Translate

Friday, October 31, 2008

More Change-on Obama's Plane


"You, you, and you-get off my plane!"


This week, three major newspapers endorsed John McCain for President; the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Times and the New York Post. Yesterday, the reporters for those papers who travel with Barack Obama were informed that there were no more seats availbale for them on the campaign plane.

No retribution involved insists the Obama campaign. The move had nothing to do with the endorsements, they insist. It was just that the spaces were needed for others, reportedly writers for Jet and Essence magazines.

Right.

You call this change? You think Barack Obama and his campaign represent something new and fresh in American politics? Whatever Obama's policies, he knows politics. He came up in the rough and tumble Chicago machine style of politics that has always dominated that city. What Obama did to the writers from those three papers is no different from what old Chicago Mayor Richard Daley would have done. You take care of your pals and you screw your enemies.

Change, indeed.

"It's Time for Barney"


Beany (Barney), Cecil (Herb) and the Leakin' Lena (the country)


I remember when I was a kid in the early 50s, one of my favorite TV shows was a ridiculous puppet show called "Beany". In this show, the main character, a kid named Beany, was aboard the "Leakin' Lena", and as he sailed the seven seas, he was accompanied by Cecil, "the seasick sea serpent", who would pop out the water to interact with his pal, Beany.

So, with a couple of minor adjustments, let's return to those days of yesteryear and visit "Barney and Herb, the lovesick Fannie Mae executive".

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) and former resident of a male bordello being run by his then-boyfriend in Washington, for which he was reprimanded by the House (the Congress House-not the bordello house), has spent long years serving on House committees regulating and overseeing financial institutions in the US. In this regard, Barney has made the phrase "conflict of interest" his middle name.

From the late 1980s to the late 1990s, Beany, I mean Barney was romantically involved with one Herb Moses, who was then a high ranking lovesick executive with Fannie Mae-responsible for the home loan end of the business (he worked for Fannie Mae from 1991-1998). At the time, Frank was sitting on the Banking Committee, which was overseeing Fannie Mae.

Conflict of interest? Naah!

In 2003, Frank (now broken up with Cecil, I mean Herb, but still knowing where his bread was buttered) and other Democrats were defending Fannie Mae against Republican efforts to reign in the quasi-governmental entity, which was showing signs of being out of control. Of course, we now know that Barney has received over $40,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae in the past decade.

Conflict of interest? Naah!

We also know that Barney (now Chairman of the Banking Committee), was putting pressure on Fannie and Freddie Mac in recent years to extend home loans to low-income borrowers-threatening them with investigations into their "discrimitory lending policies" if they didn't.

Did Barney have anything to do with the "Leakin' Lena", I mean financial crisis that is largely due to these insane lending practices? Naah!

In addition, as late as July of this year, Barney was stating publicly that Fannie Mae was sound. We know different now, don't we?

So now, largely due to Barney and his pals, the financial ship of state could be renamed "The Leakin' Lena".

But never mind all that. Now, only one man in Congress can save our economy. Now it is Barney himself who is running for re-election in Massachusetts asking the voters to help him "crack down" on unscrupulous lenders and financial institutions. Talk about chutzpah! Do you think the wise residents of Massachusetts will throw Barney out on his ear?

I seriously doubt it.

What's Going on in Minnesota?

The below article was written by Jeff Davis of Minnesota Majority and was passed to me by Chad Everson of Grizzly Groundswell (blog) based in Minnesota.


Secretary of State
Mark Ritchie employing intimidation tactics in an attempt to suppress
investigation of voter registration irregularities.

"Yesterday afternoon Secretary of State Mark Ritchie called a press conference alleging that Jean Sanford, a volunteer with Minnesota Majority, had inappropriately contacted a voter representing herselfas working with the Secretary of State. Secretary Ritchie further asserted that the volunteer from Minnesota Majority was engaged in voter intimidation tactics.

“The complaint is completely frivolous and Mark Ritchie knows it,” said Jeff
Davis, President of Minnesota Majority. In a sworn affidavit given today by Jean Sanford, she contradicts the voter’s complaint. Sanford said that she never represented herself as being associated with the Secretary of State.

“Jean is a sweet little grandma who is passionate about transparency in
elections,” said Davis, “The voter’s own sworn statement indicates that he found
Mrs. Sanford to be very kind. I can’t imagine how anyone could be intimidated by
this lady.” Minnesota Majority believes that the voter, above all else, was
concerned by the amount of information that is maintained on Minnesota’s public
voter registration records.

“Mark Ritchie’s actions are simply a ruse to deflect attention away from the real issue at hand – the obvious problems with Minnesota’s voter registration records,” said Davis. Minnesota Majority has been investigating apparent irregularities in the Secretary of State’s voter registration records for several days and has uncovered a large number of anomalies including:

POTENTIAL DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS: A total of 16,578 exact
voter registration record matches using the criteria of first name, middle name,
last name and birth year. When phone number is used instead of middle name as a
matching criterion, there are a total of 488 matching records.

VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: A total of 29,006 voters have a voter
registration address which is flagged as being “vacant” by the United States
Postal Service. A total of 62,822 voters list an address which is flagged as
being “non-deliverable” by the Postal Service.

DEFICIENT VOTER REGISTRATIONS DUE TO MISSING BIRTH YEAR: There are a total
of 1,695 voter registrations with registration dates after August 1, 1983 when
birth date was required by law.

VOTER REGISTERING BEFORE THE AGE OF 18: Over 1,800 records have a voter
registration date and a birth year that suggests the voter registered before the
age of 18 years of age (some before they were born).

VOTERS POTENTIALLY CASTING MORE THAN ONE BALLOT IN A SINGLE ELECTION: 76
cases in which it appears that a single voter may have cast more than one
ballot, with thousands of additional records which merit additional review.
Volunteers have been researching these apparent discrepancies by taking
photographs of vacant lots at addresses listed on voter registrations and
telephoning individuals who appear to have duplicate voter registration
records. When contacting people by phone, volunteers give people their name,
identify themselves as being with Minnesota Majority and ask the individual to
verify their address.

Minnesota Majority suspects that Secretary of State Ritchie may be trying to use the power of his office to suppress further investigation. “The citizens of Minnesota should be very concerned when a public official exploits the power of his office to attack a private citizen who is simply trying to ask questions,” said Davis. “We are not deterred by Secretary of State Ritchie’s tactics. We have not done anything wrong. No one should be intimidated by our research, unless of course an individual was contemplating committing voter fraud.”

Minnesota Majority’s attorney has submitted a letter to Mr. Ritchie asking him to immediately present all evidence pertaining to the false allegations. Legal counsel is also exploring what, if any, improprieties may have been committed by Mr. Ritchie or members of his office in the process of bringing this complaint.

While nearly every Twin Cities media outlet was happy to report on Ritchie’s
false allegations on Wednesday, only a few media outlets attended today’s press
conference to get Minnesota Majority’s side of the story (kudos to the Star
Tribune for being one of the few that actually published a story).

TAKE
ACTION:

Contact Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and tell him what you think about his actions. Write a letter to the editor and let them know what you think about the
media’s obvious bias in covering this story."

Jeff Davis
Minnesota Majority

Thursday, October 30, 2008

What About the Civil Rights of Joe the Plumber?


Let's Play, Name That Scavenger!!

The above picture is of:

a Mainstream media going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
b Ohio State Democratic official going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
c Obama campaign worker going through Joe the Plumber's garbage
d All of the above (they're all the same anyway)


I know a lot of you liberals and Democrats are upset about some of the things President Bush has done in the War of Terror that you feel are violations of civil liberties, i.e. Guantanemo and the NSA intercepts. Since Obama has spoken out against these things, I am sure you think that President Obama will protect all our civil liberties, right?

Think again.

Specifically, you might want to ask Mr Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher of Holland, Ohio. (He is better known as Joe the Plumber). As we all know by know, Joe woke up one day and found Barack Obama walking down his street. He used the occasion to confront Obama over his tax plans. More importantly, he drew the comment out of Obama that he (Obama)wanted to spread the wealth around. Joe the Plumber suddenly became a celebrity.

As the days passed, it turned out that Joe was a pretty conservative guy who was also very proud to be an American. It didn't take the Mainstream Media long to decide Joe was a bad guy and had to be taken down. Since the msm is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party, they saw the threat that Joe represented. Suddenly we were barraged with stories to the effect that Joe didn't have a plumbing licenses, he was divorced, his real name was Sam and-under Obama's tax plan, Joe would actually benefit.

In addition, Obama himself and his running mate, Joe Biden took some shots at Joe in campaign stop speeches.

What is more worrisome is that Ohio State leaders, overwhelmingly Democratic, have used their offices to discredit Mr Wurzelbacher. First, we learned that Ohio government computers were used to run inquiries on Joe. Today, Ms Helen Jones-Kelley, the Director of the Ohio State Dept. of Job and Family Services, has confirmed that her office has checked to make sure that Joe has kept up with his child support payments. Routine, says the Director, when any Ohioan becomes prominent or wins the lottery etc. By the way, Ms. Jones-Kelley, who is a Democrat has contributed the maximum-allowed $2500 to the Obama campaign.

In addition, someone is rummaging through Joe's garbage-is that the media-or the State of Ohio?

So, if you are looking to Obama to "improve the human rights record of America", you might want to talk to Joe the Plumber.

Obama's Infomercial- Hope?



Hope for what??

"This is the land of opportunity. It is not the land of handouts".

Mike Ditka speaking at a Plain campaign rally in Pennsylvania


I vividly remember back when Gerald Ford was president in the 1970s and game one of the World Series was set to begin. I, like millions of other red-blooded American guys, was sitting in front of the TV, beer in hand and ready to watch the series begin.

Suddenly, without warning, the announcer broke in and announced that they were switching to Kansas City, Mo. for an "important" address by the President. So there we were, Gerald Ford was in KC giving a speech in front of the "Future Farmers of America", a bunch of young men and women who I guess lived on farms.

As I sat there dumbfounded, I kept hoping that Ford's speech would be brief and we could get on with the game. Instead, Ford (who was a terrible speaker on his best days) kept droning on about energy (there was an energy crisis in the country at that time). As the young people behind him started nodding off, and millions of beer cans were being hurled at millions of TVs around the country, Ford would not stop talking. He told us to turn off our lights. He read a letter sent to him from some old woman in Bullnuts, Iowa telling him how she would always turn off her lights whenever she left a room. Ford then told us to "clean our plates" (not let any food go to waste). Finally, after what seemed an eternity, Ford finished his speech and we got back to the game. I always figured that had a bit to do with his defeat to the hapless Jimmy Carter.

I was reminded of that day with Barack Obama's infomercial that pushed back the start of the World Series game 15 minutes. I didn't care much since the Series didn't interest me much after my cursed Cubbies got swept out the playoffs in what was supposed to be "the year". As a result, I didn't watch the speech. I have heard that man's voice enough to last a lifetime-with possibly 4-8 more years to come.

Reading the reviews, it seems Obama appeared in a room (or set) that somewhat resembled the Oval Office. He talked about certain individuals who are going through tough economic times and who are apparently looking to President Obama and his pals in government to ride to their rescue.

He also spoke of HOPE.

Well, at the expense of being the skunk at the garden party, I have something to say about that.

First of all, let's rid ourselves of this liberal illusion that we are living in Bangladesh or Dickensian England. We are not. In spite of our present economic difficulties, we are still living in the greatest and most prosperous country in the world. And guess what? It wasn't our government that made it the greatest and most prosperous country. It was the American people that did-in spite of government (and I say this as one who is a government retiree). If you are sitting around waiting for some president or some political party to make your life successful-you are already a loser.

You want to be successful? If you are working-keep working. The tough times will pass. If you are not working, get up off your duff and get a job. Everything is in place in this country for those people who have the will, the talent, the initiative and the ability to succeed. If you want to sit around and call yourself a victim, it will become a self-profilling prophesy.

Larry Elder, a black, conservative talk show host in LA, says it best, and he says it often: If you can finish high school, stay out of trouble with the law, and not have children before you are 18, you will not be poor in America. Is that a difficult proposition? Do you need government to accomplish that? Do you need a president to bring you hope?

Grow up people. There is only one person in America who is responsible for our success or failure in life, and that person is ourselves. Just because I will be voting for John McCain next week doesn't mean I want or expect anything from him beyond protecting the country. I do not look to McCain to add anything to my life or well-being. I can do that for myself very well, thank you. All I ask government is to stay out of my life.

Which is exactly what this vain-glorious, socialist huckster named Obama will not do. He and his minions that he will bring into government will enter into all our lives. (Don't believe me-ask Joe the Plumber.) And if 95% of you think he will not raise your taxes, you're smoking your socks.

So, if Obama wins, hang onto your wallets-and HOPE for the best. Me, I'm still hoping for a Cubbie pennant.

Update on the African Press International (Alleged Michelle Obama Tape)

In the interest of fairness, I think it appropriate to update my previous post on this African Press International business and their purported taped telephone conversation with Michelle Obama.

At this point, doubt over the authenticity of this tape increases in my mind. API's daily, tantalizing updates on their delivery of the "tape" to Fox News lacks credibility with each passing day.

As we know, for ths "tape" to have any real purpose, it must be released to the public before the elction. The latest report from API promises that they will be aired within 24 hours by Sean Hannity and Greta van Susteren with only a 15 minute advance warning.

Well, all I can say is the proof is in the pudding.

Interestingly, however, I see no disclaimer coming from Fox News, Hannity or van Susteren. If this was all a scam, wouldn't Fox come out and say the story is false? Maybe they are still trying to satisfy themselves that API and the tape are for real.

We won't have long to wait for the results.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Help Barney Frank Crack Down on Those Bad Guys!


"I'm Barney Frank, and I approved this ad-but not this picture."


Have you seen Congressman Barney Frank's re-election TV ad in Massachusetts? If you haven't, it's a hoot. You gotta hand it to Barney. The man has the balls of an elephant! After his dressing down about the Financial meltdown and his role in it by an enraged Bill O'Reilly a couple of weeks back, Barney is using The Factor sound bite on his TV ad.

As the ad runs, showing O'Reilly erupting at Barney like Mt Vesuvius, the announcer urges the voters to help Barney crack down on those (unscrupulous lenders) who caused the whole financial mess. Yet, the ad leaves out some important tidbits:

Like which member of the Congressional Banking Committee (Barney) was having a 10-year affair with a Fannie Mae executive named Herb Moses from the late 80s-late 90s, a man who was involved in the lending activites of Fannie Mae.

Like which member of Congress (Barney) was pressuring lending institutions to give more home loans to low-income borrowers, telling them that he would keep track of which groups the institutions were lending to and to which groups they were not. In other words, Barney Frank was threatening lending institutions with discrimination action.

Like which US Congressman and head of the Financial Services Committee (Barney) was saying publicly in July 2008 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound.

Like which member of Congress (Barney) was high on the list of money recipients from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of over $40,000.

But forget all that. The voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are being asked to "help Barney crack down on the bad guys."

While we are at it, let's;

help Barry Bonds crack down on steroid use
help John Gotti crack down on organized crime
help William "Cool Cash" Jefferson crack down on governmemt corruption
help the Crips and the Bloods crack down on street gangs
help Bob Marley crack down on marijuana use
help Iran crack down on international terrorism

But I digress. Will the voters of Massachusetts help Barney "crack down on those evil lending institutions"? You can bet your mortgage that Barney (Elephant Balls) Frank gets re-elected. After all, we are talking about Massachusetts.

Is it True?


Scenes you'll never see

"Mrs. Obama, is it true?"


Reader warning: I'm just asking, OK-so don't get all worked up.

But-is it true that a news outfit called African Press International (API), a group of African journalists based in Norway, is in possession of a taped telephone conversation between them and Michelle Obama?

(Just asking.)

Here is API's website:

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/

And is it true that API is in the process of releasing this tape to Fox News?

(Just asking.)

And is it true that the Obama campaign has offered API 3 million dollars not to release this tape?

(Just asking.)

Like many who have seen this story, I had thoughts of those e-mails I often get from Nigerian "bank presidents" wanting to share a $250,000,000 bank account belonging to some American who died in a plane crash. However, in looking through API's webpage, they seem to have been writing articles of African interest since 2006. It should be added that many of their recent articles are anti-Obama in nature.

Some blogsites have pronounced this a hoax, pointing out among other things the "temporary delays" in delivering the tape to the US (which I must admit, remind me of the "short delays" we old DEA agents remember all too well when dealing undercover with dope dealers. "Delays" were a regular occurrance. Sometimes, they were real delays and the dope was eventually delivered. Sometimes, the dealer never came up with the dope.) Is it also possible that Mrs Obama herself got stung by a bogus group? (Again, just asking.)

So, rather than make wild accusations, I am merely asking, "Is it true?"

Of course, if it is true, I am sure that many in the mainstream news media have some inside information on this and surely will ask Michelle about it within hours.

Sure they will.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

* By the way. This post has nothing to do with previous posts entitled: "Who is this woman?"

Who is This Woman? Clue # 9

Maybe the Washington Post can get a head start on this clue.

Who stayed at the Hotel George in Washington DC on May 18, 2004?

Who is This Woman? Clue 8


The initials of the mystery woman are:

V.E.B.

I figure the MSM will break this story any minute now.

National Black Republican Association -Articles by Thomas Sewell and David Limbaugh

If you have ever wondered anout what kind of judges President Barack Obama would appoint, read these two editorials by Thomas Sewell and David Limbaugh (brother of Rush). Sewell, in particular, is someone I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers in America.

These editorials were forwarded to me by the National Black Republican Association.


OBAMA AND THE LAW

by Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?

The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

What kind of judges are we talking about?

A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.

After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him-- or others like him-- to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.

A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself.

That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?

We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"-- that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.

The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway.

But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"-- which can be anything--the Supreme Court opened the floodgates.

That's not "a living Constitution." That's a dying Constitution-- and an Obama presidency can kill it off.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/10/28/obama_fundamental_change_count_on_it

Obama: Fundamental Change? Count on It
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I am sincerely worried that if Obama wins, the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate, whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy picture they have painted the past eight years.

While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Similarly, despite our problems in Iraq, we are clearly winning there now, but the media are suppressing the good news, just as they have refused to credit Republicans for their wisdom on the surge and protected Democrats from their reckless opposition to it.

The only arrow left in the Democrats' Iraq quiver is to perpetuate their "big lie" that Bush led us into war with lies about WMD. Through stunning and numbing repetition broadcast by a conspiratorial media, they have succeeded in making this the majority narrative, even though anyone who lived through this period knows Democrats supported this policy as long as it was politically expedient, having had access to the exact same intelligence. They've also convinced people, contrary to the facts, that Saddam Hussein didn't have ties to and wasn't abetting our terrorist enemies. And they've completely ignored the many other compelling reasons justifying our bipartisan decision to attack Iraq, including Saddam's persistent and ongoing violations of some 17 U.N. and postwar resolutions and treaties.

Democrats and the media, instead of condemning recalcitrant European nations for not joining the coalition against Iraq despite endless diplomatic overtures by President Bush, falsely indicted the Bush administration for its "unilateral" action against Iraq.

They colluded to publish the slander that the Bush administration sponsored abuses at Abu Ghraib, created inhumane conditions at Gitmo, and routinely tortured enemy prisoners. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama have all blithely and falsely accused our troops of atrocities, from systematic torture and prisoner abuse to raping Iraqi civilians to air raiding Afghan villages. They have mischaracterized our essential National Security Agency monitoring of international terrorist communications as domestic spying on little old ladies.

They have portrayed the Bush administration's phenomenal accomplishment of preventing further attacks on our soil since 9/11 not as an administration success but as proof that we no longer face a serious threat.

All of these factors could coalesce to give Obama a mandate to fundamentally move our economy toward socialism in the name of economic fairness and emasculate our war on terrorists in the name of restoring our international image.

Would Obama win if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why?


If the LA Times, as they claim, is in possession of a videotape of a dinner in 2001 in honor of radical Palestinian supporter, Khalid Rashidi and attended by Barack Obama, in which several Palestinian speakers made anti-Semitic remarks, why won't they turn that tape over for public dissemination?

Why won't the MSM ask Obama about that dinner and why he didn't leave when anti-Semitic remarks were made?

Why won't the MSM ask Obama why he and Bill Ayres, when they were on the Woods Foundation, directed almost $100,000 to Khalidi?

Why isn't the MSM asking Obama about that 2001 radio interview in which he is talking openly about income redistribution and the tragedy that the Supreme Court never got into said income redistribution, as well as direct their efforts to what the Constitution should guarantee to Americans?

What did Obama mean in those just released recordings when he used the word Nazism to refer to present-day America?

Will the MSM ask him to explain those remarks (sometime before the election)?

Where is the outrage from the MSM over the pictures of Sarah Palin hung in effigy as part of a West Hollywood Halloween house decoration? What would have been the reaction if someone had hung Obama in effigy?

Why all the uproar from the media over the RNC spending $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe (which will be turned over to charity)and so little attention given to the ACORN issue?

Doesn't the MSM have any concern over the voter fraud that is threatening to take over Ohio-if not several other states?

Don't bother sending me the answers. I already know them. It is because the MSM is doing everything they can to help elect Barack Obama. If that is the kind of news media you want, fine. But if Obama is elected, can you count on this same media to be a watchdog for the abuses that (I think) will follow? Or will they be like the media in dictatorships that do nothing that parrot the government line?

In my view, we are witnessing the death of the American news media. When they lose their credibility, they might as well find another profession.

Who Is This Woman? Clue # 7

I'm feeling generous tonight, so I think I'll pass on a couple more clues to the MSM.

Cape Caribbean LLC (a business)
BizCarib (also a business)

Check out these businesses, MSM, and you may find the mystery woman.

Just trying to help.

Who Is This Woman? Clues # 5 & 6

In my last clue to the MSM, I gave them the name, address and phone number of a company in Washington called Baker-Wambu and Associates. (clue # 4) It appears that the phone number is now disconnected and there is no further information.

If the MSM is interested in finding Ms Wambu, her first name is Muthone. I think Joe Biden might know where she is since she was listed as the political director for Biden's 2008 presidential campaign.

(No, Muthone Wambu is not the mystery woman.)

Another clue for the MSM: This month, a London law firm contacted the UK Daily Mail claiming to represent a woman (the mystery woman) who had been contacted the day before by the Daily Mail in Martinique.

And a question for the MSM: Is it illegal to funnel money to a presidential campaign from overseas, for example...from Martinique?

Not making any accusations here. Just trying to help.

Jamiel's Law Update-No Update

Today, the LA blog, "Mayor Sam's Sister City" reported that no debate came up today at the LA City Council after waiting 6 months for the Public Safety Committee of the Council to take action of council member Dennis Zine's motion to amend Special Rule 40 (which keeps LAPD officers from inquiring about a suspect's immigration status). There was not even a vote to move the Zine motion along. At this point the Council is waiting another 3 months for LAPD to report back on their new "Special Order 40 training.......(I think you get the message).

Translation: the LA City Council is not going to do anything about amending or getting rid of Special Rule 40. In other words, illegal alien gangbangers are still welcome in sanctuary city Los Angeles, just as they are welcome in sanctuary city San Francisco.

Hopefully, the Jamiel's Law petition will get the necessary signatures to put it on the March 2009 ballot. It is up to the citizens of Los Angeles to take care of the problem. Their elected leaders refuse to do so-even in the face of one of their promising young citizens (Jamiel Shaw Jr) being senselessly murdered by an illegal alien gangbanger fresh out of jail.

With the exception of probably only two members of the City Council, no one on that useless body cares. The Mayor of Los Angeles (Antonio Villaraigosa) doesn't care. He's too busy building his political career and enjoying LA's night life. Besides, he likes to have a city full of illegal aliens-even if they belong to gangs. The City Attorney, (Rocky Delgadillo) doesn't care. He's too busy misappropriating government services and vehicles and building his own political career. The LAPD Chief (William Bratton) doesn't care. He's too busy licking the boots of the mayor and other politicos, so he can keep his job.

Only the LA residents can do anything-if they care enough about Jamiel's family and the future of their city.

The Plot Against Obama

I cannot let the news of the arrests of two skinheads for plotting to assassinate Barack Obama pass without comment. As someone who has lived through the assassinations of John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and a near assassination of Ronald Reagan, I know what such a deed now would do to our country.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a fierce opponent of Barack Obama's candidacy for President. However, the damage to this country that would come from a political assassination would be incalculable. To start with, it would set race relations back 40 years. In addition, it would greatly damage our faith in our country. The assassination of John F Kennedy, followed soon after by the murders of King and Robert Kennedy have left scars that remain to this day.

It appears that this present plot to kill Obama was not motivated so much by a desire to protect America from the policies of a President Obama as it was by pure hate-as evidenced by the reported intention to kill dozens of other African-Americans randomly. Unfortunately, even though I have argued that America is no longer a racist country, there are still pockets of hate such as those demonstrated by these arrests. The skinhead culture, part of which revolves around hatred for non-whites, is a cancer in our society.

Everyone in our country should be relieved that this alleged plot was rooted out and stopped before it could come to fruition. Kudos to the law enforcement personnel who investigated this case.

Finally, all of us, regardless of where we stand politically, should rally around the Obama family and express our support for their well-being. We should all pray that we will never experience a repeat of the assassinations that marked the 1960s. The great thing about America is that our system works in so many ways that no reasonable person would resort to violence to cure our ills, real or imagined.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Who is This Woman? Clue #4

Wambu-Baker & Associates
611 Pennsylvania Ave Se, Washington, DC 20003-4303 (Map)

Phone: (202) 546-2227

SIC:Management Consulting Services

Line of Business:Management Consulting Services


C'mon, msm. Get those ace investigative reporters off their behinds and get to work.

Let's Play, "Name That Voter"


"Let's See. It says Cleveland is 50 miles due north. The resident registration office should be about here. Then the polling station should be about....here. Let's move."

How Dare They Ask Real Questions-For a Change


Vice King Joe

"Who dares ask me tough questions? Take care of em' boys."


Last Thursday, Joe (the Jerk) Biden was interviewed by WFTV Orlando reporter Barbara West via satellite. It must have been the shock of Biden's life. Here he was, the Democratic nominee for Vice President dealing with a news reporter and expecting the usual softball questions that Democrats always get from the media. After all, hardball questions are for the Republicans, right?

Instead, Ms West hit Biden with a series of hardball questions-you know, the kind of questions candidates for president or vice-president should get. She asked him if Obama's desire to "spread the wealth around" didn't equal Karl Marx's line about, "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

"Is this a joke?” Biden asked. “Is that a real question?” West replied that it was.

Later in his answer:"...that's a ridiculous comparison with all due respect."

Later, Ms West asked Biden if Obama wanted to make the United States a socialist country “like Sweden,” and whether Biden’s “tested” remarks about Obama meant that Obama’s leadership would result in the United States losing it’s status as the world’s lone superpower.

“I don’t know who’s writing your questions,” replied Joe.

Needless to say, Joe was not amused. He went on to complain about the questions to a public rally. As for the Obama campaign, they are also indignent. They have cut off West's employer from any further interviews.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

Well, the questions couldn't have been that bad. If you watch the interview, Biden's forehead never even wrinkled once (that's because it can't).

This is what happens when a maverick news reporter gets out of line and asks a tough question to a Democrat instead of a Republican. All Hell breaks loose. Remember when ABC reporters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulis dared to ask tough questions of Obama during a debate? They were cricified by their peers in the mainstream media. How dare they? How dare Barbara West?

Amazing how thin-skinned Joe Biden is. If you have seen him on one of his committees grilling a witness from a Republican administration, you know he is a high and mighty guy. He is arrogant, to say the least.

That's why it is nice to see him taken down a notch or two.

Ted Stevens Conviction


"Heigh ho, heigh-it's off to jail I go."

Soon-to-be former Senator Ted Stevens


I have a one-word reaction to the conviction of US Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK):

Good.

I have a one-word reaction to Republican fears of losing another Senate seat (Alaska) to the Democrats next week:

Tough.

Now that the jury has spoken and convicted Stevens, his departure from the Senate cannot come too soon. If he happens to be re-elected next week, then he should be promptly expelled.

Stevens is emblematic of what went wrong in the Republican Party after they achieved power in the 1990s through the Contract with America. They were supposed to change Washington, eliminate the pork, stop misusing the public's money and fight for smaller government and conservative principles.

Instead, they fell in love with the system and were corrupted by the high life. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, they proceeded to do exactly what the Democrats do. They engaged in pork barrel politics, schmoozed with lobbyists and let themselves become corrupted. And today, Ted Stevens stands convicted of corruption. Personally, I hope he goes to prison-even though he is 84 years old. Let Stevens be the example for other politicians who use their public trust to enrich themselves at the public's expense.

If the polls are correct, the Republicans will be punished for their misdeeds in the election next week. Frankly they deserve it.

Unfortunately, America doesn't deserve what will happen when the Democrats find themselves with unbridled power.

Who is This Woman? Clue 3


To the mainstream news media: I suggest you call your British colleagues at the UK Daily Mail and ask for help in identifying the previously-mentioned woman.

Here is their phone number:

44-20-79386000

* No, it has nothing to do with Poland or Polish people.

A Bizarre Endorsement for Obama


New University editorial staff meeting

"So that's it...proven leadership experience, judge of character- we're endorsing Obama. Now, let's have (another) drink."


I suppose I should cut more slack for our college newspaper at UC-Irvine (New University) for some of the nonsense they publish. New University is presently completely to the left, which is not unusual for a campus newspaper. True, these are kids-or young adults-however you want to term it. I assume they are also products of the journalism schools that teach them that their job is to right wrongs, correct injustices and expose conservative wrongs. Yet, I can't resist the temptation to point out a few loony statements that appeared today in New University's endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

I won't go into detail and try to pick apart every statement. If they like Obama, that's fine. However, there are a few sentences in that editorial that are absolutely laughable. I have put them in caps.

First, there is this:

"To restore America's image, this country needs someone capable of bringing PROVEN LEADERSHIP to the position (capitals mine), someone who can take control of the conflict in the Middle East, someone who has a consistent stance on civil liberties and human rights, someone who can take care of the little guy, someone WHO IS A GOOD JUDGE OF CHARACTER (caps mine) and someone who evokes confidence.

OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED ALL THESE QUALITIES AND MORE."

Exactly what proven leadership is New University talking about?

Judge of character? What about Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dorhn, Khalid Rashidi, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks and Michael Pfleger?

"Beyond civil liberties and human rights, OBAMA ALSO WANTS AMERICANS TO HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS (Caps mine)."

In whose pockets, the ones who earn it or someone else?

"IN CONTRAST, SARAH PALIN IS DANGEROUSLY INEXPERIENCED."

In contrast to Obama??

Now I repeat, this was an editorial-thus an opinion. Of course, a technique of writing an opinion essay is to use facts to support one's opinions. In this case, the New University used outright laughing out loud whoppers to make their points.

And I almost overlooked this quote that appeared under the Opinion page title:

"'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the paltter of sh-- with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."-David Sedaris. (The word I cut out was not cut out in the newspaper. This is not the first time New University has printed 4-letter words. It leads me to wonder-are there any adults in charge in the New University? What are they teaching these young aspiring writers?

This is the next generation of the New York Times, LA Times et al.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Who is This Woman? Clue # 2


In connection to my previous post, in my desire to help out the old mainstream news media, here is my next clue (above).

Who is This Woman?



I wonder if the mainstream news media knows the answer to the above question. Why don't we ask them?

Or must I send them clues again?

Are There More Pauls in America Than Peters?


"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"

Karl Marx (actually borrowed from Louis Blanc)

Modern-day translation: From Peter to Paul


As the final days draw down on the election, many McCain supporters are becoming more and more disheartened. The polls may not look good, but they are still confusing. I guess it all depends on which poll you accept. At any rate, many are predicting that Obama will, indeed, be our next president. If that be the case, I just hope it doesn't turn on fraudulent votes being cranked out by people like ACORN.

Fortunately, since Joe the Plumber drew a statement out of Obama that he did, indeed want to spread the wealth around (redistribute it, if you will), there has been increased discussion about what Obama's tax plans will mean to most working Americans. Obama insists that 95% of Americans will get a tax break. I don't buy that for a split-second. With all the liberal programs he envisions, he can't give 95% of the people a tax cut and make it up with the top 5%.

That also raises the question of what will happen to small businesses. Again, you can't convince me that they aren't in for tax increase as well.

But if we acknowledge that Obama is going to institute a tax policy that "spreads the wealth around", are there still enough people in this country willing to vote for him and accept the consequences? That is the million-dollar question. If the people realize that Obama is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, could that turn the election to McCain? God, one would hope so.

Yet, will common sense prevail? Just how are the demographics in this country now? Could it be that a majority of voters view themselves as would-be beneficiaries of Obama's largess? One of my favorite talk show hosts, Larry Elder (in Los Angeles), recently said that if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have a lot of Pauls supporting you. That statement makes perfect sense.

So, (with all due respect to the other issues) is that what this election may come down to? Are we reaching the point that the Pauls will outnumber the Peters and put a socialist (yes, I said socialist) in the White House to take care of their lives from day to day (using someone else's money, of course)?

And what do you consider yourself to be-a Peter or a Paul?

Zionist Organization of America on UC-Irvine and UC-Santa Cruz

I am posting the below article regarding the Zionist Organization of America's concern about anti-Semitic activity on the UC-Irvine and UC Santa Cruz campuses. There is also a link below to see the letter that ZOA sent to UC President Yudof.

This article, with a link to the letter appeared on rabbiyonah (blog) and the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism blog in September 2008. The ZOA letter also refers to the OC Task Force on Anti-Semitism.

ZOA CALLS ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDENT TO RECTIFY ANTI-SEMITISM PROBLEMS AT UC CAMPUSES

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, see below webpage:

http://octask.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1008zoaletterucpresidentyudof8Aug08.pdf


The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)

With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”




The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the newly-appointed President of the University of California (UC), Mark G. Yudof, to address ongoing problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on two UC campuses: UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. In an eight-page letter to President Yudof dated August 8, 2008, the ZOA described in detail “the pattern of anti-Semitism on both of these campuses, and the hostile environment that the bigotry has engendered for students and faculty.” The ZOA noted that President Yudof has publicly identified himself as a Jewish activist and a strong defender of Israel, and thus presumably would “share our concern about campus anti-Semitism.” The ZOA called on President Yudof to take several “reasonable steps . . . to rectify the ongoing problems.” (To read the ZOA’s letter to UC President Yudof, click here.)

With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”



With respect to UC Irvine, the ZOA described the events regularly sponsored by the university’s Muslim Student Union (MSU), which “demonize and vilify Jews, Zionism and Israel.” According to the ZOA, “[t]he events’ titles alone convey just how false and hateful the events are,” including “Zionism Hijacking Judaism,” “Israel: The 4th Reich,” and “From Auschwitz to Gaza: The Politics of Genocide,” a program absurdly suggesting that the systematic and deliberate murder of Jews in Auschwitz is comparable to the situation today in Gaza. Last May, the MSU sponsored such programs as “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”; “Death to Apartheid: A Farewell to Zionism”; and “Silence is Consent: Stop the Palestinian Holocaust.” The ZOA pointed out that “[t]hese events promoted the monstrous lie that Israel is committing genocide and perpetrating a holocaust on the Palestinian Arabs.”


The ZOA informed President Yudof that at UC Irvine, speakers accuse the Jews of controlling the media and the government and of being responsible for 9-11. They have compared “Zionist Jews” to Nazis. They have justified and advocated suicide bombings and terrorism against Israeli Jews. And they have called for Israel’s destruction.

The impact on Jewish students, according to the ZOA, has been serious. Students have been afraid to wear anything that would identify them as Jewish or Israel supporters. Students avoid those parts of the campus where hateful speakers and programs are taking place, or they avoid the campus altogether. Students’ academic performance has suffered. Some students have feared for their safety. At least two students have left UC Irvine and went to study elsewhere because they could no longer endure the hostility on campus.

The ZOA noted that UC President Yudof has publicly recognized that university leaders have constitutional rights and the freedom of expression. President Yudof has publicly stated that university leaders have the moral duty to speak out forcefully against anti-Semitism.

Yet UC Irvine’s Chancellor, Michael Drake, has never condemned any of the anti-Semitism that has occurred on his campus in any of his messages to the university community, according to the ZOA. The Chancellor issued a campus message in which he said that he abhorred hate speech, but “[h]e never mentioned the word ‘anti-Semitism.’ And he did not tie his general anti-hate message to a specific program or speaker on the campus,” thus losing “the opportunity to educate the perpetrators and the university community about what he believed was objectionable and why.” (When Chancellor Drake has publicly condemned anti-Semitism, he has done so in general terms, without reference to a particular speaker or program, and he has “conveniently . . . done so off campus, to a predominantly Jewish audience” – at a town hall meeting with members of the Orange County community, at the American Jewish Committee’s annual dinner in Orange County, and at a Hillel Summit in Washington, D.C.)

The ZOA noted that its criticism of Chancellor Drake’s silence has been echoed by others. The independent Orange County Task Force, which conducted a year-long investigation of allegations of anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, condemned the Chancellor and called on him to “publicly identify and denounce hate speech when it occurs” on his campus. The Orange County Register published an editorial criticizing the Chancellor’s administration for “punting in its response” to hateful speech. In May 2008, in response to the MSU’s event entitled “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust,” U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) wrote to the Chancellor, calling on him to condemn the MSU’s event, which “appears intended to encourage violence against the State of Israel and propagate the spread of anti-Semitism.” Congressmen Sherman stated in his letter to Chancellor Drake: “As an American, you have a right to speak out. As Chancellor, it is your duty to condemn anti-Semitism, especially when it occurs at the UCI campus.”

Chancellor Drake has not heeded these calls to clearly and forcefully condemn the anti-Semitism on his campus. The ZOA urged UC President Yudof to insist that UC Irvine’s Chancellor finally exercise his moral leadership and speak out clearly and forcefully against the MSU’s anti-Semitic speakers and programs.

In its letter to UC President Yudof, the ZOA asserted that at UC Santa Cruz, “[a]nti-Semitism is also a serious problem.” It derives in part from the programs and speakers sponsored by a registered student group on campus. It is also coming from faculty in the Social Sciences and Humanities. There have been reports to the ZOA that “since 2001, a number of UC Santa Cruz departments and research centers have sponsored more than a dozen events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All of them have been biased against Israel. During the same time period, none of these departments or research centers has sponsored events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were not biased against Israel.”

Students have reportedly been laughed at when they have expressed a pro-Israel perspective in certain classes at UC Santa Cruz. Students also know that there are courses that they should stay away from because of their anti-Israel bias.

The bias has “spilled over into physical acts of anti-Semitism” at UC Santa Cruz, according to the ZOA. There were two recent acts of anti-Semitic vandalism on campus, neither of which was condemned by UC Santa Cruz’s Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor issued a message, but she never mentioned the word “anti-Semitism,” and never forcefully condemned it, instead weakly referring to the vandalism as “offensive” and “upsetting.”

The ZOA noted that students and faculty have complained to the UC administration about the problems at UC Santa Cruz. The local chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) brought its concerns to the Chancellor, the Dean of Social Sciences, and the Senate Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, each time documenting the pattern of political bias and advocacy against Israel. The response to these raised concerns was so lacking that the ZOA wrote to UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal, urging him to address the problems on his campus. He never responded to the ZOA’s letter. According to the ZOA, his silence sent “the troubling message that the issues we raised – echoing concerns that have already been expressed to him by students and faculty – are not important and can be ignored.”

The ZOA urged UC President Mark Yudof to ensure that Chancellor Blumenthal take several steps: First, the Chancellor should issue a public statement to the entire university community, making it clear that UC Santa Cruz considers the two vandalism acts to be expressions of anti-Semitic bigotry that the university condemns and will not tolerate. Second, the Chancellor should, in the future, condemn, by name, anti-Semitic speakers and programs that are sponsored on his campus. Finally, the Chancellor should undertake a comprehensive analysis of university course descriptions and course materials to ensure that (1) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda; (2) students have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism and the conflict in the Middle East; and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel and criticizing the actions of its enemies.

Morton A. Klein, the ZOA’s National President, implored UC President Mark Yudof to take action and address longstanding problems at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz: “President Yudof has identified himself as an Israel advocate who understands the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and criticism that unacceptably crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The line is repeatedly being crossed on at least two of the UC campuses, and yet no one in the UC administration has even acknowledged the scope of the problem, let alone fixed it. Given UC President Yudof’s background and experience, we are looking to him to stop the tolerance on UC campuses of vicious lies about Jews and Israel.

“President Yudof has also identified himself as a constitutional law scholar who understands that university leaders have their own free speech rights and the moral duty to exercise those rights and condemn anti-Semitic bigotry when it occurs on their campuses. We are thus looking to President Yudof to put those principles into practice so that the anti-Semitism at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz is finally firmly addressed.”

Fousesquawk comment: As one who has taught part-time at UCI for 10 years and has become personally involved in the on-going controversy there for the past 2 years, I am in full agreement with what appears above, at least insofar as it pertains to UCI. I am hoping that President Yudof will personally intervene.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

"That's Why Teachers, Firefighters, Police and Organ-Grinders All Support..."


"Youse gotta vote for Proposition X-for the children"

Is the above guy a cop, firefighter, teacher-or just a union thug?


Here in California, in addition to the madness of the presidential election, we are treated to our local and state elections as well as a plethora of ballot measures, most of which have been put up by our local governments to pass more bond measures.

It's enough to drive you crazy. Talk about insulting the intelligence of the voters...well, on second thought.

Most of California's ballot measures are requests for the voters to authorize new taxes to pay for...saving the state. If you take the ads seriously, you would conclude your choice is between destroying the state and ...destroying the state. You wouldn't believe the arguments we are subjected to; eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, saving the environment, protecting our children-all if we pass one more bond measure or increase one more tax.

Then there are those "endorsements". How many times have you heard that police, firefighters and teachers ALL support this or that? Am I exaggerating? Check this one out.

There is some guy named Mark Ridley Thomas who is running for LA County Supervisor. Anyway, his ad starts off by talking about the people who work 24-7 to serve and protect us-our teachers, firefighters and police. Guess what-they "ALL support Mark Ridley Thomas for LA County Supervisor".

As we used to say in high school,every last swingin' you know what.

Translation: Their unions are endorsing Mark Ridley Thomas.

Then there is CAIR attorney, Todd Gallinger, who is running for Irvine City Council and has put this up on his campaign website:

OC FIREFIGHTERS ENDORSE TODD GALLINGER

"We are very honored and pleased to announce that Todd's candidacy for Irvine City Council has been endorsed by the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association - local 3631. These are the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep us all safe, and now they are in our corner!"

At least he mentioned the union-that is really in his corner.

But it gets worse.

Proposition 8 is a ballot measure that would make it law in California that marriage is between a man and a woman. A similar measure was passed by voters a few years back only to be overturned by the State Supreme Court. So here we go again. Now whether you agree on the gay marriage issue or not, it should give you pause that the California Teachers Union has spent one million dollars of its members dues to fight Proposition 8. Are they saying that every teacher in California is against proposition 8? Clearly, they can't because there are a lot of teachers in the state who not only support proposition 8, but have spoken out bitterly against their dues being used for political purposes that have nothing to do with education (except the debate about whether gay marriage would be promoted in the classroom)and which do not reflect their personal beliefs. Of course, none of that matters to the all-powerful Teachers Union in California. They are a liberal advocacy group very much into political issues.

All of this, of course, should serve as a monument to the fecklessness of government, whether it be at the local, state, or national level. We, as a people, should be doing everything in our power to limit government's reach into our lives and our wallets. In California that battle has been lost. Hopefully, the rest of the nation is not following close behind.

Friday, October 24, 2008

A Democrat Speaks to the News Media

This news editorial was sent to me via e-mail from a friend. It was written by a Democrat, and I can't resist posting it because I agree with it totally, and I could never have said it better.


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

"I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city."

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina