by jwright
Many times words left unspoken convey more meaning than an ear-splitting shout. That appears to be the case with the Obama Campaign’s lack of response regarding the Sarah Palin effigy hanging by a noose from the gable of a West Hollywood CA residence. Quoting FOX NEWS.com, “The owner of a home that has a mannequin dressed like the Republican vice presidential candidate and hanging by a rope says it's just a "scary" Halloween decoration.”
Yes, and right above it mounted atop a wide chimney is a likeness of Senator John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, shrouded in flames. More Halloween fun I presume?
What concerns me is the utter silence emanating from the Obama camp, especially with the likeness of Governor Sarah Palin hanging by a rope. Politics being what it is today, what would the media’s response be if a likeness of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama were seen hanging from a rope? I’m guessing there would be near riots in the streets accompanied by the hue and cry of racism along with a demand for John McCain to immediately repudiate the act. To date, no such outcry has been heard from the media demanding Obama repudiate the sexist Palin effigy. Is this the behavior we should expect during the next four years if Obama is elected president?
The national media has obviouly been soft on the Obama Campaign from the beginning, so much so as to be labeled “in their pocket.” Wonderful. When the honest media rufflles the feathers of the Obama camp, they are immediately chastised, placed in an unfavorable category and not allowed to contact or interview them further, as is the case in Orlando Florida now where in an interview, a local TV station’s reporter asked several uncomfortable questions of Joe Biden. Must we now condone selective free speech?
Following WW II and during the Cold War, the former USSR had it's Tass and Pravda, their "official" news sources. What name will our biased media pick for themselves later in time?
(Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/effigy-palin-hanging-noose-halloween-fun-says-owner/ )
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
More on Obama's Socialistic Cravings
by jwright
Earlier, a friend of mine applauded socialism on our local newspaper's op-ed page, listing our Social Security system, Medicare and the Post Office as fine examples. I agree to a point; believing that most anything administered in moderation is acceptable. But for a presidential candidate to openly campaign on “spreading the wealth around,” or in plain terms to take a portion of your hard earned money or savings and hand it over to someone else is nothing but socialism at its worst. To me, that is unacceptable.
Presidential candidate Obama told his Senate colleagues on March 7, 2007: “Let’s stop sending mixed messages. Let’s work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.”
Quoting Canadian journalist Marinka Peschmann, “Egalitarianism is defined as ‘a social and political philosophy asserting the equality of all men, especially in their access to the rights and privileges of their society.’ It’s a social ‘philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.’ The objective of egalitarianism advocacy is socialism.
“Socialism is ‘a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.’ It’s founded on two tenets: Thomas Jefferson’s, ‘All men are created equal,’ in the Declaration of Independence and Karl Marx’s ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’
”History proves that socialists offer few practical points about how these two principles can be reconciled where everyone’s quality of life is harmoniously lifted up instead of knocked down, (snip) capitalism may be the ‘uneven distribution of wealth,’ but ‘socialism’ is ‘the even distribution of poverty.’
I pray we won’t wake up one day and discover we’ve quietly become a socialistic welfare state, beginning with punishing of the successful.
jaq~
Marinka Peschmann quotes source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5839
Earlier, a friend of mine applauded socialism on our local newspaper's op-ed page, listing our Social Security system, Medicare and the Post Office as fine examples. I agree to a point; believing that most anything administered in moderation is acceptable. But for a presidential candidate to openly campaign on “spreading the wealth around,” or in plain terms to take a portion of your hard earned money or savings and hand it over to someone else is nothing but socialism at its worst. To me, that is unacceptable.
Presidential candidate Obama told his Senate colleagues on March 7, 2007: “Let’s stop sending mixed messages. Let’s work together and set immigration fees at a level that are fair and consistent with our commitment to being an open, democratic, and egalitarian society.”
Quoting Canadian journalist Marinka Peschmann, “Egalitarianism is defined as ‘a social and political philosophy asserting the equality of all men, especially in their access to the rights and privileges of their society.’ It’s a social ‘philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.’ The objective of egalitarianism advocacy is socialism.
“Socialism is ‘a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.’ It’s founded on two tenets: Thomas Jefferson’s, ‘All men are created equal,’ in the Declaration of Independence and Karl Marx’s ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’
”History proves that socialists offer few practical points about how these two principles can be reconciled where everyone’s quality of life is harmoniously lifted up instead of knocked down, (snip) capitalism may be the ‘uneven distribution of wealth,’ but ‘socialism’ is ‘the even distribution of poverty.’
I pray we won’t wake up one day and discover we’ve quietly become a socialistic welfare state, beginning with punishing of the successful.
jaq~
Marinka Peschmann quotes source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5839
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Obama Campaign Cuts Off Interviews With Florida TV Station
Taken from the Internet...
Biden gets asked tough questions by Orlando reporter
FOXNews.com
Saturday, October 25, 2008 -
Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .
During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.
"Are you joking?," Biden asked.
West replied, "No."
Click here to watch the interview.
Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.
The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.
Such arrogance, and that on top of the "Politics of Personal Destruction" the Obama-Biden camp along with their media friends used on an ordinary citizen, Samuel J. "Joe the plumber" Wurzelbacher, aka not to mention the ongoing scurrilous attacks almost daily on Republican vice-presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin.
The Obama folks seem to be following old WWII Gestopo and Cold War KGB tactics; silence or attack the critics, AND they haven't taken office yet. The next four years should be interesting.
jaq~
Biden gets asked tough questions by Orlando reporter
FOXNews.com
Saturday, October 25, 2008 -
Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .
During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.
"Are you joking?," Biden asked.
West replied, "No."
Click here to watch the interview.
Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.
"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.
The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.
Such arrogance, and that on top of the "Politics of Personal Destruction" the Obama-Biden camp along with their media friends used on an ordinary citizen, Samuel J. "Joe the plumber" Wurzelbacher, aka not to mention the ongoing scurrilous attacks almost daily on Republican vice-presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin.
The Obama folks seem to be following old WWII Gestopo and Cold War KGB tactics; silence or attack the critics, AND they haven't taken office yet. The next four years should be interesting.
jaq~
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Are the presidential polls really accurate?
by jwright
National columnist Michael Barone wrote an interesting Internet article on presidential polls and their accuracy where he said in part, “…this year especially, many who ask if we can trust the polls are usually concerned about something else: Can we trust the poll when one of the presidential candidates is black?
“It is commonly said that the polls in the 1982 California and the 1989 Virginia gubernatorial races overstated the margin for the black Democrats who were running -- Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder. The theory to account for this is that some poll respondents in each case were unwilling to say they were voting for the white Republican.
So, if I’m understanding Mr. Barone accurately, many white folks when polled may respond in favor of a black candidate, if there is one. In this case that would be Senator Obama. Inside the voting booth they may vote their conscience, perhaps NOT voting for Senator Obama. Afterward, if polled while exiting, they may state that they favored Obama, essentially skewing the pollsters results.
Going one step farther, IF Obama then loses to Senator McCain, all we’ll hear from the left for months on end is, ‘voter fraud; voter suppression; another stolen election!’ Add to this, we may see litigation in many of the states where the vote difference was close; litigation in hopes of overturning the initial vote count in favor of the loser. We watched this agonizing spectacle in 2000 when vice-president Gore attempted to use the Florida State Supreme Court to “cherry pick” several select counties for a partial recount in order to circumvent George W. Bush’s eventual small lead. Unfortunately, due to the months of possibly innaccurate political polling statistics, what took place in Florida in 2000 may look like a walk-in-the-park in 2008.
For Michael Barone's complete article, go to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463210033356561.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Thanks, jaq~
National columnist Michael Barone wrote an interesting Internet article on presidential polls and their accuracy where he said in part, “…this year especially, many who ask if we can trust the polls are usually concerned about something else: Can we trust the poll when one of the presidential candidates is black?
“It is commonly said that the polls in the 1982 California and the 1989 Virginia gubernatorial races overstated the margin for the black Democrats who were running -- Tom Bradley and Douglas Wilder. The theory to account for this is that some poll respondents in each case were unwilling to say they were voting for the white Republican.
So, if I’m understanding Mr. Barone accurately, many white folks when polled may respond in favor of a black candidate, if there is one. In this case that would be Senator Obama. Inside the voting booth they may vote their conscience, perhaps NOT voting for Senator Obama. Afterward, if polled while exiting, they may state that they favored Obama, essentially skewing the pollsters results.
Going one step farther, IF Obama then loses to Senator McCain, all we’ll hear from the left for months on end is, ‘voter fraud; voter suppression; another stolen election!’ Add to this, we may see litigation in many of the states where the vote difference was close; litigation in hopes of overturning the initial vote count in favor of the loser. We watched this agonizing spectacle in 2000 when vice-president Gore attempted to use the Florida State Supreme Court to “cherry pick” several select counties for a partial recount in order to circumvent George W. Bush’s eventual small lead. Unfortunately, due to the months of possibly innaccurate political polling statistics, what took place in Florida in 2000 may look like a walk-in-the-park in 2008.
For Michael Barone's complete article, go to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463210033356561.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Thanks, jaq~
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Another "OP"
(...OP stands for "Other Peoples." ) This is a great one; Pulitzer Prize material in my opinion. jwright
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
(Note: Remember a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977? CRA prohibited financial institutions from using their previous "Red Line" qualifying process that identified questionable real estate neighborhoods and forced them to make questionable loans to questionable applicants. Read: bad or risky loans. All of this with the approval of the Democrat led Congress; then and now.)
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As reputable journalist Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
AMEN!
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
(Note: Remember a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977? CRA prohibited financial institutions from using their previous "Red Line" qualifying process that identified questionable real estate neighborhoods and forced them to make questionable loans to questionable applicants. Read: bad or risky loans. All of this with the approval of the Democrat led Congress; then and now.)
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As reputable journalist Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
AMEN!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Joe Biden's scary prediction...
by jwright
How quickly the balance on the political stage shifts… last week it was “Senator Government” aka Senator Barack Obama inadvertently saying he wanted to “…just spread the wealth around.” A very Marxist/Socialist un-American philosophy to take from the wealthy and give to the disadvantaged.
On Monday, “Senator Gaffe” aka Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s vice-presidential choice spoke, unaware there were media types present, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" Biden said to a roomful of donors.
He continued, "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said," Biden continued. "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
That “guy” Senator Biden referred to is none other than Senator Barack Obama, perhaps the next president of the United States. Unless the voters take a good look at the 'brilliant 47-year old senator' who Joe Biden himself criticized earlier during the Democratic primaries saying Obama was unprepared to become the chief executive, adding that the Oval Office is not a place for on-the-job training.
Afterward, the McCain camp released this statement: “There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing -- that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”
Obviously, the McCain camp is biased, but really, is Obama ready to be the next president? That’s for the voters to decide. While Biden’s prediction is scary, would he say the same if McCain were elected?
jaq~
How quickly the balance on the political stage shifts… last week it was “Senator Government” aka Senator Barack Obama inadvertently saying he wanted to “…just spread the wealth around.” A very Marxist/Socialist un-American philosophy to take from the wealthy and give to the disadvantaged.
On Monday, “Senator Gaffe” aka Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s vice-presidential choice spoke, unaware there were media types present, "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" Biden said to a roomful of donors.
He continued, "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said," Biden continued. "Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
That “guy” Senator Biden referred to is none other than Senator Barack Obama, perhaps the next president of the United States. Unless the voters take a good look at the 'brilliant 47-year old senator' who Joe Biden himself criticized earlier during the Democratic primaries saying Obama was unprepared to become the chief executive, adding that the Oval Office is not a place for on-the-job training.
Afterward, the McCain camp released this statement: “There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing -- that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”
Obviously, the McCain camp is biased, but really, is Obama ready to be the next president? That’s for the voters to decide. While Biden’s prediction is scary, would he say the same if McCain were elected?
jaq~
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama and "distribution of the wealth."
by jwright
So Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama wants to “redistribute the wealth.” At least that's what he let slip last week while chatting with Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber. Unfortunately the live TV cameras recorded his very words. How very arrogant of him; how very Socialist of him… and all of my life I thought we lived in a Free Enterprise society, where you were taxed fairly on what you earned and were encouraged to prosper and attain the American Dream.
Apparently Obama has a different slant on what constitutes the American Dream. Can it be that the encroaching liberal “entitlement attitude” has jaded his thinking? That no one should enjoy an abundance of success, which in most cases means accumulating wealth? That in the best class warfare scenario its “unfair” to succeed while others have not?
This could be the biggest gaffe in Obama’s short political career. It’s my opinion that most Americans would not favor any socialist plan to “redistribute their wealth.” Especially at the expense of being taxed at a greater rate. Believe what you will, at some point the existing Bush tax cuts will expire soon and guess what? The Harry Reid-Nancy Pelosi led Democrats in Washington, D.C. are perfectly willing to let them expire allowing the tax rates to return to the higher levels of the Clinton years. Yet, they refuse to call that a tax increase. What would you call it? Change?
If you as voters are willing to elect an individual whose philosophy is to take from the rich and give to the poor as Obama’s proposing in his so-called middle class tax cut plan where of the 95% whose taxes will be lowered includes 30-40% who do NOT pay any tax at all , will receive a “welfare” check labeled a "tax credit" from Uncle Sam (taxpayer’s dollars) then he’s your man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
