Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2014, 12:10:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79137 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Obama Phenomena
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Print
Author Topic: The Obama Phenomena  (Read 89271 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #350 on: October 20, 2008, 11:50:54 AM »

I agree that Powell's endorsement is very helpful for strenghtening the perception of one of BO's weak links.

Here's this from the PD WSJ:

Colin Powell attributed his endorsement of Barack Obama on "Meet the Press" yesterday not just to the unreadiness of Sarah Palin to serve as president but also to John McCain's reaction to the financial crisis, the general rightward tilt of the GOP and comments anonymous senior Republican officials privately made in recent months about Mr. Obama's faith.

In fact, Mr. Powell's estrangement from the GOP predates the McCain campaign and goes back to his speech on Feb. 5, 2003 making the case in the United Nations for war against Iraq.

The best reporting on this turning point was done by Karen DeYoung, an associate editor at the Washington Post. In a lengthy article published two years ago, she recounted how at one point Dick Cheney poked Mr. Powell in the chest and told him: "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points."

The rest is history: In the months after the invasion, when no stockpiled WMD were found in Iraq, Mr. Powell grew disenchanted with the White House and offered at least two dissenting public statements about WMD that drew a rebuke (including calls from Condoleezza Rice asking him how he was going to clean up the mess his comments created). When a special prosecutor was appointed to look into who leaked the name of CIA agent Valeria Plame, Mr. Powell never stepped forward with the leaker's name, even though he knew all along it was his own deputy Richard Armitage. Instead, Mr. Powell allowed the special prosecutor to spend months questioning White House staffers and journalists, eventually leading to the indictment of Cheney aide Lewis Libby for obstruction and perjury.

Shortly after Mr. Bush won re-election in 2004, Mr. Powell resigned and has spent much of the past year making noises about endorsing Mr. Obama, including praising the speech the Democratic presidential candidate gave on race in Philadelphia and defending his intention of holding presidential level talks with Iran. When asked about Mr. Powell's endorsement, John McCain yesterday said it "doesn't come as a surprise." Given the history, what's surprising is that it took Mr. Powell so long to leave the GOP.

-- Brendan Miniter
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #351 on: October 20, 2008, 11:43:23 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/20/biden-obamas-inexperience-will-prompt-nations-to-test-us/

Wow! The most insightful thing I've ever seen coming from Joe Biden.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #352 on: October 21, 2008, 01:34:02 AM »

On the Brit Hume Report tonight Krauthammer was saying the Biden must be a Republican mole  cheesy
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #353 on: October 21, 2008, 08:47:34 AM »

Why is it that JKF is remembered for only the "missle crises" and not the Bay of Pigs.
Wasn't JKF the skipper who drove his PT boat right under the bow of a Japanese destroyer?
Wasn't he the guy who first sent advisors to Vietnam getting us involved over there?
I remember my history professor in college saying he couldn't really conclude whether JFK was a good President or not because he wasn't President long enough.

But all that said, BO is no JFK. 
The Democrats of 1962 are not the Dems of 2008.
And at least Carter served in the Navy.
BO served in liberal academia and community organizing.

OF course we will likely have Joe the blowhard help him save us from foreign threats.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #354 on: October 21, 2008, 09:12:46 AM »

As the economy heads downward and we look at the ending of this campaign of confusion, let's take a moment to look deeper into the 3-letter word Joe Biden calls 'j-o-b-s'.

Start by looking at the players in our economy. Most Americans don't file a federal tax return of any kind - that includes of course most children, some elderly, disabled along with people who just don't earn or only participate in the underground economy.  Of those who do file a return, more than 30% pay NO federal income tax.  Some other time let's discuss why that happened, but what a travesty.

At the 'rich' end of the spectrum we have people who make over 250,000, might someday make 250,000, plan on saving and investing 250,000 at sometime in their life, or ever plan to own or sell a capital asset.  These people are ugly, filthy, rich and should be stopped, punished and demagogued.  Not my view and I hope I didn't overstate their view - that of Obama, Biden and your favorite local class warfare baiting Democratic congressional member.

From a moral perspective, please tell me why is it okay to forcibly take extra from these people, because you can, to pay your own basic basic living expenses.  It of course isn't.

From an equal rights, equal protection and constitutional perspective, why is it ever okay for the majority to shift their share of the public expense burden over to a minority, no matter how many voters in the majority or how few they can victimize in the minority?  Does that pass YOUR test for consent of the governed???  Not for me, not even close!

What about from an efficiency standpoint in taxation or economic growth, do we really raise more money by putting higher marginal tax rates on those most able to scale down their productive activities?  Of course not.

We have learned over and over and over again that the opposite approach is what grows the economy and grows federal revenues most efficiently.  From the Kennedy tax rate cuts to the Reagan tax rate cuts to the Clinton-Gingrich capital gains tax rate cuts to the Bush tax rates cuts, what happened each time?  Federal revenues surged! (Same for state revenues.)

Now back to the current downturn, this election, the groups of Americans described above and Joe Biden's now-famous 3-letter word called jobs. Who creates jobs? Americans who don't file a return? No. The 30+% that file but pay nothing in federal income taxes? Never.  The majority of hard working, taxpaying Americans who work hard, pay their taxes and eek out a living?  Not Likely.

The new jobs come from people trying to head into that area we call rich.  Those who see a larger opportunity to grow their plumbing business, bakery or blacksmith shop to a higher revenue and income level and see a distinct possibility that the AFTER TAX likely returns are economically worth the enormous hassle, expense and unknown risks associated with adding each new employee.

This economy needs consistent new job creation in the millions.  Do we get there by spreading wealth away from the people who earned it and over to the less productive or is it more effective to allow people some fruit from their labor and to invest more of what they earned back into their own business?

The right answer is obvious from my point of view, but I truly wonder which taxpayers the Obama voters and ACORN members think are going to create new jobs that this economy so desperately needs.

--

Besides raising personal tax rates on the highest producers in the economy, Obama and the Democrats oppose and demagogue McCain's proposal to lower slightly the corporate tax rate which is now the highest in the western, developed world.  In America, successful corporations are taxed at 35%, in Taiwan it is 25%, in Hong Kong it's 16.5% and in Ireland it's 12.5%.  Even 'communist' China lowered its corpate tax rate from 33% to 25% effective just this year.  Why is it such a stretch for the Democratic mind to see that companies that have choices can and will move jobs and operations to a friendlier business climate?

If taxes weren't enough, then look at trade.  While Obama is offering to move economically backward and unilaterally re-write NAFTA (how do you unilaterally change an 'agreement'?), Canada is negotiating it's own new free trade agreement with the European Union.  Trade raises income levels and job prospects on both sides.  Bill Clinton knew that when he partnered with Gingrich and the Republicans to implement the beginning of Reagan's vision of a hemisphere-wide free trading zone, allowing economic freedom, opportunity and prosperity to flourish across borders.  But not Obama.  He comes from and caters to the protectionist, anti growth, furthest left wing of his own party.

The way I see it, it is economically unwise to follow the leadership void of the Bush administration and the excesses and incompetence of both the Republican and Reid-Pelosi-Obama congresses with an economic left turn backwards in time to anti-growth policies while our competitors across the globe have turned pro-growth.  It just doesn't make sense.  - Doug
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #355 on: October 21, 2008, 10:39:26 AM »

Quote
The Democrats of 1962 are not the Dems of 2008

And the Republicans of 2008 are not the Republicans of 1980...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #356 on: October 21, 2008, 11:01:15 AM »

More's the pity in both cases.

============
Would Obama Pass a Standard Security Clearance?
His troubling connections provide a grave answer.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...B-F9F845F663D2

By: Daniel Pipes





With Colin Powell now repeating the lie that Barack Obama has "always been a Christian," despite new information further confirming Obama's Muslim childhood (such as the Indonesian school registration listing him as Muslim), one watches with dismay as the Democratic candidate manages to hide the truth on this issue.

Instead, then, let us review a related subject – Obama's connections and even indebtedness, throughout his career, to extremist Islam. Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."
First, Obama's ties to Islamists:
The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Al-Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour, a black American (né Don Warden), became advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Al-Mansour holds standard Islamist views: he absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem, and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and al-Mansour deny Sutton's account.)
 Kenny Gamble, or Luqman Abdul-Haqq, "amir" of the United Muslim Movement.
The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a south Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)
The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.
The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about thirty Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Va., who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."
Second, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam:
 Louis Farrakhan, who calls Obama "the Messiah."

Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for twenty years, came out of a Nation background, recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."

Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the Messiah."
That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? John McCain charitably calls Obama "a person you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States," but Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

Click to view Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIrWrxuR_GM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OowxMcVTjTE




Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #357 on: October 22, 2008, 08:18:50 AM »

I'm no fan of McCain, and if it weren't for the likelihood of a couple Supreme Court nominations, I'd be hoping for a BHO win with Democratic Control of both House and Senate so that the GOP would be inspired to return to its more Libertarian roots and be poised to throw the bums out after what I anticipate would be 4 not particularly fruitful years. In short we wouldn't have had a Reagan if Jimmy Carter hadn't come first. . . .

October 22, 2008
The Second Coming of Jimmy Carter

By Rick Richman
Barack Obama is taking America down a path modeled by Jimmy Carter, and threatens to be as bad a president as his trailblazer. A unlikely guide unwittingly will help make the case.

David Brooks asserted in the New York Times last week that, after watching Barack Obama for two years, it is "easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president." 

[Obama] has shown the same untroubled self-confidence day after day. . . .

Brooks connected these personality traits with the "unshakable serenity" of FDR and Reagan, which in turn led to the Brooksian "scenario" of potential Obamian greatness.

I have no idea what Brooks means by an "organized unconscious;" nor exactly what a "deep, bottom-up process" is; nor how Obama's "untroubled self-confidence" differs from George W. Bush's "untroubled self-confidence."  Still less do I understand how these esoteric personality traits relate to seeing "reality unfiltered," as opposed to representing a filter of their own.

What interests me, however, is Brooks' belief that, based on personality traits he has observed for two years, he can predict a presidency reminiscent of FDR and Reagan.

Such a prediction -- made before the man takes office, before he has even made a single cabinet choice, much less made a presidential policy decision; before he has faced a single crisis, much less handled one successfully -- is transparently absurd.  But more than that, it brings forth a sense of déjà vu.

We have been down this road before, with an inexperienced driver, and the car crashed.

On November 3, 1976, the day after Jimmy Carter's election, the New York Times ran a profile explaining his remarkable political victory -- how a one-term governor from Georgia, with no significant record, began planning his presidential campaign in the second year of his one-and-only four-year term, and then went on to secure the nomination from more experienced rivals and defeat a sitting president:

He believed passionately that if he could talk to enough voters about a "Government as good as the American people," he could win. . .

Words, skillfully used, could play dual roles for him.  Liberals came to conceive of him as one of their own.  Conservatives responded to him sympathetically as well.  Blacks in Harlem voiced their support.  Whites in Mississippi got behind him. . . .

[T]he theme was always visible:  a government as good as the people.  It was voiced a hundred different ways, but the impact on his listeners was constant.

Americans, he said, were entitled to decent, compassionate, honest, competent government because Americans are decent, compassionate, honest and competent.

In other words:  Jimmy Carter won by constantly telling Americans that he was the one they were waiting for.

He made them think that by voting for him, it reflected well on them.  He played on the electorate's hope for change, and he offered a blank slate on which that hope could be projected.  His speeches were secular sermons that would later translate into presidential addresses about the need to transcend our inordinate fear of communism and to overcome our malaise that was hindering his policies.

Carter had built his campaign on something that was, at the time, unique in modern American politics:  the thoughtful campaign autobiography.  Written while he was governor, it was re-published in paperback in June 1976 and given a New York Times review, written by a member of the editorial board.  The review extolled both the book and its author:

Jimmy Carter has contrived a new literary form, the campaign biography written as autobiography by the candidate himself.  It is a skillful, simply-written blend of personal history, social description and political philosophy that makes fascinating reading. . . .

Critics, friendly as well as unfriendly, worry whether Jimmy Carter believes in anything larger than his own success.  This book does not provide conclusive answers. . . . Basically, however, Carter reminds one of two earlier Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.  Although both were of a progressive bent, they were really neither liberal nor conservative by conviction.  Rather, they believed in governing.

Carter was certified as the One in the closing benediction at the 1976 Democratic convention, given by no less a figure than the father of Martin Luther King, Jr.  Televised on all three networks (the entire visual media at the time), the benediction heralded Jimmy Carter as someone sent to redeem the country:  "Surely the Lord sent Jimmy Carter to come on out and bring America back where she belongs."

Thirty-two years later, no one associates Jimmy Carter with Roosevelt or Kennedy, or with "governing."  Few people believe the Lord sent him, or that he brought America back where she belonged.

What were we thinking when we elected him?  The answer is:  some of the same things we are thinking now.

He was a blank slate to be filled with visions of Roosevelt and Kennedy.  People thought his unique background and perspective would unite North and South, black and white.  He had accomplished little in his political career, but he had written a thoughtful autobiography, with an audaciously hopeful title:  "Why Not the Best?"  He gave good speeches.

There was little substantive content to his campaign, which instead endlessly repeated his government-as-good-as-its-people mantra.  His one specific proposal was "zero-based budgeting," under which each year the federal budget would start at zero and be analyzed by him line by line.  He had no national or foreign policy experience.   

But as a liberal governor from a Southern state, Carter was thought to have a remarkable "temperament."  The New York Times thought he was a "keenly intelligent man" because the cover page of his autobiography featured quotations from Reinhold Niebuhr ("The sad duty of politics is to establish justice in a sinful world"), Bob Dylan (about "a funny ol'world that's a-comin' along"), and Dylan Thomas ("A hand rules pity as a hand rules heaven").

Now flash forward thirty years.  In April 2007, shortly after Obama announced his candidacy, David Brooks had a one-on-one interview with him.  They were speaking about effective aid to Africa.  As Brooks related the conversation the next day in "Obama, Gospel and Verse":

Out of the blue I asked, "Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?"

Obama's tone changed.  "I love him.  He's one of my favorite philosophers."

So I asked, What do you take away from him?

"I take away," Obama answered in a rush of words, "the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain.  And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things.  But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction.  I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."

My first impression was that for a guy who's spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that's a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History."  My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it's really interesting to watch.

A less credulous commentator might have noted that Obama had used 70 words and four sentences to express a cliché:  we can't do everything, but we must do everything we can.  He might have noted that "threading the Niebuhrian needle" is simply the Goldilocks principle applied to idealism and realism (not too much; not too little - just right).  He might have observed that Obama spoke well but did not really say anything.  But Obama already had him at "Niebuhr."

Nine months later, after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, a "vibrating" David Brooks (in Leon Wieseltier's observation) wrote that it was "a huge moment."

Whatever their political affiliations, Americans are going to feel good about the Obama victory, which is a story of youth, possibility and unity through diversity -- the primordial themes of the American experience. . . .

At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift -- filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change.

He talks about erasing old categories like red and blue (and implicitly, black and white) and replacing them with new categories, of which the most important are new and old. . . .

It was like the second coming of the 1976 Jimmy Carter -- the one who would unite North and South, black and white, and provide us a government as good as we were; it was the second coming of the man who knew Niebuhr!  By last week, Brooks was speaking of FRD and Reagan.

If elected, Obama will be the least experienced president since Jimmy Carter.  No one knows what Obama really thinks, much less what he will actually do, since he had one set of policies in the primaries and another during the general election, and his rhetoric is as unspecific as Carter's was (except Obama did say in the debates - twice - that he intended to go through the federal budget "line by line").

He has released no records from college or law school, nor his law firm client list, nor the files relating to his legislative experience in Illinois.  He has acknowledged a history of drug use and the fact that he currently smokes, but he refuses to release any medical records.  He has spent most of his still-unfinished first term in the Senate running for president, which his supporters argue is the executive experience that qualifies him for the presidency.

His own running mate has told us Obama could have made a better vice-presidential choice, and has warned us that Obama's inexperience will result in multiple international crises in his first six months.  But Obama wrote an excellent autobiography, has an organized unconscious, and knows Niebuhr.

There is a good chance that if we elect him, we will one day ask:  what were we thinking?

Rick Richman edits Jewish Current Issues.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_second_coming_of_jimmy_car.html at October 22, 2008 - 09:08:04 AM EDT
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 12:23:24 PM by Body-by-Guinness » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #358 on: October 22, 2008, 09:03:24 AM »

**I know that the current narrative from the left/MSM is that the Weather Underground was just a youthful indiscretion to be ignored. Just a reminder of who they killed.**

Weather Underground: Honoring the Cops They Killed

From left: Sergeant Brian McDonnell, Officer Waverly Brown, Sergeant Edward O'Grady

Chris Cosgriff / PoliceLink

October 13, 2008

Editor’s Note: With the recent headlines mentioning the Weather Underground, the focus has been on who said what and who did what when. What has been overlooked, and seemingly forgotten, is the sacrifice of three real American heroes. This article’s only purpose is to honor those three fallen heroes.

If you’ve been keeping up with the presidential race then you’ve likely heard mention the accusations and denials from both campaigns about alleged ties between Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, and Bill Ayers. Plenty has been written about their relationship from both sides of the campaign, and I have absolutely no interest in exploring that relationship further.

I am interested only in honoring the memories of three fallen police officers and holding responsible those who actually planned and committed these murderous attacks against the American people and our criminal justice system.

Ayers, who has long held a position as a college professor in Chicago, has a surprisingly nefarious past. He happens to be the founder of a domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground, which he has written about extensively in his own memoir, Fugitive Days: A Memoir.

The Weather Underground was responsible for bombing several government targets throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and a building used by the New York City Police Department. To finance their domestic terrorism activities the group also conducted “traditional” robberies, which occasionally led to murder.

What you don’t usually hear in modern-day news coverage of the group, is that three of those murders were of police officers killed in the line of duty.

On February 16, 1970, a bomb exploded at a San Francisco, California, Police Department substation, fatally wounding Sergeant Brian McDonnell. McDonnell died of his wounds two days later. A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel. Although the case has never officially been solved, members of the Weather Underground, including Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were prime suspects.

On October 20, 1981, several members of the Weather Underground undertook the robbery of a bank to finance their terrorist activities. During the robbery the group murdered an armored car guard and two members of the Nyack, New York, Police Department – Officer Waverly Brown and Sergeant Edward O’Grady,. a Vietnam War veteran. Unlike with Sergeant McDonnell’s murder, this case was quickly solved and several members of the group were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Sergeant McDonnell, Officer Brown, and Sergeant O’Grady were just three of over a dozen law enforcement officers killed by radical, domestic terrorist groups during the 1970s and 1980s. Their memories may be forgotten by those who killed them and walk free – whether through lack of arrest and prosecution in McDonnell’s case or having served their sentences in Brown’s and O’Grady’s cases – but they will never be forgotten by their brothers and sisters in law enforcement.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #359 on: October 22, 2008, 09:21:17 AM »

It was during the Ford-Carter race that I realized that I was a Republitarian.  During the late 60s I had thought of myself as of the Left, but what I came to understand with my first exposure to economics at U of PA is that I had been "anit-authority", and that the Left was about massive govt. authoritarianism.

My friends were shocked when I declared for Ford over Carter!  I remember the campaign and the election well.  For me the BO as Carter 2 analogy works very well.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #360 on: October 22, 2008, 09:39:37 AM »

"Bill Ayers and his wife were prime suspects"  Heck I think anyone with long hair back then was a "prime suspect" to the police.
Note, the fact remains Ayers was never convicted of any crime.   And how many years ago was this???

And whatever his past, Ayers is now and has been for a number of years a very respected professor and member of Chicago's academic elite.
If you are in Chicago of course you know this guy and perhaps have had interaction.  I bet the list is long of respected people in Illinois who have had
contact with Ayers.  For that matter I bet I could go to Harvard and find a few professors with a nefarious past.  Just think of all the future leaders
of business and our country who might be influenced by these radicals.  Shocking huh?

So what is your point?  As the officer in the story pointed out, Ayers was innocent. 

Does the voting public even care?  Rather I think they care about the economy, keeping their house, the war,...
Odd, McCain/Palin would rather talk about Ayers than the economy.   Is it because McCain/Palin are losing? 
Desperate people do desperate things; that doesn't make it right or logical.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #361 on: October 22, 2008, 10:15:36 AM »

"Bill Ayers and his wife were prime suspects"  Heck I think anyone with long hair back then was a "prime suspect" to the police.

**The problem is you don't think. Ayers co-founded a terrorist group and wishes he'd "done more" terrorist acts. The group he helped found murdered cops and set off bombs.**

Note, the fact remains Ayers was never convicted of any crime. 

**Neither has Bin Laden. Does this mean he has a tenure track position waiting for him?**


 And how many years ago was this???

**No statute of limitations on murder. Just like the Klansmen that killed civil rights activists even earlier, justice can take decades but still comes calling. Would you minimize those deaths from that domestic terrorist group just as readily as you minimize the deaths from the Weather Underground?**

And whatever his past, Ayers is now and has been for a number of years a very respected professor and member of Chicago's academic elite.

**This just demonstrates how corrupt and immoral Chicago and academia are.**

If you are in Chicago of course you know this guy and perhaps have had interaction.  I bet the list is long of respected people in Illinois who have had
contact with Ayers.  For that matter I bet I could go to Harvard and find a few professors with a nefarious past.  Just think of all the future leaders
of business and our country who might be influenced by these radicals.  Shocking huh?

**That's part of the problem, most of academia is nothing but leftist indoctrination. Outside of the hard sciences, most academics are various shades of red.**

So what is your point?  As the officer in the story pointed out, Ayers was innocent. 

**Not convicted does not mean "innocent".**

Does the voting public even care?  Rather I think they care about the economy, keeping their house, the war,...
Odd, McCain/Palin would rather talk about Ayers than the economy.   Is it because McCain/Palin are losing? 
Desperate people do desperate things; that doesn't make it right or logical.

**It appears that despite the fact that Obama couldn't get even a minimal security clearance for a low level federal job, many are willing to overlook his many serious character issues and connections to avowed enemies of this nation because he's "gonna save their house", then I guess we deserve what we'll get from putting him in a position of power.**
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #362 on: October 22, 2008, 10:34:11 AM »

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june07/civilrights_03-21.html

Justice Department Reopens Civil Rights Cases


The Justice Department has decided to prosecute about a dozen civil rights cases that are decades old. A guest explains why.
   
   
RAY SUAREZ: For many of the families of the beaten victims, the lynched and murdered during the 1960s civil rights movement, it's been justice delayed and denied, in some cases for 50 years.

State and federal law enforcement officials have successfully prosecuted several decades-old civil rights cases in recent years. In January, former Ku Klux Klan member James Seale was indicted for the kidnappings and murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee in Meadville, Mississippi, in 1964.

But there are still hundreds of crimes for which no one was ever prosecuted. Now the Justice Department has announced a new initiative to reopen investigations into those so-called cold cases.

At a press conference last month in Washington, FBI Director Robert Mueller explained why, after so much time, it was still important to search for answers.

ROBERT MUELLER, FBI Director: In too many instances, the truth has been hidden for too long. Many individuals have, quite literally, gotten away with murder.

We cannot turn back the clock. We cannot right these wrongs. But we can try to bring a measure of justice to those who remain.

We know that some memories may fade, some evidence may be lost, and some witnesses may pass away. We know that, no matter how much work we devote to an investigation, we may not always get the result that we're hoping for. But in other cases, we will.

RAY SUAREZ: The unprosecuted cases include those of Lamar Smith, who was shot dead on the lawn of a Brookhaven, Miss., courthouse in 1955. Despite several eyewitness accounts of the shooting, no one was ever arrested.

William Lewis Moore was shot and killed in Attalla, Ala., in 1963, during a one-man march against segregation. Ballistics tests proved the identity of the gun owner, but no one was indicted.

And O'Neal Moore, a deputy sheriff in Bogalusa, La., was gunned down in his patrol car in 1965. Authorities arrested one suspect but released him two weeks later.

It's unclear which cases will be prosecuted first, but the Justice Department says several investigations are already under way.


         
Difficulty of pursuing old cases

RAY SUAREZ: For more now on reviving these investigations, we're joined by Jerry Mitchell, investigative reporter for the Clarion-Ledger in Mississippi. He's been covering the efforts to prosecute civil rights-era cases for some two decades.
Jerry Mitchell, it also appears that, in addition to government and traditional law enforcement involvement, you've got outsiders who are feeding information to these investigative bodies.

JERRY MITCHELL, The Clarion-Ledger: It's very true, and it's kind of been happening that way for some time, kind of in a piecemeal effort rather than some kind of centralized effort, with each jurisdiction kind of working on these cases.

You have families who have pushed these authorities to go forward with the cases and others, the media, for example. That's how this thing has kind of happened over all this time.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, I understand the attention has coalesced around some 74 cases, but, surprisingly, some of those cases are around 60 years old. What's the likelihood of finding a likely suspect, much less finding one who's still alive?

JERRY MITCHELL: It's going to be very difficult. I think in probably the majority of these cases, they probably are not going to be able to bring a case. Either suspects are going to be dead, witnesses are going to be dead, the trail's going to be just simply too cold, unfortunately.


Looking for evidence, witnesses

RAY SUAREZ: And did law enforcement agencies in those days take the kind of care of preserving chains of evidence, preserving photographs and footprint molds and that kind of thing?
JERRY MITCHELL: Well, at times. Not universally all didn't, but law enforcement has improved dramatically since those days. Now, the FBI did thoroughly investigate some of these cases, and, obviously, we have those photographs and things like that. The Mississippi burning case, the killings of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney, there's something like 40,000 pages of documents, as well as photographs.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, a lot of people have talked about the trail going cold on some of these cases, but conversely, after this amount of time, are there people who are more willing to talk today than they were then?

JERRY MITCHELL: Absolutely. You have some of these Klansmen who have been afraid to come forward, who were Klansmen, say, in those days, and maybe are willing to come forward now. They want to, you know, rid their consciences of this guilt or whatever else they're feeling.

And so I think, definitely, there are converse things that happen, in terms of some positive, some negative, in terms of bringing these cases about.


Success rates for convictions

RAY SUAREZ: Now, some of the most notorious cases from those days have been retried decades later. But haven't there also been cases where grand juries have been unwilling to indict or juries unwilling to convict?
JERRY MITCHELL: There's been quite a bit of success in bringing these cases overall, I'd say. There have been 29 different killings from the civil rights era have been reexamined. There have been 27 arrests and overall there's been 22 convictions. So that's a pretty good ratio.

RAY SUAREZ: In some of the towns involved, people have been of more than one mind about whether this was worth doing.

JERRY MITCHELL: Absolutely.

RAY SUAREZ: One elderly attorney said, "Everybody thinks those days are behind us and we're moving forward in the correct direction." One African-American young man said, "Look, this kind of thing wouldn't happen today. I'm not sure we need to go back to those times."

JERRY MITCHELL: Right.

RAY SUAREZ: Why do this?

JERRY MITCHELL: Well, I think there are several reasons. One is, you know, there's no statute of limitations on murder, and there's a reason for that. There's a reason that murder doesn't have a statute of limitation, because information may come about -- you know, in Indiana, the daughter of a man who committed murder came forward after several decades. She was a child at the time.

You have, also, you know, the families themselves. I know I was talking to one woman one time whose daughter had been murdered -- it was not a civil rights activist. It was a white woman. And she had told me, "Why are you writing about these cases all the time? Why don't you just leave it alone?"

And she mentioned about her daughter being murdered, and the man she believed was the killer had been acquitted. So he couldn't be tried again. And I said, "Well, how would you feel if he could be tried again?" She said, "Well, I'd be all for it." And I said, "Well, don't you think these families feel the same way?"


Unexplained killings

RAY SUAREZ: Beyond the 74 that are the now-focus of this cold case squad, are there tens, dozens, scores more of these unexplained killings that we'll, in fact, never know what happened?
JERRY MITCHELL: Unfortunately, yes. I mean, I know that the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have, I think, a list of about 127 killings that we know of, and some of those we just have a name and maybe a date. We know very little more than that.

And so, obviously, those kind of cases are going to be extremely difficult to resurrect and bring about. But then there are the others that we know nothing about that didn't even make the list, unfortunately.

RAY SUAREZ: And, Jerry Mitchell, thanks for joining us.

JERRY MITCHELL: Thank you
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #363 on: October 22, 2008, 10:37:34 AM »

Ok, JDN. Defend and minimize the crimes of this domestic terrorist group just like you did for the other one. Long time ago, never convicted....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #364 on: October 22, 2008, 11:04:14 AM »

Over to you JDN  evil cheesy
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #365 on: October 22, 2008, 12:56:41 PM »

"This just demonstrates how corrupt and immoral Chicago and academics are"  Gee, one of my best friends went to
the University of Chicago Law School.  I don't think he's corrupt or immoral and he seemed to like and respect
most of his teachers.  Another friend went to Northwestern. She loved it and raves about the school and
the professors she had.  Note, she is a registered Republican and quite conservative.  I think your statement is absurd
about Chicago and academia.

"... academia is nothing but leftist indoctrination. ..."  Actually, I think academia represents all aspects (as it should)
of politics and religion.  Most of my teachers happened to be toward the right.

"Not convicted does not mean "innocent".  Actually it does.  We have a basic right of being presumed "innocent" until convicted.
Being in Law Enforcement I thought you would know that.

"... could not get even a minimal security clearance for a low level job, ..."  I noticed this ridiculous statement making the rounds
on conservative talk shows and blogs; it's all conjecture and not true to my knowledge.  Or do you have an unbiased factual source (I know that's hard
for you GM) to indicate otherwise.

And actually it seems it's McCain when he gets "in a position of power" who is going to "save my house"; redo the loan and let the taxpayers eat the loss. 
Even Obama is not that "liberal"; Obama suggested that the banks who made the bad loan eat the loss; makes sense to me and/or let the
homebuyer (who never should have bought the house in the first place) move out.  Why is the taxpayer going to lower mortgages for deadbeats?
You made a deal; stick to it.  And now you want to void the deal and reward deadbeats with taxpayer money? This is the Republican philosophy?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #366 on: October 22, 2008, 05:17:05 PM »


Actually McCain got it from Hillary.  rolleyes cry  Its part of why he is diving in the polls.  Stupid ecnoomics, and pathetic populist pandering.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #367 on: October 22, 2008, 05:35:35 PM »

"This just demonstrates how corrupt and immoral Chicago and academics are"  Gee, one of my best friends went to
the University of Chicago Law School.  I don't think he's corrupt or immoral and he seemed to like and respect
most of his teachers.  Another friend went to Northwestern. She loved it and raves about the school and
the professors she had.  Note, she is a registered Republican and quite conservative.  I think your statement is absurd
about Chicago and academia.

"... academia is nothing but leftist indoctrination. ..."  Actually, I think academia represents all aspects (as it should)
of politics and religion.  Most of my teachers happened to be toward the right.

**When and where was this?**

"Not convicted does not mean "innocent".  Actually it does.  We have a basic right of being presumed "innocent" until convicted.
Being in Law Enforcement I thought you would know that.

**Just because someone has not been convicted does not mean they didn't commit the crime, it means they haven't been convicted in the criminal justice system. I've been face to face with lots of criminals that evaded conviction by claiming "not guilty by reason of insanity" for all sorts of horrific things. It sure doesn't mean they didn't do the crime, but they are not guilty by the legal standard. Al Capone was never convicted of murder, though he committed many.**

"... could not get even a minimal security clearance for a low level job, ..."  I noticed this ridiculous statement making the rounds
on conservative talk shows and blogs; it's all conjecture and not true to my knowledge.  Or do you have an unbiased factual source (I know that's hard
for you GM) to indicate otherwise.

**If you understood the background vetting process for federal employment and or law enforcement, you'd know this is indeed true.**

And actually it seems it's McCain when he gets "in a position of power" who is going to "save my house"; redo the loan and let the taxpayers eat the loss. 
Even Obama is not that "liberal"; Obama suggested that the banks who made the bad loan eat the loss; makes sense to me and/or let the
homebuyer (who never should have bought the house in the first place) move out.  Why is the taxpayer going to lower mortgages for deadbeats?
You made a deal; stick to it.  And now you want to void the deal and reward deadbeats with taxpayer money? This is the Republican philosophy?


Not my philosophy.

So please address your minimization of domestic terrorism. Do you do so for all domestic terrorists, or do you favor some over others?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 05:37:51 PM by G M » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #368 on: October 22, 2008, 08:07:20 PM »

"When and where was this"?
My legal friend graduated from Chicago Law School in the 70's.
My female friend graduated from Northwestern about 5 years ago.
I graduated from USC with a degree in economics also in the 70's.
SC is the west coast bastion of conservatism.
Was this your question?

Don't know about "reasons of insanity"; that I bet could be a whole other topic.  But our legal system is all we have
(and frankly I think it's pretty good).  You are innocent until proven guilty regardless of what people may think.

I do understand the vetting process; two FBI Agents came to my door a few months ago to inquire about a neighbor's son
who was under consideration (accepted) to become a Federal Prosecutor.  Great kid; I said nice things.  And frankly I have
read nothing to exclude Obama nor have I seen ANY reliable source saying he "could not get even a minimal security clearance for a low
level job".  It's all conjecture and BS - your a smart guy; you know it's silly and absurd. 

Glad we agree on the housing issue.  I don't get it.  Why can't McCain run on fiscal conservatism, experience, and a little mix of compassion?
It's not a bad story and he is a very qualified man.  What's with all the waffling, pandering, etc.Huh  Heck if he had chosen a more qualified
VP (it's not ageism he's just old) I still might have voted for him.

As for "domestic terrorism" I don't approve and I say lock them up.  And if guilty, they deserve to spend a long time in jail or worse.  But I
want a legal and fair conviction, not speculation, rumor, and hate to dominate their so called "guilt".  McCarthy did that and America suffered.
If they are innocent via our legal system then they are equal to both of us before the law and in society.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #369 on: October 23, 2008, 09:07:44 AM »

"When and where was this"?
My legal friend graduated from Chicago Law School in the 70's.
My female friend graduated from Northwestern about 5 years ago.
I graduated from USC with a degree in economics also in the 70's.
SC is the west coast bastion of conservatism.
Was this your question?

Don't know about "reasons of insanity"; that I bet could be a whole other topic.  But our legal system is all we have
(and frankly I think it's pretty good).  You are innocent until proven guilty regardless of what people may think.

http://www.massbar.org/about-the-mba/press-room/journalists'-handbook/6-not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent

Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent
All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Technically, only three pleas can be entered by a defendant who is brought before the court to answer the charges against him. Under the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or nolo contendere to any crime with which he is charged and over which the court has jurisdiction. The rules that are applicable to the criminal sessions of the trial court do not provide the defendant with the option of pleading innocent. There is no such plea available.

Similarly, the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for only two possible verdicts that can be returned by a jury: guilty or not guilty. There is no verdict of innocent. And, not guilty does not mean innocent.

When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the elements of the crime with which the defendant has been charged. For example, in a first degree murder case, the state must prove that the defendant deliberately and with malice unlawfully caused the death of another human being. If the defendant presents a valid defense that he killed the victim in self-defense, then the defendant is not innocent of homicide -- he did in fact kill another human being -- but he is "not guilty" of homicide because the state did not convince the jury that the defendant acted with premeditated malice aforethought.

Not guilty because of the law of evidence
There are other reasons that the defendant can be found not guilty although he committed the crime.

For example, suppose that a victim of rape is so terrified by the event that she cannot identify the defendant as her attacker. Tests prove that the defendant was the rapist but, for some reason, those tests cannot be admitted at trial. At trial the defendant presents an alibi defense that the jury believes. The jury may return a verdict of not guilty although the defendant did in fact commit the crime. Certainly, we do not think of the defendant as innocent.

Here is another example. Suppose that two defendants, A and B, are jointly tried for murder. Both A and B made confessions to the police in which each implicates himself but blames the other for the actual murder. The confessions are not introduced at trial because of a Supreme Court rule of law. The jury finds the defendants not guilty because the state was prevented by a rule of law from introducing enough evidence to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not innocent of the crime.

Not guilty by reason of insanity
Another way in which a defendant may be found not guilty is if he is found "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity defense is based on the principle of Anglo-American law that before an individual can be punished for a wrongful act, he must have appreciated the criminality of his conduct.

The insanity defense has always been the subject of public debate. The debate resurfaced after John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after his trial for the attempted assassination of President Reagan. After the verdict, many bills were introduced in Congress to eliminate or restrict the defense and in October 1984, a new law was passed which makes the insanity defense one that the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence. Twelve states enacted a statute providing for an alternative verdict: guilty but mentally ill. These new statutes reflect the increasing public hostility toward acquitting defendants on the basis of the insanity defense. These defendants are not innocent; they are, in those 12 states, guilty but insane.

These examples show that the term not guilty should be used instead of innocent. Not guilty is the language of the rules providing for pleas and verdicts and is technically more accurate than innocent.

The legal system and legal terminology should be respected. I suggest that the media should make an effort to use the correct terminology when commenting on court cases. The word innocent should not be used promiscuously.


I do understand the vetting process; two FBI Agents came to my door a few months ago to inquire about a neighbor's son
who was under consideration (accepted) to become a Federal Prosecutor.  Great kid; I said nice things.  And frankly I have
read nothing to exclude Obama nor have I seen ANY reliable source saying he "could not get even a minimal security clearance for a low
level job".  It's all conjecture and BS - your a smart guy; you know it's silly and absurd. 

Security Clearance Guidelines

Allegiance to the United States

 
The Concern. An individual must be of unquestioned allegiance to the United States. The willingness to safeguard classified information is in doubt if there is any reason to suspect an individual's allegiance to the United States.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Involvement in any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, sedition, or other act whose aim is to overthrow the Government of the United States or alter the form of government by unconstitutional means;

b. Association or sympathy with persons who are attempting to commit, or who are committing, any of the above acts;

c. Association or sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate the overthrow of the United States Government, or any state or subdivision, by force or violence or by other unconstitutional means;

d. Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.

___________________________

Security Clearance Guidelines

Foreign Influence


The Concern. A security risk may exist when an individual's immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress. These situations could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information. Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries are also relevant to security determinations if they make an individual potentially vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident or present in, a foreign country;

b. Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence or duress exists;

c. Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government;

d. Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals;

e, Unauthorized association with a suspected or known collaborator or employee of a foreign intelligence service;

f. Conduct which may make the individual vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure by a foreign government;

g. Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, coercion or pressure;

h. A substantial financial interest in a country, or in any foreign owned or operated business that could make the individual vulnerable to foreign influence.

_________________________

Security Clearance Guidelines

Personal Conduct


The Concern. Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

a. Refusal to undergo or cooperate with required security processing, including medical and psychological testing; or

b. Refusal to complete required security forms, releases, or provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

a. Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;

b. The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

c. Deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant and material matters to an investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official representative in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination;

d. Personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase an individual's vulnerability to coercion, exploitation or duress, such as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal, professional, or community standing or render the person susceptible to blackmail;

e. A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency.

f. Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

__________________________

Security Clearance Guidelines

Drug Involvement

The Concern.

a. Improper or illegal involvement with drugs, raises questions regarding an individual's willingness or ability to protect classified information. Drug abuse or dependence may impair social or occupational functioning, increasing the risk of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

b. Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances and include:

(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and
(2) Inhalants and other similar substances.

c. Drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

a. Any drug abuse (see above definition);

b. Illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution;

c. Diagnosis by a credentialed medical professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of drug abuse or drug dependence;

d. Evaluation of drug abuse or drug dependence by a licensed clinical social worker who is a staff member of a recognized drug treatment program;

e. Failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a credentialed medical professional. Recent drug involvement, especially following the granting of a security clearance, or an expressed intent not to discontinue use, will almost invariably result in an unfavorable determination.
_______________________________________________________


Glad we agree on the housing issue.  I don't get it.  Why can't McCain run on fiscal conservatism, experience, and a little mix of compassion?
It's not a bad story and he is a very qualified man.  What's with all the waffling, pandering, etc.Huh  Heck if he had chosen a more qualified
VP (it's not ageism he's just old) I still might have voted for him.

As for "domestic terrorism" I don't approve and I say lock them up.  And if guilty, they deserve to spend a long time in jail or worse.  But I
want a legal and fair conviction, not speculation, rumor, and hate to dominate their so called "guilt".  McCarthy did that and America suffered.
If they are innocent via our legal system then they are equal to both of us before the law and in society.

**If instead of co-founding the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers had co-founded a KKK chapter that had murdered civil rights workers, and he was quoted as saying "I wish I'd done more" in 2001, would you still minimize his conduct and defend any politician that associated himself with him?**
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #370 on: October 23, 2008, 09:23:55 AM »

Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?   
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, February 04, 2008

Barack Obama, in a way that recalls John F. Kennedy, a politician to whom he's frequently compared, has carefully controlled and burnished his image to create the impression of an independent figure, free from dogma and ideological entanglements. But there is one man who threatens to undermine Obama's appealing narrative as a man above the ugly quarrels and divisive partisanship of the past: his longtime pastor and spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.


On March 1, 1972, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became the pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a position he still holds to this day. Because he has been a revered figure in the life of presidential aspirant Barack Obama for two decades, Wright's political views, which he commonly draws from the tenets of liberation theology, are worthy of some scrutiny—if only to shed light on the teachings that have had enough resonance to retain Obama as a TUCC congregant since 1988. So great is Obama's respect for Wright, that the former sought the Reverend's counsel before formally declaring his candidacy for U.S. President. Moreover, Obama and his wife selected Wright to perform their wedding ceremony and to baptize their two daughters. These are honors of considerable magnitude, and it is reasonable to speculate that if we learn more about Rev. Wright, we may gain some insight into the personal qualities and belief systems Barack Obama holds in high regard.

When we read the writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright, we quickly notice his unmistakable conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!... We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

In a similar spirit, Wright laments "the social order under which we [blacks] live, under which we suffer, under which we are killed."[1] Depicting blacks as a politically powerless demographic, he complains that "African Americans don't run anything in the Capital except elevators."[2] On its website, Wright's church portrays black people as victims who are still burdened by the legacy of their "pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism," and who must pray for "the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people."

Wright detects what he views as racism in virtually every facet of American life. In the business world, for instance, he attributes the high unemployment rate of African Americans to "the fact that they are black."[3] Vis-à-vis the criminal justice system, he similarly explains that "the brothers are in prison" largely because of their skin color. "Consider the 'three strikes law,'" he elaborates. "There is a higher jail sentencing for crack than for cocaine because more African Americans get crack than do cocaine."[4] Notwithstanding Wright's implication that the harsh anti-crack penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, the Congressional Record shows that such was not at all the case. In 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—deeply concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating the black community—strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties. In fact, a few years earlier CBC members had pushed President Reagan to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy.[5]

In Wright's calculus, white America's bigotry is to blame not only for whatever ills continue to plague the black community, but also for our country's conflicts with other nations. "In the 21st century," says Wright, "white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."

Remarkably, no mention of jihad—the ageless Muslim tradition of aggressive, permanent warfare whose ultimate aim is to achieve Islam's dominion over the human race at large—managed to find its way into Wright's analysis. Rather, he assured us that the 9/11 atrocities were ultimately traceable to the doorstep of U.S. provocations. In fact, Wright apparently sees no reason to suspect that Islam may be incompatible in any way with Western traditions. "Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize," he has written. "Islam comes out of Christianity."[6]

Apart from America's purported racism, Wright also despises the nation's capitalist economic structure, viewing it as a breeding ground for all manner of injustice. "Capitalism as made manifest in the 'New World,'" says Wright, "depended upon slave labor (by African slaves), and it is only maintained by keeping the 'Two-Thirds World' under oppression."[7] This anti-capitalist perspective is further reflected in TUCC's "10-point vision," whose ideals include the cultivation of "a congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY." Dispelling any doubt that this is a reference to socialism and the wholesale redistribution of wealth, the TUCC mission statement plainly declares its goal of helping "the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution!"

This view is entirely consistent with Rev. Wright's devotion to the tenets of liberation theology, which is essentially Marxism dressed up as Christianity. Devised by Cold War-era theologians, it teaches that the gospels of Jesus can be understood only as calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today's poor will unseat their "oppressors" and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations. An extension of this paradigm is black liberation theology, which seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity. Wright's mentor in this discipline is James Cone, author of the landmark text Black Power and Black Theology. Arguing that Christianity has been used by white society as an opiate of the (black) masses, Cone asserts that the destitute "are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few," and that "[n]o one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one's solidarity with victims."

Many of Wright's condemnations of America are echoed in his denunciations of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for imposing "injustice and … racism" on the Palestinians. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of "white racism." Likening Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct business in, or with, Israel.

Given Wright's obvious low regard for the U.S. and Israel, it is by no means surprising that he reserves some of his deepest respect for the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. "When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens," says Wright. "Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen … His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest. Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience. His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Wright's paean to Farrakhan was parroted in the November/December issue of TUCC's bimonthly magazine, the Trumpet, which featured an interview with the NOI "icon" who, according to the publication, "truly epitomized greatness." "Because of the Minister's influence in the African American community," the Trumpet announced that it was honoring him with an "Empowerment Award" as a "fitting tribute for a storied life well lived."

This seems an odd distinction to confer upon someone whose anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic statements are numerous. For example, in 1996 Farrakhan told a Tehran newspaper that God would "bestow upon Muslims" the honor of "destroy[ing] America." In February 1998, he sent a cordial and supportive letter to Saddam Hussein, calling him a "visionary" who had earned the Iraqi people's "love," and whose demise would "mean a setback for the goal of unity [among Muslims]." In July 2002, he declared that America, "with blood dripping from [its] hands," had no moral authority by which to overthrow Saddam. In February 2005, he condemned the United States for waging a war "against Islam," adding: "[T]here's no way that I, as a Muslim, could countenance my children or grandchildren fighting a war against fellow believers in any part of the world."

Farrakhan also has a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the white "blue-eyed devils" and Jewish "bloodsuckers" who purportedly decimate America's black communities from coast to coast. Moreover, he has referred to white people as "the skunks of the planet."

On a 1984 trip to meet with the Libyan dictator (and America's arch enemy) Muammar Qadhafi, Farrakhan was accompanied by none other than Jeremiah A. Wright.

Farrakhan has long considered Qadhafi to be his trusted "friend," "brother," and "fellow struggler in the cause of liberation for our people." In 1996, the NOI leader formed a partnership with Qadhafi, who pledged $1 billion to help Farrakhan develop a Muslim political lobby in the U.S. Said Qadhafi: "We agreed with Louis Farrakhan and his delegation to mobilize in a legal and legitimate form the oppressed minorities—and at their forefront the blacks, Arab Muslims and Red Indians—for they play an important role in American political life and have a weight in U.S. elections." "Our confrontation with America," added Qadhafi, "was [previously] like a fight against a fortress from outside, and today [with the NOI alliance] we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it."

Farrakhan's October 16, 1995 Million Man March ranks among the events about which Rev. Wright has written most extensively and passionately. Wright attended the rally with his son, and has described it as "a once in a lifetime, amazing experience."[8] When a number of prominent African Americans counseled fellow blacks to boycott the demonstration because of Farrakhan's well-documented history of hateful rhetoric, Wright derided those critics as "'Negro' leaders,"[9] "'colored' leaders," "Oreos," and "house niggras"[10] whose most noteworthy trait was their contemptible "Uncle Tomism."[11] "There are a whole boat load of 'darkies' who think in white supremacist terms," added Wright. "… Some 'darkies' think white women are superior to black women…. Some 'darkies' think white lawyers are superior to black lawyers. Some 'darkies' think white pastors are better than black pastors. There are a whole boatload of 'darkies' who think anything white and everyone white is better than whatever it is black people have."[12]

In the book titled When Black Men Stand up for God, a collection of sermons and reflections on the Million Man March, Wright identifies Kwanzaa founder Maulana Karenga as an attendee of the rally.[13] In the end notes that follow a transcript of one of Wright's sermons, Karenga is described as "an internationally acclaimed social activist and scholar in Pan African Studies"; "the founder and creator of Kwanzaa, the well-known African American holiday"; and "the director of Pan African Studies and Visiting Lecturer in Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Riverside."[14] Unmentioned is the fact that Karenga is a self-identified "African socialist" whose "Seven Principles of Blackness," which are observed during Kwanzaa, are not only the Marxist precepts of parity and proletariat unity, but are also identical to those of the 1970s domestic terrorist group, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Nor is it noted that in 1971 Karenga was convicted of torturing two women who were members of United Slaves, a black nationalist cult he had established.

On its website, Wright's church describes itself in distinctly racial terms, as being an "Unashamedly Black" congregation of "African people" who are "true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization," and who participate in TUCC's "Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

Some have suggested that such seemingly exclusionary assertions, coupled with Wright's own racially loaded statements and his close affiliation with Farrakhan, indicate that Wright is guilty of racism. But Wright casually dismisses this charge, stating: "I get tickled every time I hear a 'Negro' call me a racist. They don't even understand how to define the word. Racism means controlling the means."[15] In other words, Wright employs a rhetorical escape hatch that permits him to evade all charges of racism simply by claiming that only the "dominant" (i.e., white) demographic is capable of such ugliness. The implication is that no deed or utterance, however hateful or vile, is egregious enough to qualify any black person as a racist; that blacks are always the victims of racism, never its perpetrators.

American voters ought to have more than a passing interest in the fact that when Barack Obama formally joined TUCC in 1991, he tacitly accepted this same Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor. Moreover, he pledged allegiance to the church's race-conscious "Black Value System" that encourages blacks to patronize black-only businesses, support black leaders, and avoid becoming "entrapped" by the pursuit of a "black middle-classness" whose ideals presumably would erode their sense of African identity and render them "captive" to white culture.

In addition, voters should examine carefully the question of whether Obama shares Wright's socialist economic preferences. They ought to be aware, for instance, that the Democratic candidate is on record as having said that his religious faith has led him to question "the idolatry of the free market." Moreover, Obama's voting record and his issue positions show him generally to favor high spending and increased government intervention in all realms of life.

When Rev. Wright's controversial statements and positions recently became more widely publicized, Obama said, "There are some things I agree with my pastor about, some things I disagree with him about." It is the duty of every American voter to determine exactly where those agreements and disagreements lie.

Notes:
[1] When Black Men Stand up for God (Chicago: African American Images), 1996, p. 17.
[2] Ibid., p. 102.
[3] Ibid., p. 17.
[4] Ibid., p. 17.
[5] John DiIulio, Jr., "My Black Crime Problem, and Ours," City Journal (Spring 1996), pp. 19-20.
[6] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 16.
[7] Blow the Trumpet in Zion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 2005, pp. 8-9.
[8] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 10.
[9] Ibid., pp. 11, 37.
[10] Ibid., p. 80.
[11] Ibid., p. 11.
[12] Ibid., p. 81.
[13] It should be noted that Wright's church has conducted Kwanzaa programs for its congregants. See When Black Men Stand up for God, p. iv.)
[14] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 25.
[15] Ibid., p. 102.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #371 on: October 23, 2008, 10:08:13 AM »

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/what-do-we-know-about-abongo-obama

What Do We Know About Abongo Obama?


From Mr. Obama’s first autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” pp 203-4:



Despite these heartaches, Michelle and I decided to go ahead with our wedding plans. Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., performed the service in the sanctuary of Trinity United Church of Christ, on Ninety-fifth and Parnell. Everyone looked very fine at the reception, my new aunts admiring the cake, my new uncles admiring themselves in their rented tuxedos. Johnnie was there, sharing a laugh with Jeff and Scott, my old friends from Hawaii and Hasan, my roommate from college. So were Angela, Shirley, and Mona, who told my mother what a fine job she’d done raising me. (“You don’t know the half of it,” my mother replied with a laugh.) I watched Maya politely fending off the advances of some brothers who thought they were slick but who were, in fact, much too old for her and should have known better, but when I started to grumble, Michelle told me to relax, my little sister could handle herself. She was right, of course; I looked at my baby sister and saw a full-grown woman, beautiful and wise and looking like a Latin countess with her olive skin and long black hair and black bridesmaid’s gown. Auma was standing beside her, looking just as lovely, al-though her eyes were a little puffy-to my surprise she was the only one who cried during the ceremony. When the band started to play, the two of them sought out the protection of Michelle’s five — and six-year-old cousins, who impressively served as our official ring-bearers. Watching the boys somberly lead my sisters out onto the dance floor, I thought they looked like young African princes in their little kente-cloth caps and matching cumberbunds and wilted bow ties.

The person who made me proudest of all, though, was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol. He still works at his accounting firm, but talks about moving back to Kenya once he has enough money. In fact, when we saw each other in Home Squared, he was busy building a hut for himself and his mother, away from our grandfather’s compound, in accordance with Luo tradition. He told me then that he had moved forward with his import business and hoped it would soon pay enough to employ Bernard and Abo full-time. And when we went together to stand by the Old Man’s grave, I noticed there was finally a plaque where the bare cement had been.

Abongo’s new lifestyle has left him lean and clear-eyed, and at the wedding, he looked so dignified in his black African gown with white trim and matching cap that some of our guests mistook him for my father. He was certainly the older brother that day, talking me through prenuptial jitters, patiently telling me for the fifth and sixth time that yes, he still had the ring, nudging me out the door with the observation that if I spent any more time in front of the mirror it wouldn’t matter how I looked because we were sure to be late.

Not that the changes in him are without tension. He’s prone to make lengthy pronouncements on the need for the black man to liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture, and scolds Auma for what he calls her European ways. The words he speaks are not fully his own, and in his transition he can sometimes sound stilted and dogmatic. But the magic of his laughter remains, and we can disagree without rancor. His conversion has given him solid ground to stand on, a pride in his place in the world. From that base I see his confidence building; he begins to venture out and ask harder questions; he starts to slough off the formulas and slogans and decides what works best for him. He can’t help himself in this process, for his heart is too generous and full of good humor, his attitude toward people too gentle and forgiving, to find simple solutions to the puzzle of being a black man.

Toward the end of the wedding, I watched him grinning widely for the video camera, his long arms draped over the shoulders of my mother and Toot, whose heads barely reached the height of his chest. “Eh, brother,” he said to me as I walked up to the three of them. “It looks like I have two new mothers now.” Toot patted him on the back. “And we have a new son,” she said, although when she tried to say “Abongo” her Kansas tongue mangled it hopelessly. My mother’s chin started to tremble again, and Abongo lifted up his glass of fruit punch for a toast.

“To those who are not here with us,” he said.

“And to a happy ending,” I said.

We dribbled our drinks onto the checkered-tile floor. And for that moment, at least, I felt like the luckiest man alive.

Perhaps this is also how Mr. Obama sees the Rev. Dr. Wright. Sure he says crazy hateful things, such as talking about “liberating himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.”

But the magic of his laughter remains.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #372 on: October 23, 2008, 12:04:22 PM »

Some of the best comes towards the end

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #373 on: October 23, 2008, 12:04:45 PM »

Innocent
I think most people do or should go along with the Webster Dictionary's definition.  Innocent: "Free from guilt or sin".  The rest is just conjecture.

As for Security Clearance, I too have read the requirements.  So?  Nothing in there (although your biased personal opinion might differ) prohibits
Obama from having a Security Clearance.  Further, as I requested and I suppose you are unable to provide, NO ONE in authority, i.e. anyone
from the US Senate, Homeland Security or the Justice Department has questioned or denied Obama's right to have a security clearance.  Even McCain's
campaign has not posted to the contrary.  That you or a few others don't like him and therefore say he isn't qualified is not relevant and it seems no one else
is taking it as being relevant either.


**If instead of co-founding the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers had co-founded a KKK chapter that had murdered civil rights workers, and he was quoted as saying "I wish I'd done more" in 2001, would you still minimize his conduct and defend any politician that associated himself with him?**

Actually, there would be no difference.  The KKK and the Weather Underground are both equally despicable organizations.  That being said, both deserve the same constitutional rights.  You cannot have one
set of rules for situations you support and another set of rules just because you don't like someone's viewpoint.  That kind of expedient hypocrisy will come back to haunt you one day.  For the same reason I am not an
advocate of recent laws in EC's denying freedom of speech from either the right or left if done peacefully and all other laws are respected.  Where do you draw the line and on what basis?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #374 on: October 23, 2008, 03:18:04 PM »

I like the way this blog from Scott Grannis puts it:


My concerns with Obama
As a fan of free markets, liberty, and limited government, I have grave concerns about Obama as president. I acknowledge his depth of intellect, and I also note that he has changed his views on a wide range of subjects in the past year, moving more to the center from the extreme left. But there are a handful of core beliefs and characteristics of his that I find quite disturbing. Karl Rove pinned this down in his WSJ column today.
Wanting to raise taxes -- anyone's taxes -- in a slowdown is a warning sign of a misguided economic philosophy. Obama's proposal to redistribute wealth is a warning of indifference or hostility to enterprise.

Three years ago, Mr. McCain called for stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning their risky practices threatened our economy and could cost taxpayers billions. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats ignored these signs and opposed reform.

Obama's health-care plan is a warning that government will have more, not less, to say about your health care if he has his way.

Obama's dismissal of offshore drilling and opposition to nuclear power are warning signs for an economy whose growth depends on affordable energy.

The absence of a single significant instance in which Mr. Obama cooperated in a bipartisan manner in the Senate is a warning sign. And so is his refusal to break with his party or its interest groups on any issue of substance.
To these I would add: Obama's strong belief in man-made global warming is a warning that the government will assume much broader control over economic activity (e.g., via limits on CO2 emissions). Obama's advocacy of youth corps and community service is a warning that the government will have more power to indoctrinate the young. Obama's belief in the power of government to do good is a warning that he will invariably choose more regulation and more government bureaucracy rather than less as a solution to problems that crop up.

And all of this will detract from individual liberty and free markets as it grants more power to government.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #375 on: October 23, 2008, 07:29:22 PM »

DANIEL J. FLYNN
Obama: The Oak Grown from Acorn
The radical group is front and center when it comes to voter fraud.
16 October 2008
Stealing Elections, Revised and Updated: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, by John Fund (Encounter, 175 pp., $19.95)

Last week, well before news broke today of an FBI voter-fraud investigation of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (Acorn), Nevada authorities raided the group’s Las Vegas headquarters. The offices of Nevada’s secretary of state and attorney general, both Democrats, seized computers, voter-registration cards, and employee information after Acorn submitted numerous fraudulent names and addresses as part of its voter-registration drive. “Some of these [forms] were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys,” Ross Miller, Nevada’s secretary of state, explained. “Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada.” Acorn’s Project Vote alleges that the raid is part of a nationally orchestrated effort to suppress voter turnout. “Project Vote has been attacked all over the country because we registered at least 1.2 million voters,” theorizes Nevada Acorn’s Bonnie Smith-Greathouse. “That could sway an election.”

And that’s just the point, argues John Fund in the updated and timely reissue of his Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. Fund contends that recent changes in election laws have made it easier to “sway an election,” as Smith-Greathouse puts it—through cheating. “The United States has a haphazard, fraud-prone election system befitting a developing nation rather than the globe’s leading democracy,” Fund asserts. At times, Fund’s subject seems more fitting for a magazine exposé than for a book—until one confronts the sheer volume of examples he has compiled. Like a portrait of corruption from a century prior, Lincoln Steffens’s Shame of the Cities, Fund’s Stealing Elections adopts a muckraking style and spotlights a national problem by illuminating it on a city-by-city basis.

In the name of making every vote count, efforts to expand the electorate have resulted in tallying votes that shouldn’t be considered and negating valid votes. Over a century’s worth of reforms designed to protect the concept of “one man, one vote” have been undermined in just a few decades. Fund points out that most states now allow voters to obtain absentee ballots without establishing a need (such as status as a student, soldier, or diplomat, or showing that one would be out of state on Election Day). One state, Oregon, has eliminated polling places entirely. The raison d’être of the secret ballot—to protect the public from having votes bought or coerced—is thus discarded.

Same-day registration, which backers argue further democratizes elections, is, according to Stealing Elections, “not a reform at all but an added opportunity for mischief”—such as vote buying. The comical scheme of an Al Gore–supporting New York socialite offering free cigarettes to homeless Milwaukeeans in exchange for votes could only occur in a state with same-day registration. Voters registering multiple times under the Motor Voter law, some liberals’ hostility toward poll workers checking government-issued identifications, and lawyers invading locales with election disputes—all increase the chances that legitimate votes will wind up cast aside or canceled out by illegitimate ones.

Stealing Elections overflows with examples of electoral shenanigans. The controversial 2004 Democratic primary, for instance, in which Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar unseated Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, ran rife with peculiarities that affected the outcome. While Rodriguez boasted a slim 126-vote lead on election night, the recount in Zapata County turned up a missing ballot box with 304 votes, four-fifths of them for Cuellar. “Webb County reported that their recount came up with 115 more votes than they had first reported,” Fund writes. “Cuellar won every one of the newly discovered votes.” In San Antonio, an area the challenger carried decisively, election officials discovered voter-registration applications for 42 dead people.

On election night that same year, Washington State voters elected Republican Dino Rossi over Democrat Christine Gregoire. On Christmas Eve, state lawyers overturned the election after a third recount. “Nearly 2,000 more votes were counted in King County than the number of individual voters who appeared on the list of those who had cast a ballot,” Fund reports. In one Seattle precinct—where most of the voters had curiously registered just that past year—70 percent of voters listed a government administration building as their residential address. Election officials found hundreds of “lost” ballots, accepted the votes of hundreds of ineligible felons, and, in a few instances, counted the votes of those residing in graveyards. One ballot punched for Gregoire but listing Rossi in the “write-in” line was strangely added in the recount to the totals for Gregoire. Given the strange methodology employed by ballot counters, it’s not surprising that Gregoire is now Washington’s governor.

In St. Louis, dogs join the dead on the election rolls. In 2000, voters nationwide let out a collective gasp in the waning hours of Election Day. Lawyers for Jesse Jackson and Al Gore convinced judges in St. Louis to keep polls open in selected African-American neighborhoods, altering election law by extending voting hours for those most likely to support Gore. Along with the discovery of a voting machine in an abandoned lot the day after the election, and the revelation that 56,000 St. Louis voters had registered multiple times, Missouri voters also learned that “Robert Odom”—on whose behalf Gore-Lieberman lawyers had successfully sued to keep the polls open—had voted in the early afternoon, before the court order extending poll-closure times was issued. The lawsuit was clearly premeditated, as the evidence of computerized phone banks, all-too-ready with a get-out-the-vote message, made clear. The exclamation point to the Show Me State’s 2000 horror show was provided by Ritzy, the 13-year-old spaniel who had been on the voter rolls for eight years.

A common thread in many of the cases that Fund spotlights is the shadowy presence of Acorn. Two and a half years after the debacle in Seattle, Washington’s attorney general indicted seven Acorn workers for their role in what he called “the worst case of voter registration fraud” in the state’s history. In St. Louis, eight Acorn workers pled guilty to election fraud this past April. On the other side of Missouri, in 2006, four Kansas City Acorn workers were indicted after officials deemed nearly 15,000 of their 35,000 registrations phony.

In the mid-nineties, Barack Obama ran Acorn’s Project Vote campaign in Illinois. He sued the state of Illinois on the group’s behalf in 1995 to implement the Motor Voter law. “After he joined the board of the Woods Fund,” Stealing Elections notes, “Obama saw to it that substantial grants were given to Acorn.” Senator Obama has championed Acorn’s legislative priorities in Congress. His presidential campaign even donated more than $800,000 to Acorn. Obama is the oak grown from Acorn, a group so proud of its association that it boasts “Obama Organizing Fellows” and runs a “Camp Obama” training event. While Acorn boasts of its Obama association, the candidate, of course, is more reticent. That’s because he well knows that many non-dead, non-animal voters would not find a close association with such a group a desirable quality in a potential president.

“Once a community organizer, then a foundation grant-maker, and now a lobbyist for direct government funding, Barack Obama has been with Acorn throughout his career,” Fund writes. “In return, Acorn is pledging to spend $35 million this year registering voters—both real and fictive. Should Obama become president, look for Acorn to have a vastly more ambitious legislative agenda, and for Obama to be responsive.” Acorn, in other words, has a lot riding on Tony Romo voting early, often, and everywhere.

Daniel J. Flynn is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left. (Crown Forum, 2008).

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/bc1016df.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #376 on: October 24, 2008, 08:58:11 AM »

I'm afraid the country isn't interest in all the philosophy we are throwing around this board.

I will state one more time that as long as the country's wealth keeps getting concentrated to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population we will get exactly what we are seeing.

The Republicans of 2000 and later are not the Republicans of 1980 for this very reason.

Unregulated trickle down economics does not work for the majority of Americans who are working 60 hours per week, two peopel per household pulling in money, savings rates of effectively zero, and people still can't apy their bills.

Comprende?Huh

Lawyers and philosophers can talk about ideals. constitutional abstracts all you want but the Republicans need to stop and rethink and retool what they are about.  Reagan is dead and so is some at least of his theories.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #377 on: October 24, 2008, 09:07:18 AM »

"I will state one more time that as long as the country's wealth keeps getting concentrated to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population we will get exactly what we are seeing."

Source?

That said, the question you raise is an interesting one.  If you would like to pursue it, please do so in the Politics thread.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #378 on: October 24, 2008, 09:38:10 AM »

Innocent
I think most people do or should go along with the Webster Dictionary's definition.  Innocent: "Free from guilt or sin".  The rest is just conjecture.

**We are discussing legal concepts, thus we are using legal terminology. If you don't understand it, fine. I gave you an article to read that explained the concept in layman's terms. I'm not sure how to simplify it even more.**

As for Security Clearance, I too have read the requirements.  So?  Nothing in there (although your biased personal opinion might differ) prohibits
Obama from having a Security Clearance. 

**Really? Do I have to spoonfeed this to you, or are you not getting the point on purpose?**


Further, as I requested and I suppose you are unable to provide, NO ONE in authority, i.e. anyone
from the US Senate, Homeland Security or the Justice Department has questioned or denied Obama's right to have a security clearance. 

**Do you know what the Hatch act is? Of course not. Here is a reference page for you to aquaint yourself with it. This will answer your question, if you actually bother to read it.  http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm **

Even McCain's
campaign has not posted to the contrary.  That you or a few others don't like him and therefore say he isn't qualified is not relevant and it seems no one else
is taking it as being relevant either.

**Yeah, the MSM is busy running down a hot tip that Joe the Plumber had a parking ticket in 1977, so they haven't been able to do any really vetting of Obama. It's on their to-do list for late November/early December.**



**If instead of co-founding the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers had co-founded a KKK chapter that had murdered civil rights workers, and he was quoted as saying "I wish I'd done more" in 2001, would you still minimize his conduct and defend any politician that associated himself with him?**

Actually, there would be no difference.  The KKK and the Weather Underground are both equally despicable organizations.  That being said, both deserve the same constitutional rights. 

**We are not discussing constitutional rights here, we are discussing Obama surrounding himself with people who openly express hatred of this country and at least one unrepentant terrorist and why this is important. If John McCain had started his political career in the living room of a unrepentant terrorist, do you think the left would think this was a valid issue? Nod your head yes. Of course. The MSM would be all over it. Not long ago, you were trying to spin Ayers as just a longhair being hassled by the man, man.

Here is a little insight into your "distinguished professor": http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31662_Bill_Ayers_Terrorist_Group_Discussed_Genocide_of_Americans **

 You cannot have one
set of rules for situations you support and another set of rules just because you don't like someone's viewpoint. 

**Funny, that's what I pointed out to you when you were busy downplaying and attempting to minimize the actions of the Weather Underground.**

That kind of expedient hypocrisy will come back to haunt you one day.

**Go back and re-read your earlier posts and tell me who the hypocrite is.**

 For the same reason I am not an
advocate of recent laws in EC's denying freedom of speech from either the right or left if done peacefully and all other laws are respected.  Where do you draw the line and on what basis?

**Again, this is not about freedom of speech, it's about judging the candidates for the Presidency of this nation. I gurantee that a police applicant with a clean criminal history that is known to socialize with members of a local outlaw motorcycle gang won't be getting hired. If I got the sweetheart home purchase deal from a convicted felon, like Obama got from Tony Rezko, you better believe that I'd be getting a Garrity advisal and possibly a subpeona in front of a grand jury. A law enforcement officer that had the connections to the Nation of Islam that Obama has might well be legally terminated for it. I can cut and paste the caselaw if you'd like.**
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5524


« Reply #379 on: October 24, 2008, 09:49:40 AM »

I agree with the Obama concernsfrom Scott Grannis and the additions from Crafty.  Picking out one quote from Scott G: "I acknowledge his depth of (Barack Obama's) intellect..."

Definitely true.  However that means that the sloppy, vague, deceitful and unexplained changes and omissions from the campaign are intentional, not just the fog of war.  For example, 'we will look into offshore drilling and look into nuclear' instead of we will authorize new drilling and authorize new nuclear power plants, 'we will need to look for new sources of revenues' instead of here are the new taxes and fees we will impose, 'we will commit to public financing and limits on campaign spending' followed by 'we will will bury you with money and media', 'tax cuts for 95%' instead of acknowledging only 60-some percent pay anything in the first place and the a tax cut just means we exempt you from the first round of increases, 'capital gains tax increases versions 1, 2, 3 and now 4 depending on results from the latest focus group survey, 'personally pro-life' yet wishing an abortion for his first grandchild so his daughter wouldn't be 'punished with a baby, and of course the television ads that show Obama's national health plan as just a sensible, centrist compromise when his previous words make it clear he wants the full socialist system in place as soon as the public will swallow it.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 09:52:51 AM by DougMacG » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #380 on: October 24, 2008, 10:55:39 AM »


As for Security Clearance, I too have read the requirements.  So?  Nothing in there (although your biased personal opinion might differ) prohibits
Obama from having a Security Clearance. 

**Really? Do I have to spoonfeed this to you, or are you not getting the point on purpose?**


Further, as I requested and I suppose you are unable to provide, NO ONE in authority, i.e. anyone
from the US Senate, Homeland Security or the Justice Department has questioned or denied Obama's right to have a security clearance. 

**Do you know what the Hatch act is? Of course not. Here is a reference page for you to aquaint yourself with it. This will answer your question, if you actually bother to read it.  http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm **

Even McCain's
campaign has not posted to the contrary.  That you or a few others don't like him and therefore say he isn't qualified is not relevant and it seems no one else
is taking it as being relevant either.

**Yeah, the MSM is busy running down a hot tip that Joe the Plumber had a parking ticket in 1977, so they haven't been able to do any really vetting of Obama. It's on their to-do list for late November/early December.**


So far I still don't see anything that precludes Obama from having a low level clearance; just your hot air.  The Hatch Act?  Did you read it or just post it (maybe your usual technique?).  The Hatch Act gives details on the political activities  public servants are allowed.  Do you really think this pertains to a Senator?  And this all relates to Obama's security clearance how?  May I respectfully suggest you read an item before posting?

Vetting?  Is it important?   Maybe if McCain's campaign spent spent less on Palin's clothes and more money on the fundamentals, they could get the job done.  Rather, they seem like a chicken with it's head cut off aimlessly running everywhere.   I can smell the desperation.  If you can't win on the facts, ideas, plans, goals, well......  just throw whatever else is left against the wall.  Lately, that seems to be the McCain/Palin campaign style.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #381 on: October 24, 2008, 11:48:23 AM »


As for Security Clearance, I too have read the requirements.  So?  Nothing in there (although your biased personal opinion might differ) prohibits
Obama from having a Security Clearance. 

**Really? Do I have to spoonfeed this to you, or are you not getting the point on purpose?**


Further, as I requested and I suppose you are unable to provide, NO ONE in authority, i.e. anyone
from the US Senate, Homeland Security or the Justice Department has questioned or denied Obama's right to have a security clearance. 

**Do you know what the Hatch act is? Of course not. Here is a reference page for you to aquaint yourself with it. This will answer your question, if you actually bother to read it.  http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm **

Even McCain's
campaign has not posted to the contrary.  That you or a few others don't like him and therefore say he isn't qualified is not relevant and it seems no one else
is taking it as being relevant either.

**Yeah, the MSM is busy running down a hot tip that Joe the Plumber had a parking ticket in 1977, so they haven't been able to do any really vetting of Obama. It's on their to-do list for late November/early December.**


So far I still don't see anything that precludes Obama from having a low level clearance; just your hot air.

**1. His admitted hard drug use, which may well be ongoing. We don't know as he has refused to release his medical history.

   2. His connections to a unrepentant founder of a terrorist group.

   3. His connections to a hate group, the nation of islam, through his pastor and "spritual advisor" of 20 years, who has repeated expressed racist and anti-american sermons and traveled with Louis Farrakhan to meet with Moammar Khaddaffi in Libya.

   4.  His relationship to his half brother, a foreign national whom Obama identifies as having racist and radical islamist orientation in his own book.

   5. His unethical financial connections to the convicted felon, Tony Rezko.

   6. His friendship with Rashid Khalidi, an academic that has expressed support for Palestinian terrorism and defended suicide bombers.

   7. Obama's connection to his adviser, Mazen Asbahi. Mazen Asbahi resigned after his connections to HAMAS and CAIR were publicized.

Enough? Do I need to flesh it out more?**


The Hatch Act?  Did you read it or just post it (maybe your usual technique?). 

**No. I am very aware of the Hatch Act as I was trained on the topic during my time employed by the federal government.**



The Hatch Act gives details on the political activities  public servants are allowed.  Do you really think this pertains to a Senator? 

**No, this was answering your question as to why no one from the FBI or other federal agencies would make a comment as to Obama's potential for a security clearance or the lack thereof. Aside from the political blowback from such an act, any federal employee who made such a public statement faces legal sanction for violating the Hatch Act.**

And this all relates to Obama's security clearance how?  May I respectfully suggest you read an item before posting?

**May I suggest you get someone with basic reading comprehension skills to help you through the posts before you try making condescending comments to me.**

Vetting?  Is it important?   Maybe if McCain's campaign spent spent less on Palin's clothes and more money on the fundamentals, they could get the job done. 

**Not that facts have ever made any difference to you, but Palin's clothes were paid for by the RNC (Not the McCain/Palin campaign), just like the Barackopolis in Denver was paid for by the DNC host committee (To the tune of more than 5 million dollars, BTW).**


Rather, they seem like a chicken with it's head cut off aimlessly running everywhere.   I can smell the desperation.  If you can't win on the facts, ideas, plans, goals, well......  just throw whatever else is left against the wall.  Lately, that seems to be the McCain/Palin campaign style.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #382 on: October 24, 2008, 01:56:43 PM »

Good grief this is ridiculous; say what you want about Obama; good (I doubt) or bad, but he is a standing U.S. Senator.  His security clearance is just fine and everyone knows it.
Yours is bogus and fallacious argument.  YOU may think he isn't qualified to have clearance, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone in the Justice Department, Homeland Security, the U.S. Senate
or anyone else with access to confidential information or clearance.  Only you and a long list of irrelevant and blatantly partisan blogs.

And I know the difference, I was making a joke: I truly don't care about Palin's clothes or the numerous other petty issues being brought up by the press; it is irrelevant to the election.  But for this discussion's sake, I do equate
the RNC with McCain/Palin as I do equate the DNC's action with Obama.  I think both campaigns have gotten petty and spiteful and ignore the big issues facing this country.   McCain should focus on the issues, i.e. experience,
foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.  He has a lot of good things to say even if he isn't as pretty or eloquent as Obama  smiley  Check the polls; almost nobody seems
to care about Ayers when the economy is crashing down among us.  But I think it is too late for McCain to focus on the issues...  Too bad...


Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #383 on: October 24, 2008, 06:28:21 PM »

Who's next?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/not-quite-colin.html

First Colin Powell, Now…

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

Adelman and I exchanged e-mails today about his decision. He asked rhetorically,

    Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

    Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

    When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

    Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

    That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

    I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/24/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama.aspx

Reagan Appointee and (Recent) McCain Adviser Charles Fried Supports Obama

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

Fried is exceptionally thoughtful and principled; his vote for Obama is especially noteworthy.

--Cass. R. Sunstein

UPDATE: Fried writes to TNR: I admire Senator McCain and was glad to help in his campaign, and to be listed as doing so; but when I concluded that I must vote for Obama for the reason stated in my letter, I felt it wrong to appear to be recommending to others a vote that I was not prepared to cast myself. So it was more of an erasure than a public affirmation--although obviously my vote meant that I thought that Obama was preferable to McCain-Palin. I do not consider abstention a proper option.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #384 on: October 24, 2008, 07:30:13 PM »

Good grief this is ridiculous; say what you want about Obama; good (I doubt) or bad, but he is a standing U.S. Senator.  His security clearance is just fine and everyone knows it.

**Please show me where there is any indication that Obama currently has a security clearance.**


Yours is bogus and fallacious argument.  YOU may think he isn't qualified to have clearance, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone in the Justice Department, Homeland Security, the U.S. Senate
or anyone else with access to confidential information or clearance.  Only you and a long list of irrelevant and blatantly partisan blogs.

**Again, due to the Hatch Act, no one from the Justice Dept, DHS or other executive branch entity can make any such comment. Whom in the Senate would be in a position to do so?**

And I know the difference, I was making a joke: I truly don't care about Palin's clothes or the numerous other petty issues being brought up by the press; it is irrelevant to the election.  But for this discussion's sake, I do equate
the RNC with McCain/Palin as I do equate the DNC's action with Obama.  I think both campaigns have gotten petty and spiteful and ignore the big issues facing this country.   McCain should focus on the issues, i.e. experience,
foreign policy, domestic policy, etc.  He has a lot of good things to say even if he isn't as pretty or eloquent as Obama  smiley  Check the polls; almost nobody seems
to care about Ayers when the economy is crashing down among us.  But I think it is too late for McCain to focus on the issues...  Too bad...



Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #385 on: October 24, 2008, 09:06:14 PM »

Hmmmm
Obama is a U.S. Senator in good standing
Obama is on the Foreign Relations Committee
Obama is on the Homeland Security Committee
Obama (along with McCain) is getting highly classified briefings
McCain, who would be all over Obama if true, has never said Obama is not eligible or qualified for classified information.

I think time to move on. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #386 on: October 24, 2008, 09:21:11 PM »

http://www.alanedmunds.com/news/security-clearance-double-standard.html

Double standard for security clearance must end

According to two Washington insiders, Washington’s double standard regarding security clearance for Congress and staff is unacceptable.  When it comes to getting access to sensitive government information, Congress and other top-ranking political officials are not held to the same standards as employees who seek security clearance.
This security clearance double standard was exemplified by the recent bribery case involving former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.  This Congressman had access to sensitive information while under federal investigation for the crime of bribery.  Had a federal investigation been conducted over a congressional employee’s illegal activity, access to sensitive information would have surely been denied.  According to Keith Ashdown of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Lawmakers should absolutely have to go through the same security clearance process as employees do.”
Under the current system of gaining security clearance, congressional staff and other federal employees are subject to scrupulous background checks and an intensive interview process before obtaining access to sensitive information.  If an investigation reveals that a security clearance applicant might pose a threat to national security, they can be denied security clearance.  “Risks” such as associating with people who have a criminal background, a history of alcohol abuse, financial problems, and other issues can be used to justify security clearance denial.

Meanwhile, members of congress are not subject to any type of background check.  They are merely asked to promise not to reveal any of the nation’s secrets.  That’s it.  According to a seasoned professional, Winslow Wheeler, with 31 years experience on Capitol Hill, members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected. 

Winslow worked for the Senate Budget Committee for six years as a security official.  He recently published a book about Congress and national security.
Ashdown and Wheeler have a different focus on what this lack of screening means for national security.  Ashdown, for example, points out that a history of alcoholism would preclude congressional staff from gaining security clearance.  He points out that, “there are more alcoholics [in Congress] than anywhere in the country.”  He stresses that Congress needs to be held to the same standards as any other person seeking security clearance.
Wheeler, on the other hand, says that if the system is working, there is no need to fix it.  His biggest concern concentrates on cases like the Cunningham bribery investigation.  Five months went by between the start of federal investigations into Cunningham’s illegal activity and the day he pled guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor MZM, Inc.  During these five months, Cunningham had full access to our nation’s sensitive information.  Wheeler argues that investigations should have immediately assessed his ethical violations to determine his fitness for security clearance.
The Cunningham case is just one example of how politics unfairly influence the security clearance process of the United States government.  In so many cases, employees are denied security clearance for ambiguous reasons, while dubious officials proceed without question.
Some experts believe situations like the Cunningham scandal turn the spotlight on a security clearance system that is broken and needs to be fixed.   
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #387 on: October 24, 2008, 09:44:31 PM »

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf

Suggested changes to congress currently exempting it's self from security clearances. So, no Obama does not have a security clearance, nor could he get one were he applying for a job rather than being elected to office.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #388 on: October 24, 2008, 10:31:23 PM »

So, no Obama does not have a security clearance, nor could he get one were he applying for a job rather than being elected to office.

I was going to stop, but this is getting fun, so I couldn't resist.  You just said, "So no, Obama does not have a security clearance"  yet
your previous post stated, "members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected."   So I guess Obama really does have a security clearance; yes? 
Gotta love your logic: you say Obama "does not have a security clearance" and yet you posted within thirty minutes previously that in fact, Obama does currently have security clearance.  Huh 
Must be the bubbles in the beer; try some wine, you might like it.

For numerous reasons I doubt if the CSR's suggestions will pass; otherwise based on your post it looks like President Bush would have been denied on the basis
of "a proven history of alcohol abuse" not to mention drug usage.





Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #389 on: October 24, 2008, 10:47:19 PM »

So, no Obama does not have a security clearance, nor could he get one were he applying for a job rather than being elected to office.

I was going to stop, but this is getting fun, so I couldn't resist.  You just said, "So no, Obama does not have a security clearance"  yet
your previous post stated, "members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected."   So I guess Obama really does have a security clearance; yes? 

**To be precise, members of congress are exempted from having to go through the security clearance vetting procedure before accessing classified materials. Obama has never been vetted, nor could he pass the vetting were he to try to do so. He does not have a clearance, he just has access. The electoral process and the media are supposed to do the vetting for elected officials, which as in the case of Obama and Keith Elleson, hasn't been done.**
 
Gotta love your logic: you say Obama "does not have a security clearance" and yet you posted within thirty minutes previously that in fact, Obama does currently have security clearance.  Huh 

**Again, he has access to classified material, but has not been vetted for a clearance, nor would he be granted one given his many "issues".**

Must be the bubbles in the beer; try some wine, you might like it.

**Sorry, about time for me to don my gear and go to work. No alcohol for me.**

For numerous reasons I doubt if the CSR's suggestions will pass; otherwise based on your post it looks like President Bush would have been denied on the basis
of "a proven history of alcohol abuse" not to mention drug usage.

**Care to cite your source for President Bush's drug usage?**






Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #390 on: October 24, 2008, 11:13:34 PM »

Actually, to AGAIN quote your post, "According to a seasoned professional, Winslow Wheeler, with 31 years experience on Capitol Hill, "members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected."

As for Bush...
Bush clearly admits to having a history of abusing alcohol (grounds per your post for disqualification) and;

Wikipedia - Illegal Drugs
Bush has refused to discuss speculation that he has used illegal drugs, but has said that when his father became president in 1989 and required White House employees to affirm that they had not used illegal drugs for 15 years, he would have passed that test.[12][13]
A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."[14]

Do I care?  No.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #391 on: October 25, 2008, 04:06:08 PM »

Actually, to AGAIN quote your post, "According to a seasoned professional, Winslow Wheeler, with 31 years experience on Capitol Hill, "members of Congress are granted security clearance simply by being elected."

**Let me remind you of page CRS-5, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf

Mandate That Members of Congress Hold Security Clearances to Be
Eligible for Access to Classified Information. 

This would mark a significant
departure from the past.  Members of Congress (as with the President and Vice President,
Justices of the Supreme Court, or other federal court judges) have never been required to
hold security clearances.**


As for Bush...
Bush clearly admits to having a history of abusing alcohol (grounds per your post for disqualification) and;

Wikipedia - Illegal Drugs
Bush has refused to discuss speculation that he has used illegal drugs, but has said that when his father became president in 1989 and required White House employees to affirm that they had not used illegal drugs for 15 years, he would have passed that test.[12][13]
A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."[14]

Do I care?  No.

**The wikipedia sourcing is very, very thin. Hardly what would qualify as a confession.**



Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #392 on: October 26, 2008, 08:56:17 AM »

**A nice bit of humor from Iowahawk**

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/i-am-bill.html

I AM BILL

Editorial note: my previous "I AM JOE" post seems to have struck a chord, and possibly a nerve or two. As one new fan writes:

"I think it's hilarious you wingnuts want to embrace this wifebeating tax cheat non-plumber as your new populist poster boy. Funny I didn't see your concern when the Murdoch media was trying to destroy Bill Ayers' life."

You make an excellent point, T.S.! Why should us flag-humping reactionaries get all the good flesh-and-blood lumpenproles to rally behind? So, in preemptive compliance with the coming Fairness Doctrine, please allow me to ladle up another helping of righteous populist indignation on behalf of another lovable everyman who's gotten the shaft from the media for daring to speak up. Bumper stickers coming soon.

------------------



Every time I turn on the internet these days, it seems like another right wing blogger is digging up more baloney on Professor Bill Ayers. Apparently these people would rather talk about Bill Ayers' passionate youthful rambunctiousness than the issues that really matter to us, like Sarah Palin's shoe bill. Well, I've got a message for you, Mister Google cache McCarthy fascist: I'm mad as H-E-double sippy straws, and I'm not going to take it any more. No longer will I remain silent while you smear and slur this great America-hating American with his own quotes. Hear me now: when you mess with Bill Ayers, you're messing with me.

Because I AM BILL.

I AM BILL. I am the everyday forgotten little guy in your neighborhood, the quiet anarcho-syndicalist family man who gets up early and punches the clock at the local state university, writing the manifestos and polemics and grant proposals that keep America humming. I'm just doing my job, and all I ask in return is a little respect. And tenure. And Chicago Citizen of the Year awards. And two graduate assistants to grade exams for Practicum in Imperialist Racist Hegemony 311, because I'm teaching two sections this semester. Also, a sabbatical to Italy next summer would be nice.

I AM BILL. I grew up in a simple little gated community just like yours, with white picket fences and where all the aux pairs and gardeners know your name. When my dad came home from a hard day's work as a CEO, he was never too tired to help me with my homework or tousle my hair for winning the Lake Forest Academy essay contest on Hegelian Dialectics. Yes, he was a simpleminded bourgeois technocrat of the capitalist war machine, but he made sure I got the tuition and tutors and sailing lessons and allowance I needed to make it on my own. I wish he was still alive so I could tell him how much I really planned to kill him last.

I AM BILL. I work with my hands, grizzled and calloused from years on a non-ergonomic keyboard. Maybe I don't know pipe wrenches, but I know pipe bombs, and I've built them right there in my communal kitchen and I've watched with pride as they've offed a couple of pigs. Sure, maybe I've made a few mistakes with wiring or detonator timing and it ends up killing a couple of comrades. But you know what? I get up, dust myself off, and get right back to the drawing board. Because when it comes to international Maoist revolution, quitters never win and winners never quit.

I AM BILL. I love traveling the highways and byways of this great, puke-inducing country we call America, visiting its police stations and ROTC buildings and legislative halls. And when the pigs finally catch up with me and dad hires a legal team to get me off on a technicality, it lets me know that yes, Bill, you can go home again.

I AM BILL. I may have started small. But I still have a crazy plan that one day I will make it big and finally plunge this danged country of ours into a bloody cataclysmic race war. And if you think you can stand in the way of my dream, or escape my escape-proof reeducation death camps, well, then you don't know me.

I AM BILL. I'm still married my to my college sweetheart, and we believe in family values. Especially Manson Family values. After all these years she still hands me my lunchbox at the door every morning, which she has packed with a chocolate kiss and a tiny pinch of Semtex from her hope chest. I can't imagine where I'd be without this woman and her law school salary. Because no matter what I accomplish in this world, this beautiful, insane bitch will always be the real psychopath in the house.

I AM BILL. I believe in upholding America's great traditions, like the Days of Rage and Wounded Knee the Haymarket Riots. Call me sentimental, but my heart still swells with pride whenever I see a Boy Scout color guard parading Old Glory down the street, and a young anarchist rips it away from the those fascists and starts it on fire.

I AM BILL. I fervently believe in educatiing all our children, whether they are Black like Mumia, or Asian like Pol Pot, or Palestinian like Sirhan Sirhan, or recovering whiteys like me. Children are our future. They need funding for programs in aboriginal physics and political consciousness, so they can rebuild the collectivist agrarian labor camp society that once made this country great.

I AM BILL. Unlike Joe the Plumber, I pay my taxes. Because I know that until the inevitable violent overthrow of the dystopian AmeriKKKan nightmare, taxes are the necessary price we all must pay for critical government services like roads, and ACORN, and my university pension. Plus according to my attorney it's harder to beat the rap on tax evasion.

I AM BILL. I love the Cubs. There's nothing I enjoy more than sitting in the grandstands of Wrigley Field sipping a cold one, dreaming of the day when my beloved Chicago People's Cubbies bring home the Castro trophy at the World Series of Socialist Peace and Beisbol. And, after the Yanquis are executed during 7th inning stretch, there will be free nationalized People's Budweiser for everybody. As we Cub fans say, "wait 'til next year!"

I AM BILL. I believe in helping young people -- especially those who show potential as innocuous, non-threatening front men. I work quietly behind the scenes helping them get a foot in the door, arranging entry-level jobs on foundation boards, hosting their political events, ghostwriting their memoirs. I don't do it for the glory. I do it for the quiet satisfaction of knowing that someday these young people might just grow up to be the vanguard of the permanent worker's revolution that will destroy the system from within, and that's all the thanks I need. 

I AM BILL. I hate AmeriKKKa. Which you know, if you aren't blinded by false consciousness, means I actually love America -- because dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and bombs are the highest form of dissent. And if you don't like it, you can lump it, you fascist AmeriKKKa-loving America hater! America, hate it or leave it!

I AM BILL.

-----------------------------
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #393 on: October 28, 2008, 06:09:25 AM »

Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.

 
APThen again, maybe there is.

When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.

And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction."

"Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor."

Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.

Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford?

(As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.)

Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.

But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.

But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?

Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.

The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.

And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?

Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky."

Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #394 on: October 28, 2008, 05:10:37 PM »


   
   
   
 
Oh and he forgets that B Frank also has already called for an immediate 25% cut in military spending.

 
Comments Obama's First 100 Days
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

10/28/2008 

Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with one week left to Election Day.

Bush's approval rating is 27 percent, just above Richard Nixon's Watergate nadir and almost down to Carter-Truman lows. After each of those presidents reached their floors -- in 1952, 1974, 1980 -- the opposition party captured the White House.

Moreover, 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong course, and since mid-September, when McCain was still slightly ahead, the Dow has lost 4,000 points -- $5 trillion to $6 trillion in value. Continued
Leading now by eight points in an average of national polls, Barack Obama has other advantages.

Not a single blue state is regarded as imperiled or even a toss-up, while Obama leads in six crucial red states: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado. Should McCain lose one of the six, he would have to win Pennsylvania to compensate for the lost electoral votes. But the latest Pennsylvania polls show Barack with a double-digit lead.

Lately moving into the toss-up category are Nevada, North Dakota, Montana and Indiana. All voted twice for George W. Bush.

Not only is Obama ahead in the state and national polls, he has more money, is running far more ads, has a superior organization on the ground, attracts larger crowds, and has greater enthusiasm and more media in camp. And new voter registrations heavily favor the Democrats.

Though Congress is regarded by Americans with a disdain bordering on disgust -- five of six Americans think it has done a poor job -- Democratic majorities are certain to grow. Indeed, with Democrats favored by 10 points over Republicans, Nancy Pelosi's majority could grow by 25 seats and Harry Reid could find himself with a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators.

Democrats already have 49, plus two independents: Socialist Bernie Sanders and Independent Joe Lieberman. Their challengers are now ahead in New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Minnesota, Oregon and Colorado, with a chance of picking up Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky and Mississippi.

We may be looking at a reverse of 1980, when Reagan won a 10-point victory over Jimmy Carter, and Republicans took the Senate and, working with Boll Weevil Democrats, effective control of the House.

With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War.

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Welcome to Obamaland!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #395 on: November 03, 2008, 03:36:11 AM »

http://andyrutledge.com/usagov-redux-fullsize.html

USA.gov post-Obama
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #396 on: November 03, 2008, 09:28:25 AM »

 
 
 
Well he already is showing signs of being an outright liar who duped the electorate.  Now middle class is 120K per year.

I told my wife I better sell my arch coal stock.  She said why. I said it isn't part of OBonomics.  How the heck could W Virginia vote for this guy?  They've been duped.  I am worried this is just a small foreshadowing of what is to come.  With regards to his phrase, "our time is come"?  Exactly who is "our"?  Is this some sort of code?

Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'


11/2/2008 4:37 PM
By Chris Dickerson -Statehouse Bureau

 
Obama
 
 
McCain
CHARLESTON - At least one state coal industry leader said he was shocked by comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made earlier this year concerning his plan to aggressively charge polluters for carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," Obama said in a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.

An audio excerpt from the interview can be found at YouTube.

"I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter," Obama continued. "That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Calls and e-mails to West Virginia Obama campaign officials seeking a response for this story were not returned. But according to ABC News, an Obama spokesperson said the comments were taken out of context.

"The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program," the spokesperson said. "The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies -- and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program."

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign in West Virginia replied to The Record's requests for comment with a quote from Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland about McCain's energy plan.

"After John McCain said he'd like to 'transition away from coal entirely,' his campaign is hardly in a position to criticize a coal state Senator like Barack Obama who has outlined a $150 billion investment in clean coal and other technologies to create jobs and build a new energy economy," Strickland said. "The truth is, John McCain and Sarah Palin can't name a single thing they'd do differently on the economy than George Bush, so all they have to offer is last minute, desperate distortions. Hardworking families don't need more Washington-style political attacks, they need a President who will create jobs and stand up for the middle class - and that's Barack Obama."

According to the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, the coal industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in the state, including those for miners, mine contractors, coal preparation plant employees and mine supply company workers.

West Virginia is the second largest coal-producing state in the country behind Wyoming and accounts for about 15 percent of all coal production in the United States. The Mountain State leads the nation in underground coal production and leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries. West Virginia accounts for about half of U.S. coal exports.

In addition, the coal industry pays about $70 million in property taxes in the state annually, and the Coal Severance Tax adds about $214 million into West Virginia's economy. The coal industry payroll in the state is nearly $2 billion per year, and coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product.

"The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama's comments "unbelievable."

"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally."

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

"In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen," Hamilton said. "Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

"If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's state director said Obama's statements are troubling, especially for West Virginians.

"I think this clearly shows the attitude the Obama-Biden ticket has toward coal," Ben Beakes said Sunday. "Rhetoric is cheap, but behind closed doors what they tell their supporters - that's what we have to take as gospel.

"They're definitely not friends of coal."

Beakes noted other examples of Obama and Biden making seemingly anti-coal statements, such as in February when Obama said he'd like to tax "dirty energy" such as coal and natural gas.

"And their cohorts in Congress make similar statements," Beakes said. "(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said this summer that 'coal makes us sick.'

"This is an attitude and view that, to me, shows their hatred of coal. And therefore, their view would cost West Virginians thousands upon thousands of jobs."

Beakes touted McCain's view toward coal.

"John McCain has embraced coal," Beakes said. "He doesn't agree with everything in the coal industry, but his view of coal is positive. He will make it part of his energy policy. He's met with leaders in the coal industry and let them know that. He's sought advice from coal industry leaders.

"McCain understands that coal supports about 49 percent of our electricity in this country. He'll continue to make coal important. He wants to reduce our foreign dependency on oil."

Hamilton also said the Obama campaign needs to find varied sources for coal and energy advice.

"If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."
   
   
 Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'
Non-partisan judicial elections could be coming
Woman blames doctors for toddler son's death
McGraw, Obama in trouble in W.Va., poll shows
Va. woman sues trucking company for hit-and-run
   
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 10:44:25 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #397 on: November 17, 2008, 10:22:14 AM »

The 60 minutes article with BO was more interesting than I thought.

Nothing new but again it highilights what cans are up against.  The only one on the can side in sight who could evn hold a intelligent debate with BO imo is Newt.

I guess the fact that 90% of the nations great universities professor are liberal makes it that much less likely that the cans will get truly thoughtful, reflective intellectuals to their side and to find one that can speak in a coherent rational manner is probably going to be rare.

Couple BO's ability to charm and sound sweet (while he is screwing half the nation) with his team of Clintonites who are masters of BS and spin and with an adoring MSM - well we get the picture - he is going to President for 8 years. 

Even Bill Buckleys son is endeared by BOs intellectualistic style.

The cans have no one but Newt in the same league.  And the Dems have the Clinton war machine waiting in the lurches just in case BO does learch so far to the left that he will lose support.  But anyone who gets their hopes up on this is a fool imho.  All his ideas will be tested and retested by polls, trial balloons, surveys, focus groups ala Clinton. 

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29587


« Reply #398 on: November 17, 2008, 10:46:11 AM »

As long time readers around here may remember, my great hope early in the past election was that Newt would run. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #399 on: November 17, 2008, 12:31:20 PM »

I guess another brilliant guy who would have been able to go head to head was Colin Powell.  But he never wanted to run and of course he is also, as we have just seen, both "had enough of Rebuplicans" and now enamored and charmed by the latest Lib Svengali.

 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!