I was watching one of your local TV stations last night and I saw this *******
Many at the airport in Bakersfield were expecting a man in a wheel chair because Barrientos lost his legs to an improvised explosive device in Iraq. Instead when the Corporal heard the Bakersfield Police and Sheriff’s Department Color Guard call veterans to arms, he stood and saluted and walked step by step towards a grateful community…..
Cpl Barrientos looked around the crowd and saw the sea of mostly strangers there just for him. The tears and pride welled into his eyes. He was home and for the first time truly honored for his service to this country……
Several emotions flooded over me. Here was this young man (too damn young I always think), walking proud, tall, better than most of us with all our faculties intact, being honored by his grateful community. A man who gave not all, but too damn near. I couldn’t help but think, (too often at such times) where do these kind of men come from? How are they different than most?
Then he was given a chance to speak. Cameras rolling……. He could have said anything…. No one would think him any the less for any words that tumbled forth given his particular sitrep. And yet, what did he say given this forum? A forum all too many have utilized for bitterness, castigation of his plight and those that “orchestrated” it, even veiled political inferences, hell this young man could have said virtually anything. And yet, when he spoke, it went through me like a Sykes-Fairburn to the clavicle: “I didn’t do nuthin….. I just did my job….”. --- WOW!
At that point my mind was like the third reel of a movie matinee. I saw the pages of an apocryphal tome, an unseen hand of wind flipping the pages in a blur….. Vietnam, Korea, WW’s One and Two…….. Pattonesque (cue theme song in my punkin) all the way back to the Pelopponesian War and the Spartans. Over two millennium….. Those far away trumpets….
Another word then long-lined into my mental picture. One I haven’t heard much over the years….STRAC. Not even certain how its supposed to be spelled (is it really an acronym for Standards in Training Commission or from the 50’s Strategic Army Corps as some postulate? Or merely an alteration of “strict” to rhyme with its antonym “slack”?) Who knows? I just remember it representing what this young warrior did to me right then. In a most “strack” sense I really cannot convey.
Cpl Barrientos, you were “just doing your job”. And there is not one more honorable thing you could have done or subsequently said about it when given the forum. You sir, are of a higher order than any. And I include all those myriad and diverse forces that resulted in your being over there, just having to do “your job” – the powers that be in our system; politicians, brass (any and all ranks), dignitaries, famous athletes, other so-called “celebrities”, bureaucrats, even your fellow citizens.
You probably will never read this Sir, I only hope that in every way your fellow citizens convey to you one last sentiment that comes into my mind which I will respectfully leave you with to live what I sincerely pray is a wonderful productive life:
“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved your title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you richly deserve, but may never seem to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.”
DE OPPRESSO LIBER
<bracing one more most STRACK salute to YOU Sir>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008...
Why else would Richardson eschew his long-time friends the Clintons and their overtures?
He has always been a political opportunist of the first order. He tried to institute Health Care for employers with more than 4 employees and New Mexicans are not happy with him about now.
I think he sees Obama as the eventual winner and is wrangling for the job he really wants with a promise to deliver the significant Hispanic vote that Obama needs!
WHY DO LIBERALS THINK THE WAY THEY DO? HERE'S THE BOOK THAT EXPLAINS WHAT YOU'VE ALWAYS SUSPECTED:
THE LIBERAL MIND:
The Psychological Causes of
Political Madness
by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.
 Publication Date: October 2006
Nonfiction -- Politics/Psychology
Softcover, 419 pages
$19.95
ISBN-10: 0-9779563-0-X
ISBN-13: 978-0-9779563-0-2
Why do today's liberals act and think as they do?
The radical left’s politics and its destructive effects on our basic freedoms have provoked many to speculate on what makes these people tick.
The Liberal Mind answers the question.
This book is the first systematic analysis of the political madness that now threatens to destroy history’s greatest achievement: the American dream of civilized liberty.
IN THE NEWS:
Word has been spreading fast about The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Author Dr. Rossiter has been recently interviewed in dozens of prominent talk radio shows across the nation about his new book. Click here to hear interview clips.
Several excerpts from the book have been featured at www.Townhall.com and widely praised by readers. The December 2006 column was ranked the number one most forwarded item on the website during its run!
CLICK ON 'PRAISE & KUDOS' TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT THE LIBERAL MIND!
In his penetrating analysis, Dr. Rossiter reveals modern liberalism’s assaults on:
• Our freedom to make good lives for ourselves
• The ability of families to raise children to be self-reliant and mutual
• The morals, rights and laws that protect our freedoms
“Modern liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.” The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.
The unexamined political belief is not worth holding.
The unanalyzed political agenda is not worth promoting.
Big Corn and the Ethanol Hoax
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
As of this writing - The link to the New Black Panther Party still exists on Obamas Campaign Website.
Heres a clip of good ol Maliks rhetoric on post-Duke case.
Feel the love...
I want to purchase a package to enhance my livestock, trucks, wildlife, etc. photos.
I would like some hands on people to help me choose.between Adobe Photoshop (very expensive unless its an upgrade) and CorelDRAWX3.
Corel is much cheaper up to a third of the cost of the high end Adobe software.
I want do a lot of tracing, deleting backgrounds, other enhancements are bitmap to vector machinations.
Which one in your opinion is superior?
I have read with much interest the postings on the thread about Obama and a thought occurs to me. It is an aggregation of many thoughts really, which when rendered to their very essence produce a commonality of theme which I think is instructive at this juncture.
I have been witness to the attempts of sadly far too few posters who don’t just “knee-jerk” buy into the message of the new messiah of the Left, only to be torn asunder by the much more prolific postings of those who have boarded this “new train of hope”.
I applaud the matter of fact postings of the drillnlifts to the highly idealistic albeit intellectual postings of FreeCognate and the “slightly tempered with a dose of testosterone” nonetheless still idealistic postings of her husband. These are the small cadre (at least evinced by their small number on this thread) of thinking skeptics who are still able to set aside “HOW things are said vs. the reality of WHAT is actually said. One learns to do this in business as a necessary adjunct to financial survival but some thankfully have learned it in other ways.
The problem in this is that these well intentioned and overly castigated posters are missing an all important intellectual artifice in their noble quest to overcome the surfeit of irrational exuberance from the other side – those equally well intentioned (one being prone to charity, ulterior motives aside) posters who have bought lock stock and interchangeable barrels into this nouveau polemic of “change”.
People have often asked me in speaking engagements to veterans over the years “why did we really lose in Vietnam?”. The one overriding point of the spear that keeps poking me in the cognitive ribs is that we DIDN’T KNOW OUR ENEMY! Oh yes we had all the firepower in the world at our beck and call and had our enemy just been the NVA Regulars, we would have prevailed. What we didn’t count on, and it turned out to be the “Hearts & Minds” argument turned disastrously against us, was the understanding of (and ergo appropriate reaction to) the guerilla insurgency and their mindset. We suffer this in current conflicts to this day.
KNOW THY ENEMY. DE OPPRESSO LIBER! Our too few (sadly) Special Forces troops knew (know) it but the rank and file don’t. I utilize the term enemy in this regard because we are indeed in a war, an ideological war for our very existence as a sovereign nation. One in which so many have had it so good for so long they have lost the ability to see things as they really are, thus becoming vulnerable to the erudite young purveyor of slogan mentalities which then take on the mantel of a pervasive “truth”. So please indulge me in my usage of the seemingly testosterone driven terms of “war” and “enemy”.
This is what you are up against. (Only by knowing who your enemy really is can you defeat him in this ideological war of words and ideas.)
The typical Obama supporter resides in that vast oft referred to “middle class” in America. They live in a self styled rubric of “haves and have-nots” of which they generally feel they reside in the latter. They are mostly not self-employed (and if they are they toil on the peripheries of the economy in a financially and economically de minimis way). The George Soros’s and other “limousine liberals of this polemic notwithstanding, they have little economic power. Only in large groups (they have evolved to this revelation over the years) do they exert any kind of signicant influence over much of anything in their lives. This has variously in the past given rise to unions and ultimately to populist mostly far left ideological groupings and organizations. They couch their leftist socialistic ideas in terms that express mostly “feelings” and their rhetoric evinces this very construct. They set up straw men (“The Man” – more topically now the “Rich White Man”) as a windmill toward which to tilt, against which they constantly are inveighing . This person bolsters his “at any cost” seemingly antithetical to their high-minded “feelings” and “fellow man - greatest good for the greatest number morality” construct secure in their shuttered and locked up minds that they are doing “the right thing”. This, of course gives them rich succor in their quest to tear asunder perceived and/or preconceived ideological enemies with complete abandon.
The VietCong (“across the fence” the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge as well) could live on a small bowl of rice all day. Truck prodigious amounts of weaponry, armaments, and materiel down the “Trail” by bicycles or just on foot. They were ideologically driven against this richly funded and technologically advanced enemy by the same deeply seated “inveighing against the immoral enemy” that the Obama supporters are. You do not defeat such a foe by tit-for-tat forays at the periphery, that is THEIR war! This is precisely what is being done on this board, and to a greater extent on boards all across this vast bandwidth enhanced land. Electrons are bullets, the internet itself the virtual MIC (Military Industrial Complex).
While it will remain a sometimes amusing but never really satisfying diversion to do so, the tit-for-tat guerilla warfare against this enemy (posting on a BB) is not the effective way to fight this war. In this particular case they have far superior numbers. The public school systems in this country have fostered over time a vast cadre of “have-not (self-perceived or otherwise) warriors” who will not be defeated on the periphery. That is their battlefield and we sadly do not have the number of trained “18 MOS Special Operators” to accomplish the task in this manner.
So post away noble rational non-Jonestown purple kool-aide drinkers, but in your off-board time, organize your own power groups of like minded rational analytical non-knee jerk thinkers, decide the most effective alternative to this irrational exuberance driven highly emotive candidate, and work for your own kind of change. The kind of change that will really effect a rational alternative to the massive sea change that is taking over this country at present. A sea change emotional transformational rubric that will see the ruination of this once great country, one which has been weakened by and will ultimately be taken over by rendering us all into that vast dust bin of the “lower middle class”. A now “lower middle class” which will then be on par with the rest of the “global economy” bringing with it the very thing these poor duped “inveighers against the man” think they are fighting against in the first place! Because the Obamites are too brainwashed, short-sighted, illogical, or just anti-American to see it; to sit by while this Pygmalion Effect manifests (not voting because the only rational candidate is not your “principled conservative choice") is a Chick Hearn frozen rope to sure disaster.
Donate your time, money, whatever “talents” you have at your disposal, to the Republican candidate and start now. The attempts herein to change these people’s minds are futile, that ship has sailed. You know what trying to teach the Duroc to sing will get you. He’ll never be on American Idol. Don’t just annoy them and get frustrated, get out and work for the Republican Party. Your reward will be knowing that you have saved your country from the now vast minions of this variously disconnected, immature, reckless, and capricious cadre of pseudo-intellectuals who deign, under the guise of “change”, to destroy this experiment in real freedom we call America, a country you know to be the best thing we will ever have to hand down to our grandchildren.
.......when these things were said by Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
You have to watch carefully. Watch a few times. He is right at the end.
There will be more...........
(maybe wife will get to vote for Hill after all)
Of course you cannot spell the word
LIBERAL
without the word
LIE
As the Democratic Party’s superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $890,000 they’ve received from the candidates?
February 14, 2008 | At this summer’s Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November’s presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these “superdelegates”—the candidates’ friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.
And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven’t held elected office recently and, therefore, didn’t receive campaign contributions from him.
Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch…
Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them… Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn’t received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate…
http://sweetness-light.com/... ates-are-bought
|
|
| Listing details:
HideShow |
List date:
Feb-18-08 21:07:49 PST
Duration:
30-day listing
This is a Featured Plus! listing
This is a Home Page Featured listing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delegate Battles Snarl Democrats in Two States
Democrats in Michigan and Florida struggled Friday to resolve the impasse over their disputed January primaries, coming up with a plan to hold a June primary in Michigan while remaining deadlocked in Florida.
Reflecting how tense the situation has become, influential fund-raisers for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have stepped up their behind-the-scenes pressure on national party leaders to resolve the matter, with some even threatening to withhold their donations to the Democratic National Committee unless it seats the delegates from the two states or holds new primaries there.
The committee penalized Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries early in violation of national party rules, barring their delegates from being seated at the Democratic convention this summer. But with the Democratic contest now a scramble for every remaining delegate, the allocation of delegates from the two states could have a substantial impact on the nomination.
Mrs. Clinton won the primaries in both states, but the contests were not sanctioned by the party, neither candidate campaigned in the states and Mr. Obama did not even put his name on the ballot in Michigan.
Pushing to seat the Florida delegates, at least one top Clinton fund-raiser, Paul Cejas, a Miami businessman who has given the Democratic National Committee $63,500 since 2003, has demanded Democratic officials return his 2007 contribution of $28,500, which they have agreed to do.
“If you’re not going to count my vote, I’m not going to give you my money,” said Mr. Cejas, who was the United States ambassador to Belgium from 1998 to 2001.
Christopher Korge, a Florida real estate developer who is another top fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton, held an event last year in his home that brought in about $140,000 for the national party, which was set aside in a special account for the general election battle in Florida. But he told committee officials this week that if Florida’s delegate conundrum was not settled satisfactorily he would be asking for the money back.
“If we do not resolve this issue,” Mr. Korge said, “I think it’s safe to say there will be a request for a return of $140,000.”
The anger from Clinton fund-raisers seems to emanate mostly from Florida, where the impasse appears farthest from resolution. Democratic Party officials in Michigan on Friday proposed a new primary election on June 3 to make up for the January election.
The new vote, which would be run by state elections officials but financed with money raised from private sources, is far from a sure thing. It requires approval by the divided state legislature and from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. There is also no assurance that the party can quickly raise the estimated $10 million it would cost to redo the January contest.
Meanwhile, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Clinton supporter, raised the possibility of seating his state’s delegates based on the January vote — which Mrs. Clinton won 50 percent to 33 percent — but awarding each Florida delegate only half a vote at the August convention. That would mean that Mrs. Clinton would narrow the delegate gap with Mr. Obama by a net of 19 delegates, rather than the 38 she would have gained under the January result. She trails Mr. Obama by more than 100 delegates, according to most counts.
Mr. Nelson discussed the plan with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on Thursday on the Senate floor. A Nelson aide said they told him they wanted the Florida problem resolved but did not endorse his half-a-vote plan. Other Florida Democrats said the Nelson proposal was only one of many ideas floating around.
Mr. Obama has consistently rejected seating any delegates based on the January votes in Michigan or Florida, which he said were unfair because neither candidate was allowed to campaign there. In Michigan, while Mrs. Clinton’s name was on the primary ballot, many Obama supporters voted for “uncommitted,” a line that got 40 percent of the vote to Mrs. Clinton’s 55 percent.
As for the latest Michigan proposal, aides to Mrs. Clinton signaled they were likely to go along with the plan, but the Obama campaign was more skeptical, according to people involved in the process.
“We have to do something,” said State Senator Tupac A. Hunter, a co-chairman of the Obama Michigan campaign, “but I don’t know if this is even legal.”
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said of the Michigan proposal: “Nearly 600,000 Americans participated in the Michigan primary in January, and we have a solemn obligation to ensure that their voices are heard. The best way to make that happen is to honor their votes, but if that isn’t possible there should be a new state primary that doesn’t leave taxpayers footing the bill.”
He said the Clinton campaign was waiting to hear more details.
The plan was negotiated by Senator Carl Levin, Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers. The four Democrats, who all claim neutrality in the presidential contest, have been working with state and national party officials and representatives of the two campaigns to try to find a solution to the delegate impasse.
“We agree that the Michigan delegation should be seated at the convention, and without a fight before the Credentials Committee or on the floor of the convention,” they said in a statement Friday afternoon.
A person close to the negotiations, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks, said the Clinton campaign was receptive to the June revote plan but the Obama forces were holding back for now.
The person said that Michigan Republicans, who control the State Senate, said they would not stand in the way. But Democrats, who control the state House of Representatives, are divided between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. “The Clinton people say they’re not going to block it,” the source said. “The question is what the Obama people are going to do.”
The situation in Florida seemed more intractable, with Clinton supporters arguing the party’s prospects in November could be jeopardized if a satisfactory resolution is not found. Some Clinton backers said they were intentionally withholding their contributions to the party, arguing that Howard Dean, the D.N.C.’s chairman, has left the situation in the hands of the states and the candidates, as opposed to exercising leadership to resolve it.
“My wife and I could max out, and we won’t,” said Ira Leesfield, a Miami lawyer who has given $61,500 to the committee since 1997. “We’re dissatisfied with the D.N.C. not taking the bull by the horns.”
About 250 top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton met Wednesday in Washington. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign’s chairman and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, encouraged the donors to pick up the phone and call party leaders, as did Mrs. Clinton.
But Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview Friday that he did not approve of donors’ holding back their contributions to the D.N.C.
A review of records filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that top donors to the committee gave more to Mrs. Clinton than to Mr. Obama. Of 196 people who have given at least $30,000 to the D.N.C. since 2005, it appears 71 of them contributed to Mrs. Clinton, with donations totaling more than $295,000, while 67 gave to Mr. Obama for about $189,000. And 25 gave to both.
Stacie Paxton, a spokeswoman for the D.N.C., defended Mr. Dean’s handling of the dispute.
“While Howard Dean has been working hard to be an honest broker, too many involved have been more concerned with headlines than results,” Ms. Paxton said. “It’s never productive to negotiate through the press, but make no mistake, Howard Dean will continue to lead the effort to find a workable solution that’s fair and consistent with the rules.”
Griff Palmer contributed reporting from New York, and Abby Goodnough from Tallahassee, Fla.
The AP Style Guide on Defending Barack Obama
The Associated Press editors tasked in-house "writer" Phillip Elliott to write an article that dispels the "rumors and outright lies" concerning Barack Obama and the perception that Mr. Obama's support of Israel is questionable. The product of that task is what you'd expect from any number of left leaning story tellers in the mainstream media who write about Obama as opposed to journalists, reporters and political observers that actually take the time to research, study and honestly discuss that which they have found.
Elliott took no time setting up the Obama defense from the first sentence, stating that "Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel". The rest of the article is essentially an exercise in repetition; repackaging the most often repeated excuses in defense of a man that inexplicably spent 20 years in a church listening to the controversial and dogmatic sermons of his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright honored noted Jew hater Louis Farrakhan and traveled with the Nation of Islam leader to visit Libya's Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi. You know Qadhafi, he's the megalomaniacal leader of Libya that instituted Sharia Law and expelled most all the Jews from his country while simultaneously destroying all their cemeteries. A real humanitarian and man of the people.
So perhaps the Jewish community has a reason to question Barack Obama on this issue considering that his teacher of faith is so aligned. But not if his supporters in the press have it their way. They have a casual way of making excuses for Mr. Obama, taking him at his word; not tasking him for who he associates with as they would others, but explaining away questionable relationships by asking a fleeting question and then convulsively nodding in unison as they gleefully accept fleeting answers.
For every criticism that anyone dare have about Barack Obama there is a cadre of willing "writers" and talking heads in the mainstream media that are waiting to provide a defense and make excuses. The one thing they are not doing though is answering the questions of his critics. Instead they play a shell game of avoid the answer. Which got me to thinking. I see a pattern emerging here and have decided to write it up as I would imagine it would be written up as a guide in AP Journalism 101.
The following is my 5 step AP Style Guide on Defending Barack Obama. For my examples I use excerpts from Associated Press writer Phillip Elliott in his recent article, Obama Tries to Allay Jewish Concerns. All comments surrounded by parenthesis in bold are mine for demonstration purposes.
Step 1. - Provide the Setup
The first step in creating a defense of Barack Obama is to provide a seemingly objective setup. The goal here is to state the criticisms of his record in a way that also defends his integrity and portrays Mr. Obama as a victim if at all possible.
Example:
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel. (praise)
He sings the praises, too, of Jewish civil rights workers who fought for blacks' rights in the U.S. And he says he wants to patch up "a historically powerful bond between the African-American and Jewish communities." (praise)
Yet there is unease among some Jewish voters about the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential contender. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Why? (lead readers into believing that they will get an answer)
Part of it is a division between blacks and Jews that's been growing for years, a split that Obama has challenged fellow blacks to confront. (action item in defense of cause)
Another element is the praise Obama has received from Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, whose disparaging comments about Judaism are toxic to many voters. Obama's own pastor has a history of supporting Palestinian causes. (concern that needs to be addressed)
And there are questions about Obama advisers who some U.S. Jews see as less than ardent advocates of Israel. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Finally, there are rumors and outright lies about the candidate that have gained an audience through repetition in e-mails and on Web sites. (defense, victimization, rumor and innuendo)
Step 2. - Provide the Defense
This step is quite simple. Provide a few fleeting action items, particularly recent events, that the candidate has done on behalf of the cause. Make sure to mix in a couple of statements from experts that are supportive of Barack Obama. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as "lie" and "outrage".
Example:
On the day of the Mississippi primary this week, Obama took time to call Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to express condolences over the deadly terrorist attack on a rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. He also reaffirmed his support for Israel's right to defend itself and for its commitment to negotiations with Palestinians and underscored the need to stop Iran from supporting terrorism or getting nuclear weapons. (recent action item in defense of cause)
The effort by the candidate and his advisers to calm disquiet among Jewish voters began more than a year ago. (action item in defense of cause)
"The Jewish community cannot be taken for granted," said Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, one of Obama's chief surrogates before Jewish audiences. Wexler sent an e-mail last March to supporters urging them not to be swayed by rumors, a message he repeated during a recent forum in Cleveland. (expert defense, mention of rumor and innuendo)
Obama used a speech in January at Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta to chastise blacks for latent anti-Semitism. And during a recent debate, Obama alluded to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, one black and two Jewish civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964 as they worked together on a campaign to register black voters. (action item in defense of cause, association by mention of famous civil rights figures)
"You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish-Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South," Obama said. "And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened." (action item in defense of cause, civil rights, superfluous praise)
Still, there remains some "nervousness over Senator Obama" among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. "The rumors still have some legs." (community outreach, concern that needs to be addressed, mention of rumor and innuendo)
Step 3. - Restate the Problem as Setup for Further Defense
This step is essentially a repeat of step 1. Do this in particular if the record of accomplishment is thin as it stretches the defense out. Appear objective. Avoid criticism unless it can be surrounded by offsetting praise or excused away.
Example:
Still, there remains some "nervousness over Senator Obama" among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. "The rumors still have some legs." (concern that needs to be addressed,community outreach, mention of rumor and innuendo)
At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, President Howard Friedman said Obama's Senate record on Israel has given his critics no reason to doubt him. (expert defense)
But that record is thin. Just a little over three years ago, Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. (excuse, note how this sentence contradicts the first sentence of the article)
"Right now, Obama's big problem with the Jewish community is similar to his problem with other communities: He's just not clearly defined among any voter groups," said Kenneth Wald, director of Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Florida-Gainesville. "The fact he has a name that sounds Muslim and has a Muslim father underlines questions about what we do and what we do not know about him." (concern that needs to be addressed)
Step 4. - Provide the Defense
This is a repeat of step 2. By now you should be getting into a rhythm providing excuses and defenses of all criticisms and concerns. Make sure to get some quotes and keep up the efforts to cast criticisms in the light of rumor and innuendo. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as "lie" and "outrage".
Example:
Some critics on the Internet have gone far beyond raising questions. (defense and set up)
Contrary to some e-mails, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. He took his oath of office on the family Bible, not a Quran. (defense, dispel rumor)
"There has been a concerted effort, largely out of the conservative Web sites and anonymous e-mails," says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which set up a Stop The Smears Web site to correct the rumors. (swipe against conservatives even though they have nothing to do with topic, mention of rumor and innuendo, drive people to advocacy site)
"I don't think it moves tons and tons of votes, but at the fringes, if left unchecked, it could move a few," he said. (critics are now portrayed as fringe)
In the private meeting in Cleveland with 100 Jewish leaders last month, Obama talked about his 2005 trip to Israel, his views on a Palestinian state and regional Middle East security. He was quickly questioned about his own pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and an award his church magazine gave last year that said Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness." (concern that needs to be addressed, action item in defense of cause)
Farrakhan is intolerable to Jewish voters because of a history of anti-Semitic remarks, like calling Judaism a "gutter religion." (statement of fact not attributed to Barack Obama)
Step 5. - Wrap it Up
This is the closer. Provide Barack Obama a platform from which to present his defense. Make sure you get a couple of key quotes. Leave the reader with a sense of calm that dispels all concerns and satisfies those who need an excuse to look past any questions that challenge Barack Obama.
Example:
Obama, who has rejected support from Farrakhan, assured voters his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago does not endorse such messages. (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, tie up loose ends on criticisms for denouncing Farrakhan as opposed to rejecting him*)
"I have never heard an anti-Semitic (remark) made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on the part of the pastor," Obama said in a transcript of his remarks released later. "He (Wright) is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with - including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans." (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
Obama took the title of his 2006 book "The Audacity of Hope" from a Wright sermon. But last year, he asked Wright not to offer a prayer at his campaign's kickoff in Springfield, Ill. (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
The questioners in Cleveland also raised Obama's use of foreign policy advisers the doubters say are foes of Israel, including former President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. (concern that needs to be addressed)
Obama replied that Brzezinski is an informal, not a key, adviser, and "I do not share his views with respect to Israel." (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)
He said he has other foreign policy advisers from the Clinton administration who share his belief that Israel has to remain a Jewish state with special ties to the U.S. and that the Palestinians have been irresponsible. And he said critics' e-mails never mention Lester Crown, a member of his national finance committee who is "considered about as hawkish and tough when it comes to Israel as anybody in the country." (action item in defense of cause, use of fundraiser turned advisor)
"This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I'm not out of school here," Obama told Jewish leaders at the private meeting. "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering, pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." (restate honesty, pro-Likud substitute as veiled reference to right wing)
The formula is pretty simple and there are variations to be sure. In the end make sure you advocate for Barack Obama while appearing objective.
* Closing the loop technique. Used to tie up loose end. In this example Barack Obama was quietly back peddling on a previous stance where he denounced Louis Farrakhan in the Russert debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama's parsing of words, using "denounce" instead of "reject" was capitalized on by Hillary Clinton and has caused great concern in the Jewish community as noted in the LA Times.
That is my take on the unwritten but seemingly understood formula used by many writers in the mainstream media that seek to defend Barack Obama rather than report on him.
We have seen this kind of thinly veiled activism being exercised by the press for quite some time. There is a double standard being applied to Barack Obama. The contrasts are astounding. Many of those defending him from the "guilt by association" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are the same crowd that attacked John McCain when radio talk show host Bill Cunningham dared to use the full name of Barack Hussein Obama. Likewise Hillary Clinton has been sliced by the knife of intolerance as she distanced herself from Geraldine Ferraro's statements concerning Barack Obama's meteoric rise to power. The same goes for select religions. The mainstream media worked overtime discussing the Mormonism of Mitt Romney yet we are essentially being told that we shouldn't discuss the church of Barack Obama. It goes on an on, defense after defense, excuse after excuse.
The appalling aspect of this whole exercise is that we are talking about media influence and the duty to inform. I have fun with these examples by sarcasm but presidential campaigns are serious events. The people of this nation deserve more.
Terry Trippany is the editor and publisher of Webloggin.com
We need a candidate of hope and change. A candidate who has a long history of leadership would give us hope that he would continue to lead. We need fundamental change too. We need a president who will:
1. Lead a National Energy policy that will ensure America's energy independence in as rapid a time frame as possible.
2. We need a president who will ensure the integrity of the United States and prevent potential terrorists from entering the country as well as ridding the country of illegal aliens who are a threat to security, American working families' jobs, and to our overtaxed government supported health care and school systems.
3. We need a leader who, more so than any other previous leader, has the will and testicular fortitude to slash government spending.
4. A leader who will try to undo the mess of American health care by promoting individual choice and discouraging government involvement rather than creating a leviathan new Healthcare agency which would decrease health care quality and drive Americans offshore to escape the system.
Although not a perfect candidate (particularly on illegal immigration) McCain, who has a record of strength on fighting government bloat, is a much stronger candidate on the issues above than any of the Democrat candidates. Contrary to conventional wisdom which says that there can't be third term for a Republican when the second term for Bush was so unpopular a McCain win is possible.
Newt Gingrich in his new book "Real Change" has some interesting comments about France's election of Sarko and how his win can be a harbinger for a Republican victory provided they pay attention. Not only can McCain win, the more he positions himself as the "real candidate of change" for the things that need changing the likelier a win is:
(transcribed using speech recogniton software, so there may be a glitch or two):
Amazingly, along came Nicholas Sarkozy who, in the Thatcher tradition, sought first to win the argument and then to win the vote. We can learn a great deal from Sarkozy victory in the 2007 "change" election in France-the Republicans have the most to learn from it.
In 2007 France had an unpopular incumbent president and a desire for change. Incumbent president Jacques Chirac had been elected twice, had served a total of 12 years in office, and had become very unpopular. Coming into the 2007 election, people were very tired of the Chirac government and there was a sense that change was necessary. However, the opposition on the left, the Socialist party, failed to capitalize on the popular desire for change. They nominated a candidate of great achievement,Segoline Royal, but she proved herself to be the candidate status quo, not the candidate of change. She was committed to keeping all the failing bureaucracies and all the policies that were creating unemployment. She was clearly unwilling to take on the unions, even if their policies were crippling the French economy. She was committed to avoiding the changes necessary for a French future of prosperity, opportunity, and safety.
Normally, with the incumbent conservative government so unpopular, the left would have been expected to win the election, probably by a significant margin. But conservative candidate Sarkozy won decisively because he is an aggressive, different kind of French political leader. As the minister of the Interior, he was a member of the Chirac government. But not only was he willing to stand up and fight his own party for what he believed it, he is also a man who didn't follow the normal French path to success by going to an elite university, becoming part of the ruling elite, and fitting in.
Instead Sarkozy is just the opposite of the stereotype of the French governing elite. He was born to a Hungarian father who had fled Communism that makes him the first president of France who is a second-generation immigrant. His name doesn't sound very French. And his style certainly isn't very French. He is a tough, confrontational leader--a man who has been preaching things that don't sound very much like the French establishment
In the campaign, Sarkozy argued that the French have to work more to earn more. To give them an incentive to do so, he argued that they shouldn't pay taxes when they work overtime. He called for tax cuts to encourage investment to the private sector could create jobs. And critically, Sarkozy has said people must obey the law-and that the creation of law and respect for the law as a central part of any civilized country.
Remember, this is a jarring message for a country that routinely accepts the burning of up to 15,000 cars a year by hooligans who, according to the elites, are simply expressing their desire to disrupt society. It's jarring for a country that was very proud of a few years back to have the first mandatory 35 hour work week in history., French will disappeared in a wave of lawlessness and economic decay.
Sarkozy won an argument that the failure to compete will lead to a loss of purchasing power, the loss of personal purchasing power would lead to a decline in tax revenue, and a decline in tax revenue would lead to a decline in the French government's ability to sustain the health system and the pension system.
like Prime Minister Margret Thatcher Sarkozy was able to convince a majority of his countrymen that their personal future and France's future were inextricably linked and that without fundamental change both would be w orse off.
Democrats Are Wrecking the Economy
|
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:48 AM
By: Lowell Ponte |
|
Stock markets around the world plummeted Monday while the New York Stock Exchange was closed for Martin Luther King Jr., Day.
This plunge, likely to reverberate in American markets on Tuesday, is according to The New York Times caused by “Fears of a U.S. Recession.”
Such left-liberal newspapers never explain why American and foreign traders expect recession.
Behind investor fears is the likelihood that 2008 will bring more Democrats to power in the U.S. Congress and elect a far-left Democrat — probably Hillary Clinton — president.
Democrats have already done everything in their power to bring down the U.S. economy, undermining American oil production and efforts to bring stability in the Persian Gulf.
Even worse, Democratic front-runners Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have vowed to let President George W. Bush’s tax cuts disappear in 2010.
This, as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform warns, is a Democratic pledge to raise taxes on American workers and business by $2 trillion!
Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi already includes this vast expropriation in her long-term socialist spending plans.
This proposed Democrat tax hijacking of America is already causing immense harm.
Business people today are making thousands of decisions whether to invest and create new jobs in the United States, move offshore, or halt all investment.
The coming $2 trillion Democratic tax increase is making that decision for them in a United States that already has among the highest business taxes on the planet.
American voters need to open their eyes to what is happening.
Democrats, as they did in their 1992 “It’s the Economy, Stupid” campaign that elected the Clintons, expect to profit politically by devastating America’s economy.
The more that Americans fear losing their jobs and facing economic bad times, the more they can be bamboozled into voting for Democrats — who, in fact, are the biggest cause of the economic problems people fear.
The mere existence of this socialist political party puts a drag on our economy because investors must always hedge defensively against a Democratic takeover of the government.
Do working people understand that every time they vote for any Democratic candidate, they weaken the economy, raise the price they must pay for food and other goods, and undermine future opportunities for their own children?
But, ignoramuses will ask, Was not the economy relatively good during the Clinton regime?
The Clinton co-presidency used the Cold War “Peace Dividend” from President Ronald Reagan’s victory over the Soviet Union to fund Democratic vote-buying via social programs.
The Clintons wantonly squandered this gigantic one-time historic windfall on a splurge that fattened government.
They diverted huge cuts in America’s national defense budget to bankroll more government spending . . . wasting money that should instead have been returned to American families in the form of massive permanent tax cuts.
And in their rush to neuter our intelligence agencies and American military — remember Bill Clinton’s note declaring, “I loathe the military” — they as radic | |
