatred of the US. From there in Iraq, they are closer to surrounding Countries they also hate, well, one of them anyway.

Obama has said that he will sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad. There is no talking with this man, as he has consistently shown. Besides, Obama will now be talking from a position of weakness. The UN will also be powerless in any situation like this because they try to treat everything diplomatically, not having access to a large Military force of their own. The only Country capable of any intervention would be the US.

However, what has happened now is that the US has strategically withdrawn from the field, and then cut back its military. To wind all that up again would take an extended period of time, and an enormous amount of money.

So, when you deconstruct all this, the Joe Biden test for Obama will probably be a combination of things, but the largest will be an economic test. With the way the financial system has folded like a deck of cards, the huge bailout, the promises from Obama of scaling up finances in areas Obama perceives as social justice issues, that of health care for all, extra spending in education, and in all his other promised areas, then the money for scaling back up a much diminished military will just not be available. The problem now is an economic problem. For so long now, Iran has been watching how the military works while it has been in Iraq, They understand that they just don’t have the equipment necessary to defeat the US in the field, so what they are effectively doing is not testing the US militarily, but economically. Iran has no need to beat the US in an actual fighting war. The idea is to attack the US financially, which will be the end result of all this. Besides, they will be up against a US people sick and tired of war, and not wanting to put their sons and daughters back in harm’s way. They are also up against a President who has now painted himself into a corner by stating that this area is the wrong place for a war. Three strikes.

As Obama has promised us, he will sit down and talk with people like this. We saw how well talk went with Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Talk will be all a hoped for President Obama has left to do.

The test is one of a waiting game, as Iran waits for all the US military presence to leave Iraq.

Shades of Jimmy Carter. Now that somewhat obscure reference of this Obama Presidency being the second Carter Term comes into sharper focus.

HillBuzz: “Obama Has No Shot of Winning the Keystone State”

by Bill Dupray

Let’s be clear for all the Obamabots. Once again, these are Democrats saying this. And rather well, I might add. HillBuzz gets the goods again.

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s an interesting take on the unions. Big Brother thuggery sometimes gets its just reward in the privacy of the voting booth.

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

And of course, the reason they believe McCain will win Pennsylvania comes down to two words: Reagan Democrats.

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

You can believe pollsters (who wrongly predicted the Obama v. Hillary contest) or you can believe the Democrats on the ground who worked with the voters and volunteers in the primary and who are with them today.

In Pennsylvania, we are not alone.

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

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

DEMOCRATS.

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

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

We have Democrats on the ground in Pennsylvania telling us this while Ed Rendell is rubbing his forehead and wondering what to do. The Racist, Redneck, Bitter Clingers, who won the state for Hillary by a margin of 10 points, are gearing up to vote for a Republican war hero to replace the disgraced Jack Murtha. And these are just the Democrats. I think Republicans get to vote in Pennsylvania too.

Read more Great Posts by Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

Obama Campaign ‘Punishes’ Television Station for Hard-Hitting Interview

Pam Meister

A particularly pointed interview of Joe Biden by Barbara West of Orlando’s WFTV-Channel 9 last Thursday resulted in the Obama campaign canceling an interview of Biden’s wife Jill. Why? The reason given by the campaign was “an unprofessional interview [of Joe Biden]…both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts.”

West touched upon a number of topics that have been deemed verboten by the rest of the mainstream media, including whether Obama’s talk of “spreading the wealth” to Joe the Plumber was a “crushing political blunder.” Her follow up question to that was, “How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?” Biden’s initial response was to ask if the question was a joke.

Er, no, Joe, it wasn’t a joke. Americans really want to know.

The final question of the interview was, “Are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?” Biden’s answer was as glossy and glib as all of the other answers he provided for West, but he probably didn’t know what hit him. After all, when you’re not directly challenged for the gaffe that FDR calmed Americans on television in 1929 after the stock market crash, or for claiming that Obama never said he would sit down with Iran’s Ahmadinejad without preconditions, the tough questions from West must have been somewhat of a shock.

What also jumped out at me when watching the interview were Biden’s eyes. (No, not the tightness around them that has prompted some to question if he’s had Botox injections.) While it’s not something one can prove without a doubt, his excessive blinking is an indication, based on research by body language experts, that he could either be being deceptive or nervous.

Now why would tough questions worry an old hand at campaigning like Joe Biden?

It’s a shame that much of the media has thus far avoided asking questions like this of Biden and Barack Obama himself. The American people deserve to know everything about the candidates who may one day soon occupy the most powerful office in the land and even the world.

Yet note: Sarah Palin has been accused of giving interviews mainly to friendly media outlets (not true; she sat down with the evening anchors of all three alphabet networks and has been generally more accessible to the press of late than her rivals). Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, in response to an interview that makes their vice presidential candidate work, “punishes” the television station responsible by canceling other interview opportunities. It’s reminiscent of childhood: “You’re mean, so I’m not going to talk to you anymore.”

Is this how the Obama campaign will continue to react when unexpectedly faced with questions that probe deeper than ones like, “How does it feel to win?” or “What issues is your campaign about?” If elected, how will Obama react to even more intense press scrutiny, or to delicate yet potentially heated negotiations with other heads of state? Shut off discourse entirely? Relegate those who bucked the softball question trend by sending them to an editorial Siberia?

It’s been pointed out that unwelcome questions or observations were considered to be racist in nature. Now the Obama campaign is taking it one step further by cutting off interviews to retaliate against those naughty enough to upset The One.

What this portends in an Obama administration is anyone’s guess.

The interview can be seen below. Judge for yourself whether West was unprofessional or combative:

Pam Meister is the editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

Hogan Votes For Humans

HOGAN VOTES FOR HUMANS

Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

This series of TV ads is currently a minor buzz topic at the moment in Australia. The Government has given Luhrmann $40 Million taxpayer dollars to run the ads for a new Tourism campaign, and the question inevitably asked is that it is good for Luhrmann, because at the same time, it also advertises his new Movie, Australia, with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman. The ads can be viewed in the first link below. The ads, like the movie, are visually panoramic, but the comparison with the Hogan ads was almost inevitable. Hogan is currently in Australia, and his ‘furniture’ comment below was well stated.

I’ve said Paul Hogan’s tourism ads are far, far better than Baz Luhrmann’s new ones:

Paul Hogan’s “shrimp on the barbie” ads, after all, remain the most famous and loved, remembered even today by many who saw them 20 years ago.

How irresistible was his Australia – of beaches, bikinis, barbecues and an Opera House on the sun-lit harbour. It was an Australia populated by charming people who said “g’day” in charming accents, and not at all like Luhrmann’s – at its best without a local to be seen or endured.

Hogan couldn’t agree more, and says he’s “not crazy” about Luhrmann’s ads:

If I go to your house for a visit and I want to come back, it’s because I enjoyed your company, not your furniture… We were advertising the furniture — beaches and buildings and the outback and all that sort of thing. I felt we should be saying that this is a wonderful country and the people here are laid-back and friendly.

But Luhrmann’s sees redemption in Nature, not in humans. His ads show not a single Australian – other than the magic Aboriginal boy who drops dirt into the dreaming hands of jaded executives overseas..

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Journalism Today

JOURNALISM TODAY

The harshness of the blunt text in today’s cartoon is hidden by the pun/joke of the drawing. Humor can be a sugar coating for a bitter truth that has to be swallowed. So just call me the candyman.

Read More Dry Bones by Yaakov Kirschen

Obama White House Means DEATH To ISRAEL!

Destructive Vote?

‘Joe the Plumber’ backs claim that Obama would bring ‘death to Israel’ at Ohio.
Hey Mr. Newscaster, Wake UP! What Obama says repeatedly and what his actions show are TWO DIFFERENT Things!!!

Look at his close Friends and associates – such as Khalid al-Mansour and Bill Ayers and Radical Islamic groups, Friends that are Anti-Israel and Pro-Terrorist. Lawrence Korb works for the liberal minded Center for American Progress and is a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, etc., etc., ad nauseam!

more about “Obama White House Means DEATH To ISRAEL!“, posted with vodpod

FBI Would Not Hire Someone With Obama’s Associations

FORMER FBI IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS – FBI ‘WOULD NOT HAVE HIRED’ SOMEONE WITH OBAMA’S ASSOCIATIONS

From the Editors at Family Security Matters

Recently, FSM sat down with Buck Revell, former Associate Deputy Director of the FBI who was in charge of all FBI operations before his retirement in 1994. What he has to say about the idea of a security clearance for Barack Obama, a man who could be our next president, is stunning and sobering, to say the least.

FSM: It has been said that Sen. Obama would not be able to get a security clearance now if he applied for one because of the many relationships he has had in the past, and now, with people like Khalid al-Mansour and Bill Ayers. Is that true?

BR: Well, of course, all I can do to render my opinion is to the time I served in government, and I retired after 35 years in 1994. But at one time I was the Assistant Director in charge of the administrative division of the FBI, which as part of its duties was hiring and clearing personnel, and certainly we would not have hired during my tenure a person that had the background, associates and relationships that Obama has had over his adult life.

Now, that’s not saying that he has engaged in any illegal or improper activity, but when you associate with people of the likes of Bill Ayers, who is not only a known radical but an unrepentant radical, and teaches a radical socialism – some would say communist – approach to government, and espouses the use of violence if “necessary,” and he determines when it’s necessary, this is not the kind of person that an association with – and an association that was both voluntary and lengthy – would give you the necessary satisfaction that the applicant himself was not involved to some degree or at least acknowledged and agreed with parts of that person’s social or political agenda.

Certainly with the Rev. Wright, if we had an individual who was coming in for an agent application, and he belonged to the Aryan Nation’s Church and he had as his counselor and pastor Richard Gibb Butler, who was a radical white extremist, we would not have considered that person for a position in the Bureau because that is essentially a relationship with a racist entity; and being counseled by a vehement racist – whether he is black, white, red or brown – in and of itself is reason not to give someone access to highly classified information or a job in government that requires that.

Obama’s relationships with various hoodlum figures in the Chicago area certainly would be something to look into and you’d have to determine the extent and degree of that relationship to make that determination, but it would be examined very carefully. I have no knowledge that Obama himself has engaged in any illegal or improper activities; I don’t know that he has himself engaged in the radical activities that his associates have – or certainly the criminal activities that they have – but the fact that he knowingly associated with people – and he knew their backgrounds and he continued to associate with them – would have, in my opinion, been disqualifying for special agent position, an analyst position, in fact any position that required a security clearance.

By what has been reported and to some degree acknowledged, would in my view, have disqualified him for a position in the FBI based upon the fact that he wouldn’t have qualified for a security clearance.

FSM: It sounds to me that the FBI operates less on the idea of “guilt by association” and more on the idea of “a man is known by the company he keeps.”

BR: It’s not guilt by association, but it’s essentially if you associate with people on a continuing basis who have posed a threat to our nation by either advocating anarchy and/or an overthrow of the government or who are racist and advocate the potential of racial conflict or who are engaged in criminal activities, then you have not shown good judgment. You have not shown that you are the kind of person who can differentiate between those who are appropriate to associate with and those who are not. So on the basis of the judgment issue, and then of course, if you found any specific activity, you’d judge that as well. But just the judgment in continuing to associate with people that he knew were engaging in racist and radical, violence-prone socialist activities would be sufficient to disqualify him from consideration for the top secret clearance and the FBI position.

Now, you may get some people in the Bureau today to say “well, that’s not so,” but I’m telling you what it would have been when I was there, and I certainly stand by that.

FSM: Is it possible if someone like that were to achieve the office of the presidency, might there be some kind of effort among our intelligence services to watch him as he goes through his daily routines? Would anyone worry because of some of these associations or that he might divulge any of the classified information he will be seeing? That’s what worries many Americans.

BR: Well even the president can’t divulge classified information to unauthorized persons. Now, he has the ultimate authority to declassify information, but certainly if he declassified something that was very sensitive that resulted in harm to our society, he’d be subject to an impeachment process because the president is not above the law. We found that with President Nixon and then with investigations into the Iran Contra affair and so forth. Whether anyone would withhold information from him, as Commander-in-Chief, he is entitled to all of the information that is relevant to his position and decision-making process. Certainly, you would not expect that to be done.

The Shape Of Things To Come – Censorship

THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

Apologies to HG Wells who wrote this work of Science Fiction in 1933. It might be Science Fiction, but a lot of things in the book are remarkably close to things that actually have happened. His actual premise has also been loosely translated to the introduction of a form of overarching Socialism, so that also could prove remarkably close to actuality.

CENSORSHIP

No matter which way you look at it, this is a filthy word. Those supporters of the Freshman Senator will no doubt decry what I might be alluding to here, but what I would ask those others is to watch the way they actually do decry it. Not with reason, nor with understanding of the viewpoint, and not with the belief that we have a right to our opinion, but they will use language and tactics of beating down the person who actually makes a reasonable point.

As to the censorship itself, it has already started, and actually can reasonably be expected to be put into practice if Obama does win the election, and the landslide those supporters expect comes to fruition at all levels of the Government.

I’ll point to a few cases here, and even the most sanguine of Obama supporters when they reflect will have to agree.

I ask you to compare just a few examples.

Twice now, Joe Biden has appeared on separate TV stations, expecting the usual fawning mainstream media treatment, the asking of ‘puff piece’ questions where he can go off at a tangent. Instead, commentators at both those TV channels actually asked tough questions, and Joe actually seemed indignant that the questioner had the temerity to ask the questions at all. Immediately following both broadcasts, Joe got on the phone and cancelled future interviews for both channels, and warned his campaign people not to give those outlets any more interviews. Barack Obama, in recent times has stopped outright giving media interviews or taking questions from any of the media at all, preferring instead the set piece engagement that can be carefully scripted, almost as if his handlers noticed that the Joe The Plumber episode should not be allowed to appear again.

Contrast that with John McCain when he appeared on the Letterman show. Dave didn’t even hold back. He let John have it with both barrels, continually reloading and firing off again. John took it all on the chin, smiling all the while. I cannot for the life of me seeing Joe putting up with something like that.

Now, look at the media itself, as a whole. They have already buttered their toast. Now they’re just waiting for the spread to put on top of that toast after their anointed one wins.

Those sections of the media that do not follow the script are being not only frozen out, as per the TV channels, but actually have to suffer from attempts to shut them down outright, and here I’m specifically pointing to Internet based Media outlets. I feel sure that Obama supporters will deny outright that they had anything to do with it, or that they even condone it, (something they will say out loud, but secretly be smiling to themselves) but it is happening. Drudge was hacked when they headed up their page with something perceived as being anti Obama. Right wing websites have also been hacked, some almost out of existence. Others have been put off the air long enough for readers to go elsewhere, while the blog owner or the site administrator attempts to rectify the situation, his site ruined by what is basically malicious and criminal damage.

Sites that rely on their posts actually getting out to the rest of the Country have found that servers who do things like that, those blog streamers have also been hacked, so that posts from tens of thousands of blogs now are not being noticed by anyone except those dedicated readers of that site, those numbers of readers falling dramatically.

There have even been other ploys used by Democrats who understand how this system works. They scan the Consolidated posting sites and when something appears that might be detrimental to their guy, they then posts a series of meaningless posts to flood the front page. What happens then is that the original post that they perceive as detrimental to their guy, falls off the bottom before too many people see it or have a chance to vote on it. It’s just so obvious what they are doing. Their posts don’t get more than one vote, and sometimes actually two, but they are meaningless little posts just to take up space, while the original article might actually be something that people need to be cognizant of.

Then there’s the Comments section of each post. Just look at those comments. The language is harsh, not out of reasoning, but just a put down. There’s always a smart answer, an outright denial, a changing of the subject, but in nearly every case, the ploy is then to personally attack the person who posted the story in the first place, almost as if there’s an army of people scouring the blogs looking for anti Obama posts, and then slamming them with what sometimes amounts to outright personal abuse. These are angry people, not reasoning the argument, just flaming the poster.

So, is this what we have to look forward to if Obama becomes President? The freezing out of sections of the media who will be perceived as being harsh on them, the marginalisation of those who ask pertinent questions, the personal attacks on those who dare to refer to things that might be detrimental, the closing of websites that have the opposite opinion, the hacking out of existence of those who engage in their democratic right, that to have a differing opinion.

That is the censorship I’m referring to, the selection of those who will only speak about ‘the one’ in soft terms, in glowing terms, not the mental note to scratch that guy off the list for putting on some pressure.

Those who support the Freshman Senator will be flat out indignant that something like this is going to happen, and will deny that it will happen, but the thing is this.

IT ALREADY IS HAPPENING.

World Leaders See Obama As Soft, Untested, Weak And Very Naïve

WORLD LEADERS SEE OBAMA AS SOFT, UNTESTED, WEAK, AND VERY NAIVE

From the Editors at Family Security Matters

Don’t point the finger at us. The title of this piece is taken from statements by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who’s spent much of his professional life – and certainly all of his tenure at the UN – negotiating and working with these very same world leaders. He merely repeats their opinions here for our convenience. And, to be clear, the collective opinion of world leaders is that, in contemplating Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States, he is seen as “soft, untested, weak and very naïve.”

No wonder Sen. Joe Biden guaranteed that America will face an international crisis within six months if Obama takes office on November 4th.

At a critical time like this in the highly volatile and ultra-sensitive world of global affairs (think Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and more), do we really want a president whom world leaders view disdainfully as incapable, or at least not up to the task, of defending the world’s mightiest superpower and its allies? Better yet, think Vladimir Putin (Communist Party member until its dissolution in 1991, former KGB in both the KGB First Chief Directorate – the foreign intelligence branch – and also in the KGB Leningrad region Fifth Directorate which stifled political dissent in the Soviet Union); Kim Jong Il (with North Korea constantly on the brink of famine and with no clear successor in place to the unstable and apparently unhealthy Kim Jong Il, the only thing more frightening than a rogue nation with him at the helm is a rogue nation with no one at the helm); and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (you know, that sweet guy who has called our staunch ally Israel a “stinking corpse” that must be wiped off the face of the earth, and who dreams out loud about a world without America as he continues to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons).

Now seriously. Compare these implacable, tough-as-nails, ruthless despots to our relaxed and smiling freshman senator. Do we really believe that our idealistic and glib junior senator, whose instinct is to “talk” with and/or to run away from America’s enemies, can handle these seasoned, cutthroat villains who have zero interest in advancing any of America’s interests? If we were among them, we’d be salivating at the chance to test him too – just for fun.

Barack Obama has said he’d talk to Iran without any preconditions. (He now is trying to change this reality by saying he never said that, but no matter; we have him on tape.) So how does Iran feel about this generous and gracious reaching out to diplomacy, appealing to all our higher selves? (Forget the fact that we have been negotiating intensely with Iran through our European surrogate allies for five long years with no, none, zero, zip advancements made.)

Here is the Iran reaction, according to the Wall Street Journal:

As it turns out, Iran has its own “preconditions” and they don’t suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon. Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East — presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are “off the agenda,” the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, “If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared.

Now does this sound like Barack Obama’s plan to transform our foreign policy will be successful? Or does it sound, well, naïve?

Worse yet, does he plan to court our nation’s enemies by seeking their approval through an admission that America has inflicted injustices on the rest of the world? As Melanie Phillips states in “Is America Really Going To Do This?“

That’s why he believes in ’soft power’ – diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ’slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

Is it any wonder that world leaders see Obama as “soft, untested, weak and very naïve”?

John McCain believes that America’s exceptional ism should be protected and defended at all costs. But if he does not secure the U.S. presidency in November and instead Barack Obama – who believes America is at fault for many of the world’s and certain demographic groups’ woes – wins the election, as Joe Biden said, “Gird your loins” America.

We are in for one bumpy ride. God spare us.

Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters