“Stuck in between the tip of Bethesda and Mazza Gallerie?” I was asked. No, no, no, wrong Chevy Chase. Although I could understand that person’s confusion, since that part of Wisconsin Avenue is probably more well-known than the washed-up actor who now is trying to backpedal for his alma mater, Saturday Night Live, in the wake of an apparent Palin popularity surge.
Sarah Palin appeared on SNL last weekend after much speculation and received a respectable welcome from the audience. Alec Baldwin, perhaps best known these days for breaking his promise to leave the country, stood alongside her but his most noticeable trait that night was his seeming inability to read his lines without a teleprompter. And at some moments, even with. He also looked, if you don’t mind the bluntness, rather skanky.
As for Sarah, well she was her usual classy self. She stood alongside the great buffoon as he insulted her up and down, playing his role of pretending not to realise she was the real Palin (knows his great friend Tina really well, hey?). Meanwhile Palin just let it all bounce off of her–don’t let the role playing fool you, she knows these are not merely “scripted insults,” and is sure-footed in her ability to blow them off–knowing, probably, Baldwin was the one who would appear the fool, in and outside of his persona of the night.
In the second skit with Palin, “Weekend Update,” Amy Poehler, about 15 months pregnant God bless her and keep her, said she thought she could perform Palin’s rap routine. According to the script, the governor had been doing some thinking and decided that her role in such a routine would not bode well for the dignity of the presidential campaign. (In “real life” not a few silly people believed Palin was actually supposed to do it and really refused.) Instead she grooved to the music with arm gesticulations and facial expressions that…well, I better leave that alone. Let’s just say she is really attractive and knows how to dance.
So back to Chevy Chase. (I know, I know.) Here he is via Hot Air trying to say it was a “mistake” to allow the popular Palin to appear on SNL:
“Quite frankly, it’s a big mistake to let her go on,” Chevy told Access Hollywood at the Give Food a Chance benefit in New York. “What was brilliant about [‘SNL’ chief] Lorne [Michaels] was that he had nothing written for Sarah and that apparently she cannot improvise herself out of a paper bag!”
“On ‘Weekend Update,’ that was her big chance,” he said. “Nothing.”
What a dork. (There’s a word I learned over at Ace’s blog that seems so fitting for Chase at this moment, but I’m not ready to make that leap.) Palin is not a comedian and that’s why there’s a script, you knuckle dragger. What’s more, she didn’t have to say anything for people to love her, which is more than can be said for him. Imagine that: someone can receive such positive attention for being herself. It should be noted the nation has been abuzz about the appearance and ratings for SNL went up higher than what they had been in 14 years. Lorne Michaels admits to some gratitude for Palin:
“I think the gods smiled on us with the Palin thing. Like if he [John McCain] had chosen Romney, I think it would be completely different,” “SNL’s” executive producer Lorne Michaels told The New York Times.
Personally I think Chase is sincere when he says it was a “mistake,” but disingenuous as to why: he can’t stand Palin, obviously, and his preference is that she do something stupid to make herself look bad. Not only did she not fulfill his dream during the Saturday appearance, but also she came off as very likable and didn’t put much effort into it. She was just herself, had fun, and was loved for it. Even many who don’t care for her have expressed appreciation for her appearance and carriage, and complimented her ability to be a good sport. Chase tries to pass off his “concern” as being for the show’s creative integrity (or some such crap), but it is painfully obvious he is concerned not only about the ratings boost, but a potential rise in popularity amongst those who didn’t like her before. Or maybe that they got a glimpse of the real Sarah, as opposed to the caricature he and his ilk try so desperately to pass off, and may start to think for themselves.
You get to hand over your cash, and they get to distribute it.
Now don’t you feel better knowing your money will be going to subsidise such a noble lifestyle?
Filed under the “Must be nice” category next to “Is that where my donation went?” Later to be transferred to “That was part of my child’s uni fund.” Potential cross reference to “Depression planning” and “Faux potato famine.”
That was really funny, Terry Tate, did you think that up all by yourself? Or did you have to have Sandra Bernhardt in on a brainstorming session with you?
Well, Allah gives some background on this joker who apparently has some fans, although I personally can’t imagine what sort of humans could find this remotely amusing. “Unfunny” doesn’t even begin to describe how vile and disturbing not only this piece is, but anyone who could like it.
So let me review this again: there’s Madonna telling an audience of thousands how she is going to kick Sarah Palin’s person, Sarah Bernhardt raging-fantasising about Palin being gang raped, an artist’s depiction of Sarah Palin’s faced being punched so hard a tooth is knocked out and the glasses fly right off her face, and a mock up of someone pointing a gun at Palin’s head. And now this joker with his own twisted damp dream acted out to the framework of an already perverted Reebok commercial spot. How long ’til this becomes mainstream?
It’s not an unreasonable question given how there has been such a small amount of outroar coming from the press–if any at all. And why? Because they don’t like Palin’s political positions? Isn’t this supposed to be a country in which people can openly speak and tell their ideas–protected by the First Amendment? Since when do we go around perpetuating violence against those we disagree with? Of course there have always been “hits” on political figures, i.e. assassinations and attempts, and while not getting into any discussion on the merits of those, what I’m looking at here is the alarming phenomenon of public and private figures promoting and almost advocating physical aggression and violence–because they don’t like what someone said.
What happened to the days when you just didn’t vote for them?
We all know about schoolyard bullies and the routine theories re: how insecure they are, etc. Could these otherwise ordinary (word use relatively in some cases) beings be so threatened that killing or severely harming Palin makes them feel better about themselves and their insecurities? There’s an imbalance in this description, because “insecurity” seems too small a word to stand parallel and in partnership with the violence being promoted these days.
I also have to wonder: “Why Palin?” No, I’m not saying that in consideration of why Hillary wasn’t the object of such attacks. (Although Clinton did endure some abuse coming from self-hating idiots.) No, what I’m thinking about is that surely some of these people dislike John McCain as much as they do Sarah Palin. So how come nobody’s making the moves against McCain? Not that I am asking for it to happen, of course; it would be just as despicable. But the fact that he is a man can’t stop itself from crossing my mind, and the horrible consideration that even amongst the female population, violence against women not only is still acceptable, but also can be considered funny, especially when the intended target is someone who disagrees with them.
This is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in some of the video responses at the YouTube site itself, such as:
montalvomachado
Maaan, she deserved that! Hilarious.
or
jaeastman
pretty sure dr. king would find this pretty lol-worthy
or
MudkipRex
Get used to having a black president, you racist moron. Obama is going to win. And he’s the better candidate too.
Not only were there few comments that directly objected to the depiction of a large man crashing into a small female (what in real would have killed her), but there were ones such as the last (above) that justified it with the implication that she had it coming because of the alleged racism inherent in the McCain campaign and its supporters. In fact, the first reply I quoted above comes out and says, “[S]he deserved that!” And in failing to recognise their own out-of-control behavior and irrational ways of, erm, thinking, there even is the assertion that Martin Luther King would have approved.
By the way, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was Joe Biden’s baby. Why isn’t he speaking up against this monstrous trend?
With the Obama scare measures against freedom of speech already happening, a bunch of pre-pubes dressing up in fatigues to worship their candidate, children being indoctrinated to sing love songs to him, the proposal of some sort of civilian gang (funding same as the actual military’s) and now tacit approval of violence against Obama critics, I’m not only still wondering how far this will go, as I wrote last time, but also when the American Cultural Revolution starts.
Oh yeah: The media are spreading fears about “Republican anger” on election night. Snort.
First we have one reporter claiming he heard a supporter at a McCain/Palin rally shout out, “Kill him!” when Obama’s name came up. Based on only that word, newspapers around the US reported the story and hyperventilated about how concerned they are supporters of the right are “gripped by insane rage.” There were accusations and statements about Sarah Palin whipping supporters into a frenzy and crowds getting out of control.
Nevermind that for the past eight years threats, calls of death wished on Bush and others, and all manner of insults and extreme statements have been openly uttered without any whinging from the MSM.
If that wasn’t bad enough, it turns out this whole “Kill him!” story may have been a mere fabrication. The Secret Service could find no evidence the incident ever occurred. (Via Ace)
OK, let’s review for a moment: One reporter claims he heard something, newspapers and commentators across the country pick it up with no questions asked, and the left is “outraged.” When questions are asked and no evidence is found, the left remains “outraged” and the editor only has something to say about “facts reported [being] true.” My question is this: What facts?
But that’s not the end of it. While the hypocritical left stand by and watch all this, and watch their messiah all but advocate tearing down the life of a man who dared to complain about his tax policies–
–they make sure the world knows about an incident in which a pair of young men at a Palin rally were “beaten up” by a couple of 65-year-old women a few days ago.
I would be included in those who normally condemn such, ehem, atrocities given I don’t condone violent actions to get a point across. Truth be told, however, I’m not having a great deal of sympathy with people who seem to be “ignorant” to the facts regarding repeated attacks, physical and verbal, on McCain/Palin supporters and their property. Property? Some may find it absurd I am making a case out of this, but the truth is that for many this sort of thing too often has been the precursor for what is yet to come: worse. Sarah Bernhardt on gleefully about Sarah Palin being gang raped, Madonna telling a concert audience she would kick Sarah Palin’s person; it’s not surprising their fans and leftie supporters, who tend to be one and the same, follow their despicable examples, or take it upon themselves to show the world their own insane rage:
*Obama supporters in Philadelphia sported “Sarah Parah is a [disgusting vulgarism referring to female genitalia]” t-shirts and yelled “Let’s stone her, old school” over the weekend.
*An Internet artist has designated Palin an “M.I.L.P” – “Mother I’d Like to Punch” – and published a drawing of a man’s fist knocking a tooth out of the Alaska governor’s mouth and the glasses off her face.
*“ABORT Palin” grafitti has sprouted on the sidewalks of Seattle and “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers are spreading on Web stores.
*Sarah Palin-bashing Madonna performs before an audience of thousands, screeching and threatening to “kick her a**.”
*Getty Images publishes a photo of a man pointing a fake gun at the head of a cardboard cutout of Palin on display at the Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition building.
And no one blinks. Not a peep from the Obamedia.
But when Sarah Palin simply spotlights Obama’s longtime relationship with Weather Underground bombing terrorist Bill “We Didn’t Do Enough” Ayers?
“Inciting violence,” frets NBC reporter Ron Allen. “Concerned…for Senator Obama’s safety,” agonizes ABC reporter Terry Moran. “Beyond the pale,” cries Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. As if the no-holds-barred Obama campaign has ever had a rhetorical pale to stake.
All the world’s a Kabuki stage for the selectively outraged over rage.
So where were they all this time when this was going on?
And how about a month ago when a female McCain supporter was beaten over the head with the stick from a sign by a leftie who had this to say of his actions:
“It’s just those signs, and this election, it has me so upset.”
What has happened to a country in which the most powerful newspapers look completely the other way when women are beaten up by the supporters of their candidate, the one they are so in the tank for that they fail the people of the United States by neglecting to report the most important details about Barack Obama but send out the cavalry and get the vapors because a plumber in Ohio, who dared ask The One a question, goes by his middle name? (Breathlessly they report, “And his name isn’t even Joe, it’s Samuel! Joe is his middle name!”)
About two months ago I thought I was being chicken shit and not living up to my duties as a responsible citizen by proclaiming my support not only for McCain, but also Palin, of whom I am a constituent and supporter. I was concerned my car would get keyed or broken into, neither of which I can afford as the single parent of a small child. But now, though they remain concerns, they appear to be the least of them. With such escalation of violent acts that go unpunished–nay even unreported–I can’t help but wonder: Will I be hurt? Will my child? These people seem to have no reservations about doctoring pictures of an eleven-year-old, spreading nastiness about an infant and his mother, mutilating property and drawing obscene scenes of abject violence–it’s so commonplace and accepted by so many on the left that I can no longer use ordinarily reliable measurements of decency to predict where it will end.
This blog of mine is fairly new and very small compared to so many others. I’m OK with this, especially because I know that if even a few people read it and talked to others in their real-life environment about the topics, it could make a real difference. And this is one topic that really needs to be spread around as much as is possible to spread. What has transpired–that someone ask for some accounting and been attacked for it–is repulsive and not at all representative of our nation. These are the tactics of National Socialists and have no place in our society. The following is taken from the Sundries Shack and worth spreading far and wide.
Pay attention, folks. This lesson is important.
The progressives have made a very definitive statement today. They have said that if you dare to speak out against their Chosen One, they will not only smear you and broadcast the details of your life to the world but they’ll also deprive you of your livelihood.
A couple of days ago, Joe Wurzelbacher was just a regular guy with a house and a son and a dream of one day seeing his hard work pay off with a better life. Then Barack Obama showed up in his front yard. Now, thanks to the Obamessiah’s brownshirts, he is likely to lose his job as a plumber.
Wurzelbacher registered as an apprentice with the Ohio State Apprenticeship Council in November 2003, according to Dennis Evans, spokesman with the Department of Job and Family Services. Records show his training, which was sponsored by A & W Newell Co. of Toledo, should have been wrapped last year.
“We don’t have a record of completion,” Evans said. “All we know is that he registered in the program and has gone through to the point where we should have record of completion, but we don’t.”
And that’s not the only record that’s missing from Wurzelbacher’s file. He doesn’t have a plumbing license required by the city of Toledo to practice, according to a staffer with the Toledo Division of Building Inspection. Wurzelbacher, who now works for Newell Plumbing & Heating Co., said the owner, Al Newell, has a plumbing license and that “because he works for someone else, he doesn’t need a license.”
But even that’s not true, according to the Toledo Division of Building Inspection. Wurzelbacher can’t legally do plumbing work without a license, regardless of his boss’s certification.
A staff person with the Toledo Division of Building Inspection told On Call this afternoon that her division will contact Wurzelbacher to notify him that he can’t work without a license.
“We’re trying to track him down,” she said.
Ace says this is the doing of “Toledo officials” but it isn’t. They’re just doing their jobs. They would have had no reason at all to look into Wurzelbacher if someone hadn’t dropped the dime on him. It could have been one of those self-important union jerks quoted in the article. It could have been one of Obama’s blogger mob. Heck, it could even have been a journalist. But someone squealed and demanded that Plumber Joe be investigated.
I’m going to lay this at Barack Obama’s feet. He’s not oblivious to what the left-wing blogs nor the MSM are doing. At any point he could have contacted a reporter or two, maybe a couple or three bloggers, and told them to lay off. He could have called off most of the dogs in a hot second and it would have taken him no real effort at all. Heck, he could have had one of his people – David Axelrod, say – make the calls and it would have taken him mo more effort than a short conversation.
But he didn’t. He let this continue. In a day or so someone will ask him about it and he’ll feign ignorance or innocence or whatever ploy happens to be getting him out of the spotlight that day. In the meantime, Joe Wurzelbacher’s going to end up without a job. And he didn’t do a damned thing but disagree with Barack Obama.
Doesn’t this make you even a little angry? It makes me bloody furious.
The Anchoress says that Obama has told the entire country “…don’t dream too big. Don’t dare to dream too big, because if you do, we’re just going to chop you down to size, so that everyone is the same” It would have been bad enough if he had stopped there. But he let the mob rage and plot.
And now…this.
I wonder if he’s proud of what has been done in his name? I wonder if he’s smiling right now?
(via Hot Air)
UPDATE: You want to know what Barack Obama was doing instead of calling off his rabid mob? He was making fun of Plumber Joe.
Click here for some facts about this disgrace perpetuated by Barack Obama.
“McCain seems to not really know what he’s doing right now.”
“Are you more for Obama’s policies because he’s pro-life or because he thinks our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war?”
“I think our troops should stay in Iraq and finish this war. I’m really firm with that, definitely.”
“OK. Now how about as far as him being pro life? Do you support Obama in that case?”
“Yeah. I do. I do support him in that case.”
“And if he wins, would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being vice president?”
“No I wouldn’t, not at all. Not at all.”
“So you think he made the right choice in that?”
“I definitely do.”
*********
This is one example of three people interviewed on this tape, and while I understand that there are going to be supporters on both sides who confuse or don’t even understand policies, I don’t dismiss the considerations of those people who wonder that some Obama supporters–black or white–don’t even seem to care what he supports. It’s all over the place and the race card is being played hard and strong by Obama supporters, including the MSM, in reference to virtually anything said by McCain/Palin or anyone who supports them.
I’m wondering if I should be more nervous, though, that some people hold voting cards and seem to think Obama’s running mate is Sarah Palin.
So had Joe Wurzelbacher been a doctor, would Obama still be mocking him? Probably, but I’m wondering what excuse he would have used since elitism couldn’t be his base. I’m also curious about those in his audience, those cultish followers and mindless automatons who laughed when Dear Leader derisively said, “A plumber!” As if he is incredulous and absolutely floored that anyone could possibly want even to associate with a plumber, let alone support one. Are every single one of those polished beings employed in professions that float above the dirtiness that is life? Is not a single one of them thinking to him or herself that perhaps their own paychecks or contacts just might come from suspect associations?
*********
Yeah, let’s talk about associations, Führer. Since you seem to think yours are so much better than McCain’s, and by extension ours, tell us what it is that makes that so. What is it we are missing? Could it be that we peasants simply are not intellectually equipped to make judgments as to what is going to engage us in a life worth living? Maybe our origins automatically bar us from having a say in who we should be listening to? Isn’t your party supposed to be the one that stands for respecting other people’s realities and experiences? Or does that just count when they are given your stamp of approval?
*********
“Snob” is too weak a word for this anti-American creep. I’m not sure there is a word strong enough for the thoughts I am having, but I’m not going to waste my time right now searching for it. I’ll say instead I’d rather be friends and associate with an honest plumber any day of the week before I would even want to be in the presence of a lying, thieving, infanticide-supporting shite like Barack Hussein Obama. It so totally doesn’t matter that Wurzenbacher is unlicensed, owes back taxes, or that his potential company can in no way ever project to make 250K$ annually. The question was asked, it deserved–nay, was required–to be asked, and the enquirer is now being punished. This is not what is meant to represent the United States of America and my greatest wish at this moment is for the people of this great nation to see Obama for the fraudster that he really is.
Oh yeah: Sorry, Allah, it all amounts to the same, no matter how you dress it.
I’m so relieved the chance of me getting a j-o-b-s next summer seems a bit more realistic now that Joe the Plumber has done a little eye-opening for the nation. That is to say, if McCain gets elected, taxes won’t go up, businesses won’t go down, bosses will still be hiring.
And as always that bit of relief was provided by the Gaffemeister Joe Biden, whose experimental-level invented spelling gives us new reason to trust our own instincts against a guy whose knowledge of television history is apparently no better than Katie Couric’s. (Reminder: Couric is a televison anchor who doesn’t seem to know when the medium was invented.)
OK, let’s give credit where credit due. Biden at least tries to know when to keep his mouth shut.
I’ve been able to perk up thanks to Dr. Jim. Of course his job was made easier by the fact that I don’t have TV, but the advice to “get outta here” was well heeded. I fell asleep and when I came to there was no Joe anywhere. In fact, thinking back on it, I hadn’t heard about him for days. Was it because he is hidden away, or has the debate simply taken over the waves? Whatever the reason, he’s gone. And I sort of miss him.
Remember the days when Teresa Heinz Kerry used to say things like “shove it” and pass judgments about what constitutes a “real” job? Now we have Michelle Obama providing the entertainment as she reminds us how her husband will rescue us from our pathetic lives–although she, too, has been kept under wraps for a while. And the Obama campaign has been relying on the media toxicity Treacher references to do us in while we have nothing to diffuse it–no Teresa, no Joe, no Michelle. For awhile we had Alaskan weaponry that kept the infection at bay, but then it renewed its attack with every bit of determined-to-decimate power it had, and the one by one went inhabitants of the blogosphere and real life in some sort of Malthusian population control probably viewed by those on the left as providential. Not only were they ruthless, but also delighted.
Biden had been providing the standup to get us through those trying moments, but they may have realized he was the unwitting antidote because then suddenly he was gone. We were left flailing and sinking until someone finally said, “Get a grip.” And enter Joe the Plumber, who questioned the Dear Leader without flinching an eye; he may be the subject of folk songs currently being written, and things seem to be looking up. Ace seems to be making a nice recovery (while not getting giddy) and although I had my doubts about Allah, he appears to be trying.
Of course, the real answer will come 4 November and until then Joe’s cape design will be on hold since the left will be obliged to go through his trash, but I can safely say that even if the polls don’t read as I’d like them to, I have good reasons to believe they won’t result in the onset of buboes: 1) lies anyway; 2) PUMAs; and 3) that cold turkey bit was a godsend.
In the meantime, I’m hoping they’ll slip up and send the Gaffemeister out again, perhaps deluded by some idea they usually have that the debate for them was a smashing success and nationwide recognition of the racism inherent in every single word coming from our mouths (fingertips) only discredits us. Since they perceive ordinary Americans to be very stupid, they probably don’t believe that “95% of taxpayers” eventually starts to ring bells with these people, sort of in the same way as when an agency claims “100%” results. Even a five year old recognizes on some level that homogenous thought is not natural: a few days ago, while engaging in gross exaggeration I said something about “everybody” parading around in love with Obama; overhearing me my son replied, “Well, not everybody.”
Well, if McCain wins, I suppose we have liberal rage to look forward to–you know, Susan Sarandon-type attacks, more whinging about “stolen” states and of course there probably will always be those only too willing to disgrace themselves in public via their intellectual “wit.” (Think black shirts with neon green letters.) I wonder if Joe will be toddling along for the ride or still chasing after people with his idiotic, fomenting spit. Och well, no worries. It was medicinal while it was needed, but hopefully I can move on to missing his charm about as much as I miss what-I-probably-am-not-allowed-to-say-because-it-is-racist.
Sarah Palin doesn’t know enough about constitutional law or Supreme Court cases to suit some people, who seem to think this dearth of knowledge comes from her having failed to travel to as many countries as they believe she ought to have done.
Perhaps Chris Matthews should have been required to travel to Rangoon before being awarded his degree in journalism, or even his job. If he had, surely he would not soon forget it is the capital of Burma, aka Myanmar. Sure, Rangoon is now known, thanks to the thugs who run this southeast Asian country, as Yangon, but who cares about details?
I do! If Chris Mathews is going to go around posing as a journalist, a person whose job it is to say the news, then I expect him to know the news and where the places he is talking about actually are. I mean really, he did know there was a big storm there, didn’t he?
And perhaps actually what the new is. Matthews, who could barely keep his moaning in check, trilled, “An African-American, someone whose father came from Kenya, has been chosen by the American voters to succeed George W. Bush”? Um, excuse me? When did this happen and where was I on voting day?
A moment later the “journalist” compares this news to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the all-race voting in South Africa, “and it could be just as positive,” he croons, “depending on your politics.”
Ah, now I see. He has one for “Barack Hussein Obama,” which by the way is now virtually illegal to say. But I guess Matthews could get away with it back then, and maybe now too if Obama saw him standing up. “An un-Bush. David, he is the un-Bush! [Spittle flies out.] He’s sort of a gift from the world to us in so many ways.”
Ah, another insight. A gift from the world to us? Well, yeah, it must be true after all. *Sigh* The world hates us.
I’m going to have to disagree with Patterico, who was bothered by Sarah Palin’s response to the Pakistani president’s moronic fumbling for words once he set eyes on her.
“A little gravitas, please,” Patterico wrote. “I think Palin is bright, but she should model herself after Margaret Thatcher. In the unlikely event that some sexist jerk from Pakistan had praised her looks, Maggie wouldn’t have said “Tee hee.” Even if she had been pretty, she still would have found a way to cut the guy off at the knees.”
Ehem…excuse me? Cut him off at the knees? Sarah Palin seemed to know full well that such a reaction (as opposed to response) really would have served no purpose. I sense Zardari is in for some bit of mockery for having lost his focus in front of the world, and publicly shaming him would have done Palin no good. She knows when not to shoot herself in the foot.
I’m not suggesting that Sarah should engage in prostituting her charm or allow herself to be insulted in order to get her way. It’s practicality I’m talking about here. And for the record, “tee hee” is most definitely not the way I interpret her replies. Her body language and tone of voice convey a sort of respectful dismissiveness–but again, not too dismissive. At one point she waved him away with her hand, but the gesture was soft enough not to offend. And he appeared not to be put off by it because it looked to me like he wanted her to be comfortable–you can see how she sort of fumbled with her hands and tried to sit down but then realised she shouldn’t until invited–and gestured quickly for her to sit down.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but to some people a statement such as, “Now I know why all of America is crazy about you” is a compliment and nothing more. I’m sure some would see it as lacking the “deep” thought and I won’t be able to convince them otherwise, even when they find time to be critical of Margaret Thatcher’s looks. But I’m also not going to buy the line that the Iron Lady would have dressed him down. I think she too would have been bright enough to play it down as Palin did.
Feminism isn’t always about jumping down people’s throats. There’s a time for diplomacy and allowing people to realise their mistakes and cultural gaffes in private. Sarah has proven yet again she is one step ahead of those who are so eager, as are some in the media, to preserve offended antagonism over reaching mutual understanding.
An Egyptian Muslim scholar has called for an end to risible religious edicts after a Saudi cleric said Mickey Mouse was an agent of Satan who should die, local media reported on Wednesday.
Sheikh Mohamed al-Munajid, a cleric who often appears on Saudi television and who is also a former Saudi diplomat in the United States, said last week that mice were “agents of Satan” and should be killed.
“Sharia (Islamic law) calls for the extermination of all mice. That includes the rodents as well as ‘the famous cartoon mouse’,” he said.
He blamed Mickey Mouse for causing people to become soft on mice.
However, Suad Saleh, a woman preacher who hosts a popular television programme on fatwas, or religious edicts, told the English-language daily Egyptian Gazette that Munajid’s ruling “tarnishes Islam’s image.”
“An edict should be based on knowledge, logic and reason,” she said. “Yes, mice should be killed when seen according to Islam’s teachings. But it is illogical to deal with a cartoon character as a live mouse and kill it.”
So are we going to see a rush of mouse killers outside as well as inside KSA? And what about bonfires fed by Disney memorabilia? Does anybody remember the picture of Mickey Mouse flipping the bird and saying, “Hey, Ayatollah!”? These are a few of the flashes that went through my mind when I read this absurdity, but it all settled on the dim memory of one passage in Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China in which Jung Chang mentions Mao’s call to kill all vermin (I think it was a species of birds?). It resulted in overpopulation of their natural prey because citizens had been all too happy to oblige the Mao madness.
I do realise all groups have their nutjobs. What I’m disturbed at is how many people actually follow their advice. No word yet on how the general public is responding to this fatwa, which might be overshadowed by the news that British plumbers and purveyors of bathroom fixtures seem set to have a lot of new business.
And she’s bragging about it, too. Apparently without “preparations”, Code Pink founders Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin met with Iranian president and raging anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York. Evans wears another hat in this election as well; she has pledged to raise over $50,000 for Barack Obama as one of his main bundlers:
Calling it a “major step forward” in relations between Iran and the United States, leading activists Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans of CODEPINK Women for Peace — along with more than 150 other U.S. peace group representatives — met Wednesday afternoon with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here following his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
They had some interesting ideas for promoting peace with the man who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, who funds terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, whose munitions kill American soldiers in Iraq, and whose nation currently wants to build nukes. Their solutions? Peace parks and investing in Iranian businesses:
The CODEPINK women proposed inviting American and Iranian artists to build a “peace park” in Tehran, a memorial dedicated to people-to-people commitment to peace and diplomacy between our two countries.
They also proposed a plan to invest funds in an Iranian business, one that produces green and sustainable products, such as bicycles. This grassroots investment would be the opposite of efforts by the Bush administration and Congress to tighten sanctions, a move which CODEPINK thinks would only hurt ordinary, everyday Iranians. Such a symbolic CODEPINK investment in a green, sustainable business would challenge U.S. regulations blocking trade with Iran and would show how diplomacy and trade are preferable to war and sanctions.
Most people want to stop investing in an Iranian system that needs cash for its nuclear aspirations. Congress has considered a divestment bill this year, for instance, attempting to use leverage . In fact, both John McCain and Barack Obama support divesture. Maybe that message got lost in the shuffle at Team O.
That brings us to the bigger question: why is a bundler for Obama’s campaign meeting with the head of the biggest terror-sponsoring regime in the world? Let’s skip over all of the hypocrisy of a supposed “peace” group sucking up to a man who funds terrorists, murders, and violence all over the world. (They like Castro, too, so that’s old news.) Here we have someone actively working to raise funds for Obama meeting with the explicitly avowed enemy of one of our closest allies. What does that say about Obama and his campaign?
Obama should disavow Evans and return the money she has bundled for him. If not, we can consider that agreement with Evans’ actions and judge Obama’s foreign-policy instincts by it. (via Melanie Morgan and Free Republic’s Kristin Taylor)
It’s worth repeating Melanie Morgan re: how closely Obama embraces this group:
“Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans’ attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.”
Interestingly, this link, Evans’s statement of the meeting with Ahmadinejad (toward the bottom of Kristinn Taylor’s entry) led to a very pink, but inaccessible page. (This is as of Friday 25 September 2008, 06.30 AKDT)
Why, Code Pink, is this a major step forward? You don’t represent the United States in any official capacity and you have no power to set policy. And rare as it may be for a “world leader” to meet with an activist group, you seem to be forgetting that it isn’t because he admires your principles. You are useful and nothing else.
Many of the people who speak out against what Code Pink are doing are reviled and mocked for being “uneducated” and “ignorant” but the truth is we are the ones who understand better than they do what pawns they are. We also understand they are a giant liability for Obama, who himself has already stated he would meet with Ahmadinejad without having established any prior conditions. This is against the interests of the United States, the desires of most Americans, and offensive to those whose families have suffered as a result of the actions of the revolutionary Iranian government.
Moreover, they seem to be mixing up the Iranian people with their leader, who by the way has to be approved by an unelected body, even to run for office. Wishing to establish some sort of dialogue with private Iranian citizens is noteworthy and probably even more advantageous because, depending on the circumstances, you might come closer to getting some insight into what ordinary Iranians have to say. Given the chance, probably one of the first things many Iranians would inform these women of is that many Iranian women are not even permitted to ride bicycles because it is deemed as “immodest.” Evans and Benjamin also need to be reminded that in his own country Ahmadinejad routinely jails and otherwise punishes women, whose rights are denied daily.
The notorious disinviting of Sarah Palin from an anti-Ahmedinejad rally in New York is a product of the secret war Hillary Clinton is waging against the Obama presidential campaign.
The catalyst that set the disastrous events in motion was Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal.
Many weak and nonsensical excuses were made for Clinton’s withdrawal. It was said she pulled out because she thought the event was partisan, or because she did not want to appear with Palin. She was unhappy that the organizers did not tell her that Palin also was going to attend.
Actually, what Clinton signaled was her chances of seizing the nomination and the White House in 2012 were more important than presenting a united front against Ahmadinejad.
So what happened to set the ball rolling? Hillary’s pull out had nothing to do with Palin. It was an implicit hit at Obama. Hillary did not want to be the one to represent Obama. Obama’s position on Iran is sophomoric, idiotic and dangerous. Hillary has been more responsible and she was not going to clean up his mess.
In plain terms, Hillary Clinton was not going to be the face of Obama’s Iranian foreign policy. Obama has said he would meet with Ahmedinejad without condition — essentially rewarding him for his nuclear arsenal and genocidal threats. No way was Hillary going to pave that road for him, so she pulled out forcing Obama to face the jihad music. In withdrawing she forced him send someone in his stead — but who?
Clinton could not have known that Jewish lay leadership would cave to their left wing activists, but that was of little import to her. Her action was taken to shine the spotlight on Obama’s complete failure on Iran, and she accomplished this. Claiming that by inviting Palin (and Clinton, Biden and Wexler), the organizers were in danger of losing their tax-exempt status was ridiculous. It was not a political rally and Hillary attended and spoke in 2006 when she was running for the Senate. Was that political? Those who make that argument insult our intelligence.
I do not forgive Malcolm Hoenlein for caving to the leftist Jews. The buck stops with him and he blew it. Israel is in Iran’s nuclear cross hairs. Full weaponization is either here or imminent. American Jews need real leadership and that is why Malcolm Hoinlein must resign. He is tired and gutless. As executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations since June 1986, it was his decision to make. Hoenlein has demonstrated he is not capable of leading the Jewish people as the world prepares for a second holocaust. The left wing politics of yesterday cause irreparable harm.
The real issue is why Obama didn’t send anyone to represent him at the Anti-Ahmedinejad rally? Having no one there for Obama makes it seem he did not want to upset the Hitler wannabe, or that he was pandering to his widespread support in the Muslim world or his 22% lead over McCain among Muslim Americans.
Hillary wanted these question raised in the subconscious of Jewish and other pro-Israel/anti-Iran voters.
In this Presidential race, Hillary is a McCain operative even if he doesn’t know it.
A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent.
The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood.
Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan — a Democrat who is supporting Obama’s presidential bid — is investigating “whether this charitable organization properly used its charitable assets, including the state funds it received,” Cara Smith, Madigan’s deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday.
In addition to the 2001 grant that Obama directed to the housing association as a “member initiative,” the not-for-profit group got a separate $20,000 state grant in 2006.
But of course the person investigating the crime is a Obama supporter, so we shouldn’t be surprised that others will go under the bus as Obama skates:
Madigan’s office has notified Obama’s presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama’s actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said.
Come on. The spouse of a campaign aide gets a grant for a garden that never gets built and Obama isn’t suspected of any wrongdoing?
How about his judgment?
The relationship between Smith and Obama dates to at least 1997, when Obama wrote a letter that Smith used to help the housing association win city funding for an affordable-housing development near the garden site. Plans called for more than 50 homes; a dozen ultimately were built.
So he helped the aide get funding for 50 homes, most of which were never built. Then a few years later he gives that same aide some MORE money for a garden that was never built.
A company in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter is making commemorative coins for American presidential hopeful Barack Obama.
Windsor, Elizabeth & Windsor has already sold more than 300 limited edition commemorative silver coins to the Democratic Party to hand out to key members of the campaign to elect Obama.
The coins already sold to the Democrats will be presented to the senators, congressmen, governors and other politicians they are being given to within the next two weeks.
The company directors got the idea of producing the coins after seeing actress Meryl Streep talking about Barack Obama on a television programme.
When they got in touch with the Democrats the party jumped at the chance. And the coins have proved such a hit that locally produced versions have already been launched to compete with the UK originals.
The coins show Senator Obama’s face, along with a picture of the White House and the legend “President of the United States of America”.
So there you have it folks, please make sure you hurry up and get yours, as supply is very limited. Make sure you place it next to your President Kerry and President Gore commemorative coins, oh, wait, Gore and Kerry had a bit more humility and didn’t actually make presidential coins…
Either way, I am glad the Obama campaign has decided that the November election is a mere formality, as he is already the President-elect. I guess I don’t need to go to the polls on that day after all…
But in reality, PUMA pundit, I’m sure you will be going with as much glee as I will, with the prospect of NObama straight ahead.
This comes as both a stunning and ridiculous development; Americans are still coping with high energy prices and coming to grips with a plan to bailout Wall Street, and Senator Reid is denying access to potentially one of America’s most abundant energy reserves. Just how much energy you ask?
Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered in Colorado alone. That amount is enough to potentially power the U.S. economy for many decades. Furthermore, if full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020…
In essence, Senator Reid is stripping the decision rights away from his colleagues in other states.
Here’s a fact sheet from Gingrich’s American Solutions group noting that America’s oil shale deposits are fully three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves, and here’s the contact information for all 100 senators. Go rattle some cages. Exit question: How about a hastily arranged presser for the Barracuda to stress her outrageous outrage at this development?
Update: A reader e-mailed Reid’s spokesman for comment and got this reply. I’m not kidding about rattling cages.
There is a possibility the Senate will be asked to vote on reestablishing the moratorium on oil shale extraction. Although Senate Democrats support measures to increase this nation’s energy supply, oil shale extraction has not been proven to be economically viable, will produce more greenhouse gases, and will significantly decrease the West’s water supply.
A Sarah Palin impersonator hired by the New York Daily News was charged with walking around the city as a test to see how locals and tourists respond.
People waved and cheered at her, some even asking for autographs. A gaggle of tourists gathered round and others aimed their cameras from tour buses. A Lehman Brothers employee stopped to chat and a passer-by shouted, “You’re hot! But I hope you lose!”
One man out for a stroll allowed his granddaughter’s photo to be made, but only after an opposition button was prominently placed on the child. “If her parents see her with anyone who even looks like Palin,” he said, “they’ll strangle me.”
So, does this mean New Yorkers have switched to milk from their favorite wine?
Not quite. Somehow New Yorkers never struck me as mean-spirited or absurd enough to boycott something for a resemblance. They bicker with each other when trying to give out-of-towners proper directions (I’m speaking from personal experience here) and old ladies pass out hard candies to people who give up their seats for them. (With the looks people get when they try to ignore them, you might be hard pressed to find someone unwilling to relinquish that seat!)
But let’s be realistic. I am sure the Daily News, whose rag factor remains unknown to me, thought they were having a spot of fun, but a few random passersby a survey does not make. And the “‘Palin’ by Comparison” table they inserted in the article’s center is designed to bias. I know, I know, to some it might seem I have no sense of humor. But the truth is bias trickled into society, in deliberately small amounts, has a real effect. Such entries as “countries visited”–which recalls the outlandish assertion that somehow having obtained a passport only last year is practically a personal deficiency–combined with the table’s title disregards the fact that millions of Americans are not in possession of a passport.
And, shocking as it may seem to lots of New Yorkers, some Alaskans have never been Outside. So what? They would be able to spot Kristy Webb as a fakester from opposite ends of Manhattan, as she in reality looks nothing like the real Sarah.
Fairfax, VA-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has sent threatening letters to news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio to stop airing ads exposing his anti-gun record sponsored by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF).
The kicker? NRA-PVF’s Ohio’s ads have not yet begun running.
“Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth,” declared Chris W. Cox, Chairman of NRA-PVF. “Sen. Obama’s statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama’s abysmal record on guns and hunting.”
The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama’s anti-gun record.
“Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation’s history. That’s the truth,” concluded Cox. “NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it.”
I understand some people reading this might not be interested in guns, or believe in gun control. In that case I would urge you to consider the erasure of rights we have been hearing about over the past few years include the right to information–what the Obama campaign here seeks to quash. Whether you agree with gun control or not, no campaign has the right to keep information from the public, or use insidious methods to intimidate others into doing the same.
If you believe this to be a small or insignificant matter, consider the consequences of government violation of any other of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections? Would you tolerate it? It is not the nature of a responsible citizen to pick and choose which guaranteed rights may apply to fellow citizens, but this is what the Obama campaign seeks to do.
The Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy had as its key findings:
* that secrecy is a form of government regulation
* that excessive secrecy has significant consequences for the national interest when policy makers
are not fully informed
* the government is not held accountable for its actions
* the public cannot engage fully in informed debate
The people of the United States are entitled to and demand better than such insidious forms of public control.
Jack Cashill believes that Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, Weatherman and current professor of education (!), wrote Barack Obama’s memoir Dreams of My Father, and has written a three-part article to outline his theory. As I write this it has been about an hour since I heard parts of a radio interview by Rusty Humphries of Jack Cashill, who discussed some of the technical aspects of making this determination. He also spoke of qsum, an authorship attribution program that is key to proving his assertions. He does not, however, have the skills to run the program and is appealing to an unbiased audience member who can aid him in the process of going through to compare/contrast the two books. Such a person should contact Cashill at this address.
“I picture the street coming alive, awakening from the fury of winter, stirred from the chilly spring night by cold glimmers of sunlight angling through the city.” Bill Ayers, Fugitive Days.
“Night now fell in midafternoon, especially when the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie storms that set the sky close to the ground, the city lights reflected against the clouds.” Barack Obama, Dreams From My Father.
Prior to 1990, when Barack Obama contracted to write Dreams From My Father, he had written very close to nothing.
As an undergraduate, Obama had written what he justifiably calls some “very bad poetry.” He published nothing under his own name in The Harvard Law Review, where he served as an editor and as president. And after leaving Harvard, he published nothing in its review or in any law journal.
Then, in 1995, this untested 33 year-old produced what Time Magazine has called–with a straight face– “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.”
The public is asked to believe Obama wrote this on his own. I do not buy this canard for a minute, not at all. In writing a book on intellectual fraud, Hoodwinked, I developed an eye for literary humbug, and Dreams serves up an eyeful.
In writing an earlier article about Dreams’ dubious authorship, I had questioned whether the influential Muslim crackpot who paved Obama’s way into Harvard, Khalid al Mansour, might have greased his way into the world of publishing as well. If so, he remains well behind the scenes.
On closer examination, the path to publication appears more straightforward than I anticipated. There are two sources here to consider.
One, a surprising 2006 article by liberal publisher Peter Osnos for the American Century Foundation, offers some hard evidence on what Osnos describes as the “ruthlessness” of Obama’s literary ascent.
The second, more speculative source–Bill Ayers’ 2001 memoir Fugitive Days—may very well answer the questions that Osnos cannot.
As Osnos relates, a 1990 New York Times profile on Harvard’s first black editor caught the eye of a hustling young literary agent named Jane Dystel.
Dystel persuaded Obama to put a book proposal together, and she submitted it. Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, signed on and authorized a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama’s proposed memoir.
With advance in hand, Obama repaired to Chicago where the University of Chicago offered him an office and stipend to help him write. Obama dithered.
At one point, in order to finish without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. He was surely in way over his head.
According to Osnos, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract and likely asked that Obama return at least some of the advance.
Dystel did not give up. She solicited Times Book, the division of Random House at which Osnos was publisher. He met with Obama, took his word that he could finish the book, and authorized a new advance of $40,000.
Then suddenly, somehow, the muse descended on Obama and transformed him from a struggling, unschooled wannabe into a literary superstar.
As the New York Times gushed, again with a straight face,Obama was “that rare politician who can write . . . and write movingly and genuinely about himself.”
Osnos offhandedly notes that the writing of Dreams was “all Obama’s,” which means only that someone had fixed the book before he had seen it. Two questions demand answers: who and why.
I have attempted to contact Dystel without success, but it is highly unlikely she re-wrote the book. Whoever did almost assuredly shared many of Obama’s sentiments, spoke his language and spent considerable time reworking the text.
I had never even thought of Bill Ayers as a likely ghostwriter until I ordered his memoir, Fugitive Days, and began to read it. He writes very well and very much like “Obama.”
Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. That voice is surely Ayers’.
“What makes Fugitive Days unique is its unsparing detail and its marvelous human coherence and integrity,” writes left wing literary guru and Obama pal, Edward Said.
Said adds that Ayers’ “family background, his education, his political awakening, his anger and involvement . . . all these are rendered in their truth without a trace of nostalgia.” He could have said very much the same about Dreams From My Father.
Obama’s memoir was published in June 1995. In January 1995, Ayers had chosen Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, to chair the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grants.
In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, launched Obama’s ascent to political stardom with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama’s career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama’s belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.
Lars Larson, conservative radio talk show host, interviewed NYT columnist Roger Cohen, who mocked Sarah Palin for not having had a passport until last year, not enough credentials for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” and “overuse” of the word exceptional.
Larson asked Cohen what Obama has done that could be considered significant and Cohen, after an uncertain pause, had to know he was hard pressed. Eventually he stammered, “He’s a guy who was born into pretty simple circumstances in Hawaii…and in 47 years he’s achieved a fair amount.”
Larson pushed Cohen on this: “What has he achieved? Name a significant achievement of Barack Hussein Obama”
“A significant achievement?”
“Just one.”
“Well, I think he’s put himself in very close range of, uh, of the White House.”
“So his achievement has been–”
“He’s spoken out on issues…”
Dear readers, I cannot go on. It pains me that someone who is supposed to have some intellectual base can only come up with these “qualifications” for handing someone the keys to the White House. Oh there was something about two bills he has passed, bills that, as Larson says, “don’t require a lot of heavy lifting” because everyone agrees on it.
But there you have it, the same thing time after time after time after time after time…ad nauseum. Someone is asked what Obama has ever done that is worthy and if they can come up with anything at all, it is something as lame and insignificant as, “He spoke out.” If they can stop stammering and acting like they are trying to convince their mother they were at the library and not smoking under the railway bridge.
The Obama campaign is circulating a YouTube clip of Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. — the No. 2 House Republican — talking about the role of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the disastrous White House meeting, on MSNBC today.
In the Obama campaign clip, Blunt says of McCain: “Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing.”
Said Obama spox Bill Burton: “Congressman Blunt just confirmed what’s been clear since John McCain rode into Washington at the eleventh hour -– Sen. McCain’s political theatrics succeeded only in stopping a bipartisan deal. During the most serious economic crisis of our time, we don’t need erratic posturing, we need steady leadership to protect American taxpayers and put our economy back on track.”
But that’s not the full quote. What Blunt actually said is quite different.
REP. ROY BLUNT: I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we’ve been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing that no House Republican in my view would have been for, which means it wouldn’t have probably passed the House. Now, Democrats are in the majority. They can pass anything they want to without a singe Republican vote, but they don’t seem to be willing to do that. I’m please we can have negotiations now that get us back towards things that we think can protect the taxpayers better, create more options, and frankly be better understood in the country than the plan—the path we were on a couple of days ago.
Not having TV (by choice) I’ve had to rely on the radio for this debate–the feed was about a minute off real time and the break up was slightly annoying, so I chose to forego that as well. It was a bit of a disadvantage since I’m a very visual person, but I was trying to pay close attention for audible squirms, and Obama provided me with many.
First of all, as Ed Morrissey points out below, what’s with this “John” business? Senator McCain is many years Obama’s senior in age as well as experience and the reference by first name really put me off. I am aware this doesn’t matter to some people who don’t believe being an elder can actually mean something, so I will grant that and move on.
Next, Obama was at a clear disadvantage when it came to Georgia–which he wouldn’t be if knew what he was talking about…or maybe if he hadn’t spoken first. He spoke in very general terms about Aggressor Russia with phrases and logic any high schooler could have posted on a chat forum. (No offense to high schoolers.) I wasn’t really sure what to expect from McCain, but when the hits came they were sure and swift. Point after point he hammered into Obama’s holes and I could practically hear the sweat poring from the Obama pores. When the Illinois senator began to speak, he seemed to borrow some of his newfound knowledge to make some talking points. If he thinks he gained any momentum it’s because he used what McCain had said to do a quick study.
Obama also seemed in the attack mode with his frequent interruptions, which McCain was tactful enough to indulge. Perhaps he knew he didn’t need to win the “I can talk louder than you” game because his victory would come later when people talked about how insecure Obama was with all that jumping into McCain’s points. It’s a bit of a shame I couldn’t see what the facial expressions were that each wore, but I did hear how secure and authoritative were the words of McCain, whereas Obama–especially in the latter half of the debate–stammered relentlessly. Clearly he had lost his cool. It seemed perhaps most apparent when he couldn’t remember the name of the serviceman whose mother had given him a bracelet, and I believe this will not be forgotten by the American people. There simply are too many who have contact with the military, whether they be families and friends, or neighbors, civilian-military contacts or even passing encounters in stores, fairs, parent-teacher meetings and so on. Over a year ago a Fort Richardson soldier tore a patch right off his shoulder and gave it to my son (now five). Children remember lots, of course–parents complain about it all the time. But at that age they also prioritise their memories, just as we do. Nevertheless, even more than one year later my son still recalls the soldier’s name and rank, as well as many of the details about that night at the airport. And he is not a United States senator. In my estimation it is shameful, degrading and disrespectful that of all names Senator Obama could not remember off the top of his head, it would be this one.
I also was incensed that Barack Obama claimed to have all along been saying Iran is a danger. (Note the date references in upper left corner of video below.)
This is an appalling claim to make given not only what he said, but also what he didn’t say. He didn’t bother to show up at the New York rally to demonstrate against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said nothing about how Sarah Palin was so shamelessly disinvited because the left considers partisan politics more important that defending the United States against a madman who can stand on our own soil and plan our destruction. Melanie Morgan wrote about how Obama has campaign connections as well to a group who brags about having met with Ahmadinejad, thinking they are actually achieving somethings besides putting this country at risk.
“Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans’ attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.”
I’m sure others will have many more things to say about this than I did, and I await them all. Now on to Debate # 1 wrap up.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the presidential debate tonight, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had to fly more than they expected in the last couple of days, and neither got a chance to focus on preparation, at least not to the extent they planned. I figured we’d see at least one major gaffe or breakdown from one of the candidates, and honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it.
However, I think both men did better than I expected. Neither seemed to show any effects from the hectic pace of the past week, and both appeared ready and relaxed at the start of tonight’s debate. I’d also include Jim Lehrer in that description, even though he had to rewrite part of his script to accommodate the economic crisis. Lehrer gave the debate a light touch as moderator, allowing the candidates plenty of space to talk and encouraging dialogue rather than speechmaking. It was perhaps one of the best presidential debates I’ve seen in this cycle, maybe the best.
With that said, McCain clearly got the best of Obama tonight. After a shaky couple of minutes to start the first question, McCain jabbed at Obama all night long — and he got Obama obviously flustered. While McCain kept his equanimity and never raised his tone or pitch, Obama got visibly upset, his voice pitched higher when responding to McCain, and Obama interrupted more. Obama also kept calling McCain “John” while McCain used the more proper “Senator Obama”, a difference that grated as the evening wore on.
Substantially, McCain also bested Obama on both economics and foreign policy. On the former, it was most apparent when Lehrer asked both candidates what they would cut as President after the bailout package passes. Obama could not bring himself to commit to one single cut, and instead talked about all of the funding he wanted to create for pet programs. McCain noted that he has long championed spending reductions and proposed a spending freeze on all but the most vital programs. When challenged on this point, Obama refused to say whether he would accept a freeze.
I did have a moment of frustration with McCain on the first question, a round I think Obama won. He never challenged Obama’s assumptions that the current credit crisis came from too little regulation. I kept expecting McCain to talk about the disaster of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the mandates from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage bad lending by buying up bad paper. Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.
On foreign policy, Obama did better than expected, but still fell short. I think his response on the decision to go into Iraq was quite good (even if I disagree with it), but he kept trying to argue that he didn’t demand a precipitous withdrawal in 2007 when the record clearly shows he did — and he beat Hillary to death with it in the primaries. McCain drew blood when he pointed out that for all of Obama’s talk about the priority of Afghanistan, he never once bothered to visit that front until last July, even though his Senate subcommittee has jurisdiction on NATO issues. Obama spluttered in response but never did explain why such an important theater wasn’t worth a single visit from him.
On Georgia, Russia, and eastern Europe, McCain proved himself the master of detailed foreign-policy thinking. While Obama talked briefly about the potential for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and pledged to “rebuild Georgia’s economy”, McCain explained the geopolitical realities of the entire region, and Russia’s intentions for it.
If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight. McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance. This one is a clear win for McCain.
We have seen time and again how Barack Obama ridicules John McCain’s policies and tries to duck when people ask him questions. In fact, he never really answers, but instead maneuvers the conversation over to what he thinks his opponent is doing wrong.
In the 2008 presidential debate aired Friday, Senator Obama checked off a series of proposals to protect taxpayers, including his assertion that “we’ve got to make sure we’re helping homeowners because the root problem here has to do with foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.” He went on to blame the current crisis on “eight years of economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says we can shred regulations and consumer protections.”
Now I have a couple of questions about this. Exactly which homeowners is Senator Obama trying to help? The ones who can’t afford houses they should have never been approved to buy in the first place? Or are we talking here about the homeowners whose tax dollars may go to covering the cost of illegal immigrant and other homeowners whose subprime loans went into foreclosure?
And which regulations and consumer protections is he talking about when he accuses Bush and McCain of shredding them? Perhaps those of the Community Re-investment Act, which triggered lawsuits against banks that didn’t loan to people with bad credit or too-low income? And did the “consumer protections” he referenced include the charges of racism levelled at those who did not meet the CRA standards and quotas for loans to guarantee “affordable housing”?
It’s not that difficult to see a lack of substance in the speeches and panderings of Barack Obama, and in this reply he did not answer the question at all. His points (which were stretched to create more of them, by the way) were mere echoes of what the public has been critisising and not at all close to what he has been calling for in the past. His call for “oversight,” for example, is nothing more than posturing. Where was he when McCain was speaking out against these practises? The Democrats struck down McCain’s proposal in favor of “affordable housing,” but all Obama can do is repeat ad nauseum “Wall Street and Main Street” while he attacks the alleged “shredding” by Senator McCain.
The following video goes into great detail about how this current crisis came to pass. Please note it moves a bit fast and you should hover over the pause button to click when you want to read something before it moves to the next frame.
Reverse Spin has a lot more about how the MSM has essentially become Barack Obama’s press agent.
“For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”–John F. Kennedy
Jennifer Joyce, a high-profile prosecuting attorney, is one of two who will be “reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than 250K$ a year.”
The video above repeats what I have previously said: this is impossible given the fact that not everyone even pays income taxes.
Aside from that, I want to know why people in Missouri or any state should tolerate prosecuters proseletysing for the Barack Obama campaign or go after ads that are “misleading”–subjective to begin with–or false, especially when Obama himself not only has lied but been caught at it.
Joyce says, “[W]e’re here to respond to any character attacks, to set the record straight,” and prosecutor Bob McColloch declares: “If they’re not going to tell the truth, then somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not true, this is the truth.’” So what happens when Obama’s own campaign lies? Is this the kind of oppressive rule he intends to force of the American people?
The people of the United States have the right to hear from both parties and make determinations on their own. Not only is Obama’s technique another step towards a nanny state–deciding what is good for us–but also is a reprehensible and flagrant violation of our right to information, free speech and freedom to assemble.
Is this the beginning of the “national security force” he proposes to establish?
More and more every day, each time Barack Obama opens his mouth I am reminded of two scary words: Cultural Revolution. Mao had people getting in the faces and business of those he didn’t like and going after people who made critical discussions on the actions of the state. He had bands of people running around engaging in “keeping order” as well. Now Obama is advocating that his minions get in people’s faces and form a group called the “truth squad” to silence his opponents by shouting them down and attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
So how long until he asks for criticisms and recommendations and then gulags those who respond? When comes the day in which some of us will be required to publicly account for our sins and beg for the holy status of rehabilitated?
I’d like to believe all of this is as absurd as it sounds. Fear mongering is never an effective strategy, nor is a hyperventilating kind of activism. However, questions as addressed above, extreme as they appear on the surface, should give pause to those who like or dislike Obama and consider the effects of such behavior on the part of the Illinois senator, even if no one actually is jailed or prosecuted for their dissenting views.
[N]o one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearingof David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?
It’s stated well and I agree, but there also should be the caution to those who will silence or be silenced on the basis of fear.
Do you believe you know Barack Obama well enough to vote for him because you have heard his speeches?
Are you apolitical? Do you not care about politics? Do you wish to stay neutral? Are you planning to vote Independent? If so, what do you think will happen to that vote? What do you think will happen if you don’t vote, or cast your vote for him thinking it’s just one of millions?
Barack Obama’s connections and ideology are not in line with the traditions and standards that have made this great nation successful and a sought-after destination, for immigrants as well as visitors and investors. His economic plans are fiscally unsound, he wants to meet with a dangerous Holocaust denier (and lies about Henry Kissinger giving him the thumbs up on this), and the ways he campaigns are reminiscent of Hitler Youth and Cultural Revolution-era thugs.
Please click here and here and here for more, including links within these articles.
If you don’t know Barack Obama, get to know him. Neither party is going to have all the right answers, but Barack Obama’s is the only one that seeks to impose his “solutions” on others, whether they are willing or not.
While I have been busy learning about the brain’s language map and all the things any six-month old knows about communication, the blogging world has gone on merrily without me and I’ve missed some of the best and funniest blog entries of All Time. Although I probably needed the break anyway–my brain is oversoaked with Ayers these last days, uffff–I was planning to read a few more entries before I fell on the floor. I couldn’t do any writing tonight.
And then I saw one entry that made my spine stiffen:
There has been a nasty rumor going on that during Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wassila, female rape victims were required to pay for their own rape kits. It was supposed to be another example on how Palin was really a man and hated women and wanted them all to stay home barefoot and pregnant.
Imagine my surprise when you find out that this is not true.
In reality, and had any journalist in the MSM outlets bothered to do their job instead of working for the Obama campaign 24/7, there was a state law forbidding charging victims of rape for their rape kits since 2000. As for where it all came from, the chief of Police( chief of police, not Palin) in Wasilla wanted to have the Insurance companies(Insurance companies, not the victims) to pay for them, with the intention of billing it ultimately to the rapists eventually. However, there isn’t a single piece of record that shows that a single victim’s insurance was ever billed for it. If this practice still seems creepy or exclusive to macho,
rough-and-tumble Alaska, well, it happens to be the practice in other
states, too, like North Carolina (until recently) and … Illinois.
And can you guess who co-sponsored that bill in Illinois?
Can you say Barack Obama?
Have a nice day!
I realise this is an old story, so far as the whole rape kit thingie goes. But the Illinois statute is news to me. My only consolation for the fact that an Egyptian blogger had the better sense than me to find this is that I know I’m not alone. (OK, cold comfort, but I haven’t seen this exactly sprung all over the blogs here either.) I wonder how many citizens of Illinois are aware of this?
To be honest, this is also an example of how numbers bandied about in debates sway people, regardless of how accurate they are or are not. For example, Joe “Come with me to Katie’s” Biden frequently pulls numbers from the air that only a few people know off the tops of their heads are outright fabrications. But how many average citizens will actually have the wherewithal not only to question the assertions–how would they reckon he is lying about McCain’s votes?–but to go look all these up? They are like statistics in a way: people have a feeling for them that is a combination of reverence and fear, and they think the ones who can spout the best must know the most.
So it is here: although rape is more common than reported, there still are people who are untouched by the experience and if they are not presented with the fact that Obama is more dirtied by the accusations than Sarah Palin ever could come close to being, they may always go on erroneously believing she is bad for women. And that is the real point, not that Sandmonkey failed in his reading of the Frontiersman article. At worst he may have failed to tell us that he knows what any (truthful) Alaskan will concede: that the practice in fact happened in other cities besides Wasilla. Not to mention other US cities.
Moreover:
If current Police Chief Long’s information is correct, then Mayor Palin didn’t know that rape victims were charged for rape kits, because none were.
and that person who commented in reply to Sandmonkey’s post never bothered to read this, even when it was provided to him by said Sandmonkey via direct link.
It’s more astroturfing to get the Internet dish out in the same way MSM and other goons have been up here in Alaska rifling through people’s trash in their desperate attempts to have some new and dirty scandal to spin on CNN to get their Oprah moment. If any of them had a shred of intellectual honesty they would stop yammering about Palin’s lipstick and start looking for the truth. Really, if this is this is all trained journalists can find on Palin and much of this can be caught by bloggers of all levels (including yours truly, a newcomer), then maybe I’m studying language awareness of the wrong group of people. The sandbox set are as forthright as you can get and the media have built the Tower of Babble.
First reports coming from the Eddie Burke Show say the legislative report from the Tasergate investigation shows Sarah Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan and did not abuse her power, although she did violate an ethics law. This may refer to what appears to be Monegan’s statements that Palin started to speak to him about Trooper Wooten; Monegan warned her against this and she never spoke of it again.
There was, however, also criticism re: her lack of acting upon her husband’s failure to stop speaking about the incident.
Fox news is also reporting this incorrectly as saying the council found her to have abused her powers; currently it is being discussed on Eddie Burke’s show at KBYR, a locally-owned Alaska radio station.
Update to follow.
Update: AP is hyperventilating in their crusade against Palin and they have reported incorrectly of her guilt.
Glen Biegel of KBYR is having a conniption fit over Hollis French who is the one who is guilty of abuse of power and anybody telling Todd Palin he is not entitled to utilise his First Amendment rights. Steve Branchflower, it should be noted, made his recommendations in his report and Biegel is enraged, accusing Branchflower of being “judge, jury and executioner.”
Local Anchorage news is also reporting she abused her power, despite a state senator having just discussed this on live radio.
Whatever the case may be, there’s something seriously amiss when an Alaska resident can’t get straight news about the Alaska governor.
OK, freak out moment over when someone here finally admits to self that reading and listening [add: and type] can’t be done simultaneously. At least not by her.
Steve Branchflower, as I’m sure you know by now, has released his report saying that, as Allahpundit sums it up, “Palin abused power but had the right to fire Monegan.” That’s very reassuring. Um, no.
You know what’s going to get gobbled up by the country starting tomorrow? Three big, fat, phat for Obama, words:
Palin abused power.
As you can see here, “independent and unbiased” Steve Branchflower, who was paid $100,000 to perform this investigation, writes:
Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
The AP was so delirious with joy they could hardly write:
A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state’s public safety commissioner.
You could have put the winning lottery numbers in at any point after that but none of the other 49 states would have any winners because nobody would see past that, the first sentence in their minuscule piece that acts as a ginormous shout of triumph. Alaska would have no winners because we have no lottery. But Alaska has no winners anyway, because Branchflower was paid to act as a judge, jury and executioner–just as Biegel states–and even he didn’t have to wear the black bag over his head. Sarah Palin didn’t get to face her accusers; what she did experience is people such as Hollis French foaming at the mouth about how there may be an “October surprise” (oh that’s very subtle, isn’t it) and Todd Palin was basically put on notice that because he occupies an unusual position in the state–husband of the governor–he is supposed to keep his mouth shut. He is not allowed to register any kind of complaint. As far as whether Sarah aided him by allowing access to government–that’s been viewed and ruled upon by Branchflower, the multi-tasker. Exactly what kind of government do we have here in Alaska?
And what kind of police do we have on this land? Officer Wooten still has his job, after five days lost work for tasering a child, drinking in his patrol car and poaching moose. And a radio host who gave out phone numbers on a press release received the same suspension–five days. I realise these are different agencies administering the punishments, but it still stands as a major disgrace that a radio show host is held to a higher standard than a state trooper.
How many people will come to know the crucial details of this farce? That Monegan wasn’t even fired, for starters? That he was re-assigned, declined the offer and quit? That Wooten threatened to kill Chuck Heath, Palin’s father? That even this started before Palin became governor? That not a few Alaskans wouldn’t stop for Wooten if he tried to pull them over? Will people across the country ever know these and other details and, especially if they are pathetic sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome, will they ever care that Wooten is still walking around Alaska with a gun? While Barack Obama has tea with terrorists and plays semantics to excuse his proposed visits to the rogue leader of a nation whose government is intent on destroying us? Maybe they won’t have to because if this crap keeps piling higher every day, as it seems to be, pretty soon we will bury ourselves.
Oh yeah: I should add this very important part of Branchflower’s report, which is buried on pages 80-81. This I don’t really fault him for, but rather the MSM who are too lazy to look any further than the first sentence that “confirms” the answers they want to hear, and can’t be bothered to read on:
In this case there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told by Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080. I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated…[T]he law prevented the troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.
When a citizen files a complaint against a peace officer, there should be a balance in our law that on the one hand seeks to protect the confidentiality of the investigative process, but on the other recognizes that someone may have been aggrieved. At the very least, the law should provide for the release of some information to the complainant regarding the status of the case. When citizens are told no information can be released, it has the potential of engendering skepticism about whether the complaint was taken seriously. There is likewise a great potential that the confidence we need to have in our law enforcement agencies will be undermined, and respect for those institutions will be eroded. This is especially so because in most instances, as was the case here, the officer is an employee of the very same agency that was conducts [sic] the investigation.
What do you suppose the chances are the MSM will admit Todd Palin had a right to doubt the claims were being investigated and felt he had to pursue it as strongly as he did?
I’ll probably win the Alaska State Lottery before that happens.
Could it really be true? Or is it just such an out there fantasy that knowing it is pierces my eye sockets with a dull beam like the one that will be in my interrogation room when I get arrested for writing this shit?
Is it really a possibility that Obama might be days away from an indictment? When it happens, just remember you read it here…second. I’m still trying to digest exactly what it is PUMA is talking about. I don’t know most of these thugs and if the time line isn’t set up in particular rows on paper, it’s hard for me to grasp. So while you read that (and don’t forget the comment) I’m going to engage in some escapism and recall a time when my biggest worry was how someone with such an awesome voice could wear such a horrid shirt.
If you’ve already read it, feel free to watch above, and I wouldn’t mind an explanation and reassurance that Rezko can sing half as good.
The multi-tasking bastard who is attempting in Alaska to dismantle the Constitution got me really worked up the other day. Well, in reality it wasn’t just him, but also my knowledge of the next day’s headlines screaming, “Palin abused power.”
I’m pretty new at this so I am not giving myself a lot of credit when I say I think the bloggers have made a huge difference in this campaign. Often we think of other countries when we talk about how hard it is to contain the Internet and getting the word out there: think Saudi blogger. (He has since been released.)
But now our very own MSM has tried and remains trying to disguise their cult-like adoration of all things Obama, despite the unimaginable damage he seems set to do to this country. It’s so unreal I often stop myself, thinking I am acting like a conspiracy theorist. But it’s all there, at first buried under the layers of cable, now coming out and being exposed more and more each day. I can only hope the citizens of this great nation, who stand on the shoulders of giants, I hope they have gotten the message in time.
While we wait–in my opinion it will be a nail-biting few weeks–we keep blogging and chatting and talking and praying and arguing, screaming at radios and shaking fists at televisions. In the midst of all that are some absolutely wonderful bloggers whose sense of humor is absolutely capital, humor that at times has helped me keep some perspective.
Over at Ace‘s page there’s an entry where a few people have been letting off some steam in a creative way: haiku. There’s at least one troller as well (and working pretty hard at it) but they’re taking it with humor. It’s perhaps the funniest entry I’ve seen ever, and my favorite post within it I think is this one:
If Obama wins
I will buy guns and hide them
for posterity
Posted by: Scott
Don’t let the bastards get you down…VOTE on 4 November!
