Tuesday, September 30, 2008

ACORN-What Is It and Who Are They?

"ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."

This statement appears on the home page of ACORN to describe their mission. The organization, which was founded in the early 1970s, consists of some 350,000 families and is located in approximately 100 cities in the US, Canada, Dominican Republic and Peru (Take Back America 2007 website). Under the leadership of its president, Maude Hurd, this group is involved in numerous activities including amnesty for illegal aliens and attacking Walmart. More importantly, however, they are involved in housing issues, voter registration, and advocating for sub-prime mortgage loans to low-income home buyers.

Maude Hurd is a long-time community advocate for the poor. She has been active in recent years negotiating with banks to re-invest in low-income communities and to provide loans to first-time home buyers.

In reality, ACORN is pretty much an arm of the Democratic Party-especially when it comes to voter registration. That portion of their activity has led to numerous accusations in many states of fraudulent voter registration-a charge ACORN denies. In addition, ACORN has, over the years, been linked to radical left political ideology.

This is what Michelle Malkin has to say about ACORN:

"This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers - you and me - and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects."

And there is this:

"In recent months alone, the chief organizer of ACORN was forced to resign over the cover-up of a $1 million embezzlement scandal involving his brother. As internal whistleblower documents recently revealed, ACORN and its offshoots may have reaped substantial financial gains by misusing taxpayer dollars for political ends and by attacking lending corporations for the same so-called "predatory" lending practices ACORN regularly engages in. In 2008 alone, ACORN's voter registration activities have spawned investigations in almost a dozen states, sometimes involving tens of thousands of invalid or fraudulent registrations."

James Terry, Chief Public Advocate
Consumer Rights League

The above statement is in reference to Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN's founder, Wade Rathke. On July 9, 2008, the New York Times reported that in 2001, Dale was found to have embezzled just under 950,000 dollars from ACORN and affiliated organizations. The incident was covered up and not reported to law enforcement authorities. Wade Rathke told the Times that the incident was kept secret so as not "to put a weapon into the hands of conservatives" (who opposed ACORN's activities). The funds were returned, and both of the Rathke's have since left the organization.

Of course, with the bailout mess in progress, largely due to sub-prime loans made to individuals who could not afford to repay them, ACORN's name has surfaced in recent weeks since they have been an active lobby for such lending practices. ACORN's current position is that the financial scandal is due to "predatory lending practices".

In terms of voter registration, ACORN has been accused of engaging in fraudulent registration in several states. The Wall Street Journal reported on November 3, 2006 that in the week prior to the mid-term elections, four ACORN workers were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms to the Kansas City Election Board. According to the article, other ACORN workers have been convicted in Wisconsin and Colorado for similar offenses, while investigations were on-going in Ohio, Tennessee and Pennsyvania, as well as on a national level by the Justice Department.

In addition, last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. In this case, seven ACORN workers submitted approximately 2,000 fraudulent voter registration forms. It was revealed that ACORN personnel had literally let their fingers do the walking through the white pages looking for names and submitted some imaginative names to boot, such as Leon Spinks. Three ACORN members pleaded guilty. A King County prosecutor termed it as, "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls". ("The Acorn Obama Knows" by Michelle Malkin, which was posted on Real Clear Politics 6-25-08)

What is really astounding, given the organization's claim of being non-partisan-they claim to get no government funding and are not tax-exempt-is that ACORN's name arose in the draft version of the bailout bill.

"The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office." (CBS News website quoting Republican sources)

(In the face of Republican outrage over this provision, it was removed.)

It appears that ACORN's claims of receiving no government funding are a bit of a stretch. One of their subsidiaries, the ACORN Housing Corporation, has reportedly received $1.6 million from the Dept of Housing and Urban Development (Malkin). It also appears that their claims of non-partisanship are a joke, to put it mildly. Ms Hurd has been publicly quoted as saying,

"Obama is the candidate who "best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about".

The attempt by the Democrats at directing money to ACORN in the bailout bill puts the lie to the sanctimonious claims of people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that Republicans have inserted partisan politics into the crisis.

Finally, it might also be noted that much of Barack Obama's mysterious years as a community organizer in Chicago are tied to ACORN, with whom he worked and to whom he gave training classes during those years.

Stanley Kurtz, in National Review Online, has spelled out Obama's past relationship with ACORN. According to Kurtz's article, Obama was brought into a relationship with ACORN by Chicago community activist, Madeleine Talbot. Ms. Talbot was one of six people arrested on July 31, 1997, when about 200 ACORN protesters tried to storm a session of the Chicago City Council. She reportedly recruited Obama to provide training to ACORN leaders. This relationship with ACORN continued during Obama's years in the Illinois State Senate.

In addition, the New York Times reported on May 11, 2008 that while Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation, he helped direct tens of millions of dollars to ACORN and other community organizations. (NYT article by Jo Becker and Christopher Drew dated May 11, 2008). It was on the Woods Foundation that Obama worked with former Weatherunderground radical William Ayres.

In summary, it is crucial that voters know about this organization, its questionable activities, and its historical relationship with Barack Obama before they go to the polls in November. Who knows how many bogus voter registrations have already been submitted in preparation for getting Obama elected?

The public should also ask itself why the Democratic Party was so intent on getting ACORN into the receiving line for government funding in connection with the (still-pending) bailout bill? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to connect the dots.

Let's Play "Name That Madame"

Which of the below persons got in hot water in 1990 when it was revealed that his/her apartment was being used for prostitution purposes?

a The Mayflower Madame (Sydney Biddle Barrows)

b The Hollywood Madame (Heidi Fleiss)

c The DC Madame (Deborah Jeanne Palfrey)

d Representative Barney Frank

If you took a long-shot guess and said "d", you are a winner! In 1990, Frank was reprimanded by Congress over revelations that his boyfriend was running a male escort service out of Frank's apartment while the congressman was at Capitol Hill. (Frank denied knowledge of the activity).

Monday, September 29, 2008

The Dayton Mosque Attack

One of my co-respondents brought to my attention the fact that an Islamic mosque in Dayton, Ohio had been attacked by person(s)unknown with some sort of a chemical irritant sprayed through a window into the nursery section, which was filled with small children. The incident happened this past Friday night.

According to reports, a ten-year-old girl was sprayed in the face through a window by an unknown male using a spray can. Approximately 300 people were worshiping in the mosque when the incident took place. Several other people were affected by the spray, and the mosque had to be emptied.

Many are linking the attack to the concurrent dissemination in Ohio of the film, "Obsession", which deals with Jihad, Shariah law etc.

The Daily Kos, predictably, is reporting that the attack is the work of people who support the candidacy of John McCain. That is a shameless partisan cheap shot.

My reaction is this: While I have written extensively (and will continue to do so) on the threat of radical, violent Islam, what apparently happened in Dayton (which is still under investigation)is unacceptable. Targeting innocent Muslims is wrong. Period. If someone, indeed, sprayed a chemical irritant into the mosque, hopefully, they will be caught and prosecuted along with anyone else involved. Regardless of the tensions that exist in the world, America has a proud record of religious tolerance which should be maintained.

In our opposition to Islamic extremism, we should not resort to acts of violence, such as apparently occurred in Dayton.

Boobs in Toyland-Congress in Action

My favorite comedians, Laurel and Hardy, never made a Film Noire, but if they had, it surely would have been filmed in Washington. Once again, our Congress has conducted itself like Laurel and Hardy in trying to get a bailout bill through the old sausage-making machine-and failed. Today, the House of Representatives (mostly Republicans) defeated the bill, much to the consternation of Nancy Pelosi and President Bush.

As expected, the process degenerated into a partisan "Battle of the Boobs" as each side pointed the finger of blame on the other. Pelosi, for her part, alienated many Republicans with a pre-vote speech in which she derided the Bush economic policies as being to blame. This affronted many Republicans, who then took out their pique in voting against the bill. Barney Frank joined Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Raum Emanuel and James Clyburn in a press conference, in which they accused the Republicans of....partisanship. Frank, who played no small role in this mess by pressuring lending institutions to make loans to lower-income people-which they could not repay, mocked the Republicans who were miffed at Pelosi's speech. So now it's back to the sausage machine as they try to craft something different "in a spirit of bi-partisanship".

As I said before, I have no idea what the solution is, and I am sure there is blame (current and historic) on both sides of the aisle. Am I uncomfortable with bailouts for failed companies? Sure. I believe that we should all be free to succeed or fail, and the tax-payer should not be forced to foot the bill. Same for people who borrow money for things they can't really afford. Tax-payers should not have to cover for other people's bad choices.

Yet, if it is true that our economic system is in danger if government doesn't act, then some compromise is in order, I guess. If Wall Street goes under, we all do.

I'll tell you one area in which I am on the Republican side, however. The Democrats tried to get in a provision that some money would go to that shadowy agency called ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). This outfit is nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party. During his community organizer days, Obama had a strong association with this group. One of ACORN's more dubious activities is Democratic voter registration in lower-income areas. There have been numerous accusations hurled against ACORN for fraudulent registrations in several states. Republicans howled when they learned of this scheme and vowed to vote down any bill that included funding for ACORN. In my view, this outfit bears public scrutiny as well as Obama's connection to it.

So now, the Battle of the Boobs continues unabated, and the only thing we know for sure is-the boobs in Congress are sure to screw it up again.

Speaking of Fat Cats- Welcome to Sacramento

"It's OK, I'm a state lawmaker on duty. This is my G-ride"

I have written often about the problems in Sacramento, where Governor Schwarzenegger, like the mythical Gulliver, is surrounded by far-left tax and spend Democrats. Together, they have put the state in a 20 billion dollar deficit. I have also written about people like Assembly Leader, Fabian Nunez, who lives like some potentate and travels the world first class at our expense. Meanwhile, Senate President Don Perata is under investigation by the FBI. Tax-payers and businesses are leaving the state in droves due to high taxes and regulations.

In recent weeks and months, it has been revealed that state lawmakers in Sacramento also receive other benefits. Not only do they get $170.00 a-day per diem simply for getting out of bed and dragging their butts over to the State Capitol, but they are all furnished with a government vehicle and government gasoline credit card. According to the Orange County Register, which recently wrote on the issue, no other state has such a liberal policy regarding vehicles and gas as does California.

I digress at this point to offer my own perspective on government cars and gas credit cards because in my 25-year-career with US Customs and DEA, we also enjoyed the same benefits-with restrictions.

Since we were law enforcement agents and subject to being called out at any time of day or night and weekends as well, we were furnished with government cars to drive to and from work. That was not a scam. We were often called out from home at weird hours to respond to a case in progress anywhere in our geographical area. We spent a lot of work time in our government cars.

In addition, we were provided with government gas credit cards to be used for purchasing gas for our government vehicles.

There were restrictions, however. First of all, the car was for official use only. No unauthorized persons, including family could drive or even ride in those cars. They were not to be used for personal use. Likewise, the credit card could only be used for government vehicles. The receipts were turned in to the office and subject to review.

Were there abuses? Of course, but there was a system in place to monitor and punish abuses.

As for per diem, we got that when we were traveling away from our home areas on official business and had to stay in hotels.

It appears in the case of Sacramento, that not only have there been abuses galore, but that there is no effective way to monitor the activities of the lawmakers in this regard. If, as it appears, lawmakers are using government vehicles and gas for personal use, that is a form of corruption. If California regulations are allowing this practice, then some new regulations have to be put in place.

After all, this is our tax money at work.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Senator Obama-Do You Know These Fat Cats?

"Meow. It's time for my bailout."

As this financial mess continues to unfold, two government-sponsored companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have stood out as examples of fixed books and huge executive payouts-even as the companies go under. Barack Obama has repeatedly said that any bailout deal should not benefit "fatcat CEOs" who were largely responsible for creating the scandal in the first place.

I have no problem with that. First and foremost, we can begin with figures like Franklin Raines and James Johnson, both of whom are former CEOs of Fannie Mae-men who ran the company into the ground while walking away with millions in huge bonuses. Surely, Senator Obama must have been thinking about these two characters whenever he spoke out about those "fatcats".

Franklin Raines, described as a "poor kid from Seattle", was formerly an associate director for economics and government in the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)in the Carter Administration. He served as vice-chairman of Fannie Mae from 1991-1996. Subsequently, he became Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton Administration (1996-1998).

Raines served as CEO of Fannie Mae from 1999-2004, when he took early retirement in the midst of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During his tenure, in 1999, Raines instituted a program to issue bank loans to lower to moderate income persons.

Raines was accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)of being involved in widespread accounting errors-including the shifting of losses in order that CEOs (such as himself) could qualify for huge bonuses. Raines reportedly earned some 50 million dollars and was sued by OFHEO for taking money based on inflated earnings. (See article by Charles Whitaker, "Franklin Raines-First Black Head of a Fortune 500 Corporation-Fannie Mae, Ebony Magazine, April 2001).

In 2003, Raines reportedly made over 20 million dollars. He subsequently entered into a settlement by which he kept most of his "earnings".

Fat cat? You make the call.

Then there is Jim Johnson, also a former CEO at Fannie Mae (he left in 1998.) The year that Johnson left, Fannie Mae's profits were allegedly fixed in order to justify top bonus payouts to CEOs (Johnson reportedly got 1.9 million dollars). In his final year at Fannie Mae, Johnson reportedly made 21 million dollars (Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae, May 2006).

According to an investigation conducted by OFHEO in 2004, it was during Johnson's tenure as CEO of Fannie Mae that the company improperly deferred $200 million in expenses in 1998 that enabled huge CEO bonuses to be paid out. (See article entitled: "High Pay at Fannie Mae for the Well Connected" by Albert Crenshaw in Washington Post dated 23 December 2004).

Fat cat? You make the call.

So surely, these two guys must be Barack Obama's poster boys when he talks about corporate greed and the need to not reward CEOs who misused their companies, right?

Well, not exactly. You see, Barack Obama does, indeed, have connections to these "fat cats". In fact, Barack Obama is the second-largest recipient in Congress of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of $126,349. (Center for Responsive Politics).

First, let's go back to Mr Raines. The Washington Post has reported on more than one occasion that Raines has taken calls from the Obama campaign on economic questions, which the Obama campaign denies. The McCain campaign has recently repeated the charge.

As for Mr Johnson, there is no denying the association. Until recently, Johnson was part of the group helping Obama find a running mate. He resigned that position in the wake of reports that he had received personal loans from Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Mortgage (involved in the sub-prime lending mess).

Aside from that, Johnson also reportedly served as a "bundler" in the Obama campaign, raking in $200,000-500,000 for the campaign.(Center for Responsive Progress, Sept. 2008.

At any rate, there is an easy way to clarify the relationships between Obama, Raines, Johnson, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. That would be for our mainstream news media folks and/or debate moderators to ask Obama directly the following questions:

Senator, what is your relationship with James Johnson and Franklin Raines?

Did anyone from your campaign make contact at any time with Raines seeking economic advice?

You have reportedly received over $126,000 in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which makes you the 2nd largest recipient in Congress. How can you criticize "fat cat" CEOs who have ruined their companies in the face of these contributions?

How can you make these criticisms if you, in fact, are associated with Mr Raines and/or Mr Johnson?

And finally this:

Senator Obama, are you yourself a "fat cat"?

So, having given my famous guidance to the media, I will sit back, take the rest of the week off, and wait for our msm to dig into these questions and pose them directly to Mr. Obama. (It certainly shouldn't take long, should it?)

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism Press Release

Oakland-based imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali during one of his many speaking appearances at UC-Irvine

Below is a press release dated September 19, 2008 by the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism regarding anti-Semitism at UC-Irvine.

Huntington Beach, CA – September 19, 2008 – The Orange County Independent Task Force on anti-Semitism will continue to monitor fresh allegations of ongoing anti-Semitic activity at The University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Task Force consists of Jewish and non-Jewish members of the community, and includes current and former faculty members, religious and lay community leaders.

On February 12, 2008, the Independent Task Force completed its year long investigation at UCI. Over 80 hours of interviews, as well as, documents, written complaints and numerous visits to the campus were used in the compilation of the subsequent Report and Recommendations.

The complete 34 page report can be found at:
Over the past several months, the Task Force has continued to receive disturbing reports including the following:

• Anti-Semitic programs sponsored by MSU have continued, with guest speakers ratcheting up anti-Semitic hate speech.

• On March 30, 2008, twenty current and former Jewish and non-Jewish UCI students issued a press release expressing (in part) deep concern “…about the anti-Semitism at UCI that has been frequently couched as false and hateful attacks on Israel. We do not believe that UCI Chancellor Michael Drake has exercised his responsibility as an educator and university leader in response to the anti-Semitism…”

• According to The Orange County Anti-Defamation Leagues (ADL) press release on March 5, 2008:

“……The Jewish communities in Orange County and Long Beach remain the religious group most targeted for attack. Unfortunately, many of these incidents continue to occur on school campuses. We are particularly disturbed by those incidents that occur in the lower grades,” said Kevin O’Grady, ADL Orange County Regional Director. Incidents across the region included vandalism, hate mail sent to community leaders and organizations, and white supremacist newspapers distributed throughout Orange County.
“Most disturbing, in the Orange County and Long Beach region, is existence of anti-Semitic speakers and faculty members on university campuses. The continued willingness of the Muslim Students’ Union at the University of California, Irvine to invite highly anti-Semitic speakers to campus remains a concern. These speakers continue to blame Jews for controlling American foreign policy, the world’s media and banking systems and for the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Kevin MacDonald, an anti-Semitic professor at California State University, Long Beach continues to promote his version of academic anti-Semitism; a version that is supported by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. While the leaders of both schools have broadly condemned hate speech, neither school has condemned speakers by name…”

• A press release dated May 13, 2008, issued by the “student leaders” of the five main Jewish campus organizations, called attention to the May 12-16th MSU event, “Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust” stating, in part, the following:

“…In the upcoming week the pro-Israeli Students of the University of California, Irvine will witness acts of hatred from fellow students. Ringroad, a main road on UCI’s campus, will have a makeshift wall which will have pictures, articles, and a bloodied Israeli flag that blames Israel and Jews for a so-called Palestinian Holocaust in Israel .This threatening event will be taking place all week…”(emphasis added).
Letter from Jewish student leaders at UCI—May 13, 2008.

• During “Palestine Awareness Week”, caricatures depicting stereotypical “hooked nosed Jews” and displays invoking “blood libel” appeared on MSU’s “apartheid wall” which mocks Israel as a “racist apartheid state”.

• In May 2008, a female Jewish journalist reported that she and a male companion were allegedly “accosted in the parking lot by individuals purported to be male MSU supporters who allegedly climbed on the hood of her car to get the vin number. These men were allegedly upset that they were being filmed by the woman at a recently concluded MSU event.

• In May 2008, a non Jewish Student Journalist allegedly had a camera thrust in his face by a purported MSU Member.

• In May 2008, a student Journalist alleged that he was told not to film MSU female members by a senior campus official because it was allegedly upsetting the male Muslim students. MSU supporters routinely photograph people at their events with impunity.

• In May 2008, students reported an attempt by senior campus officials to allegedly inhibit Jewish students from carrying protest placards on a sidewalk adjacent to an MSU speaker. The officials cited “fire safety” as the reason; meanwhile the sidewalk on the immediate opposite side was clogged by a bus load of visiting students, who had stopped to view the commotion.

• In May 2008, concern was raised that MSU has been allowed to utilize its own members as “security” at its’ controversial and inflammatory events.

• When asked about the relatively small number of campus police in attendance at large, often inflammatory MSU events, a senior campus police officer explained that “lack of funds” from the University was the reason. The officer complained that “several years ago an officer was injured at one of these events”.

• Recently, the UC Irvine Anthill Pub prominently displayed a photograph of Amir Malik Ali. Some of Malik Ali’s most notable statements made during his hateful speeches at UCI:

“The truth of the matter is your days are numbered. We will fight you. We will fight you until we are either martyred or until we are victorious.” “They [Jews] think they are superman, but we, the Muslims, are kryptonite. They [Jews] know that their days are numbered.”

• A Jewish student was quoted as saying the campus situation is sometimes “intense and hostile.” This student claims said that he wont “go around wearing a Jewish star because you never know what is going to happen.”

• According to recently obtained documentation, MSU received $6,500 from Associated Students of UCI for “Palestine Awareness Week”. The MSU sponsored hate speakers Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Imam Muhammad al Asi and noted Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein. Many campus student groups regularly receive funding for their particular programs; however there is no evidence to demonstrate that any groups other than MSU use such funds to promote programs featuring incendiary and hateful speakers.
• According to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is currently investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination that occurred in May 2007 at UCI. This is the second Title VI investigation initiated by ZOA on behalf of Jewish students at UCI. The first complaint was initiated in 2004.

Anyone in the community with knowledge of, or who has witnessed acts of anti-Semitism at UCI, is encouraged to contact the Task Force:

Jan Mark Dudman Esq., President
Robert L. Winer M.D., Executive vice-President
Ted Bleiweis, Executive Director

Fousesquawk comment: I subscribe to the comments contained above. However, I need to point out that in the case of the campus Anthill pub, I have personally spoken to the pub's proprietors, who have assured me that the picture of Amir Abdel Malik Ali was donated to them by the campus newspaper and was hung on the wall as a depiction of campus life-not as a sign of approval of Ali or his statements. I accept their word.

No Comment Necessary

Is this "agent of Satan" marked for death?

The below article was posted by Steve Fritz.

By Steve Fritz
posted: 2008-09-22 05:50:00 ETBuzz up! Newsvine

"In a story that’s so weird his has to be considered true, a leading Saudi Arabian cleric has declared Mickey Mouse to be an “agent of Satan.” As such, he has put a fatwa, or death sentence , on the Mouse’s head.

According to the London Telegraph Sheik Muhammad Munajid claimed the mouse is "one of Satan's soldiers" and makes everything it touches impure. He warned that depictions of the creature in cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and Disney's Mickey Mouse, had taught children that it was in fact loveable. The cleric, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, said that under Sharia (Islamic law), both household mice and their cartoon counterparts must be killed.

Not that Mickey’s alone in the condemnation department. During the Moslem holy month of Ramadan, Saudi Arabia’s chief cleric, Sheikh Saleh el-Lheidan, has also spat venom at the Olympics and Turkish soap operas. He declared the international sporting event “obscene” and claiming that nothing made Satan happier than seeing females athletes dressed in skimpy outfits. As for the soaps, he has issues with various bedroom scenes.

“I advise the owners of the shameless satellite stations who distribute programs promoting impudence, insolence and silly humor,” said el-Lheidan. “I warn them, they’re wasting people’s time and corrupting them. If they don’t heed our call, their killing could be permissible.”

According to CNN, viewers across the Arab world are absorbing it all in; unaware, or uncaring about the edict controversy.

This is not the first time the Mouse has come into conflict with the Muslim world. A few years back, the Palestinian political group Hamas used an almost exact duplicate of the Mickey, named Farfour, as a sort of host of its own TV show. From this pulpit it used to preach death and destruction to its audience, young Palestinian children.

In 2007, the character was also “murdered” on air. A co-host of the show declared Farfour was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, a teen co-star. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added."

Fousesquawk comment: I guess Donald Duck is next.- Sorry. Disregard that. I said no comment was necessary.

"Mistakes Were Made" (by Whom?)

"Aha! I know who made the mistakes!"

In the wake of the financial crisis, in which so many are at fault, once again, we are hearing the old political phrase, "mistakes were made.". Sound familiar? Why is this phrase so popular among political figures and their spokespersons when they screw up?

At the risk of writing a pinhead essay on this topic, I would like to throw in a linguistic perspective of this all too useful phrase.

English, like many languages has two alternate sentence structures. We call them active voice and passive voice.

Active voice involves the traditional subject-verb-object word order. Thus:

John wrote a book.

Passive voice uses the object noun as the subject of the sentence, incorporates the appropriate form of the verb "to be" with the past participle of the main verb, and generally includes a "by phrase" to state who or what performed the action. Thus:

A book was written by John.

This choice of sentence structure is useful for several reasons. The use of passive voice, which is more common in writing than speaking, can give variety to one's writing style and make his/her writing more readable. The writer can also use the passive if the focus is on the object noun more than who or what performed the action. For example, it might make more sense to say, "The Mona Lisa was painted by Al Gore", if your focus is on the painting more than the painter.

If you Cleveland Browns fans are having trouble keeping up with this, I'll take a pause to let you catch up.


OK, let's resume. On occasion, we are forced to use passive voice when it would be awkward to use active voice. For example:

"Rice is grown in Thailand."

True, one could say, "People grow rice in Thailand", but that is obvious. The only exception would be if you were pointing out an unusual fact like, "American male tourists grow rice in Thailand (when they are not in the massage parlors").


My house was built in 1980."

Do we care who built my house? Not really-unless George Bush built my house-then I could use active voice.

In both of the above examples, we would normally omit the "by phrase" because it is not important who or what performed the action-or it is obvious. ("Spanish is taught in that school.") By whom? By teachers, of course.

In addition, there are occasions when we cannot use passive voice. This happens when the main verb is intransitive (which means it cannot be followed by an object).

Example, "An accident happened yesterday."
"Harry died last night."

Therefore, since there is no object in the sentence to be transformed into the subject of a passive sentence, the statement must be made in active voice.

So, with all that pinhead stuff out of the way, why do you think this phrase is so popular in Washington? Because it eliminates the necessity to state who made the mistake. (For example, "fill in the blank made mistakes.")

So my suggestion to all those Washington journalists who listen to this language everyday from various spokesholes, why not ask this,

"Excuse me, Mr. Spokeshole, could you put that in active voice, please?"

Alcee Hastings on Sarah Palin

Rep. Alcee Hastings, (D-FL)

This is what Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL)told a group of Jewish voters Wednesday in Florida regarding Sarah Palin:

”Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

If you don't know who Alcee Hastings is, you should. Not because he has been a significant legislator, which he has not. Alcee Hastings is worthy of note for many reasons. For one thing, he is a race baiter, as evidenced by his despicable comments of this week.

More importantly, Hastings has a very questionable past. Before entering politics, he was a judge-until he was impeached and removed by Congress in 1988-89. In 1981, while a sitting federal judge in the Southern District of Florida (appointed by Jimmy Carter), Hastings was charged with bribery and perjury in connection with an alleged $150,000 bribe to be paid in return for a lenient sentence to two defendants and return of their seized assets.

In 1981, two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, were accused of stealing $1 million from a union pension fund. They were found guilty in a federal trial in Hastings’ court. While the Romanos were awaiting sentencing, William Dredge, a man facing separate drug charges, contacted the FBI and said that Hastings was soliciting a bribe in the Romano case.

According to Dredge, a certain William Borders, a lawyer friend of Hastings, was acting as an intermediary for Hastings. Dredge further stated that Borders had informed him that, in return for $150,000, Hastings would give a sentence of no jail time and return seized assets to the brothers.

A sting operation by the FBI resulted, in which an undercover agent carried on negotiations with Borders.

Hastings did indeed throw out the judgment, and evidently acted to ensure that it was done quickly. According to testimony, he told his courtroom clerk:

“I want the order today...Sorry for the rush, but the order has to go out today.”

A short time later, a pickup date for the full payoff was set.

The FBI, during the investigation, also wiretapped calls between Hastings and Borders. In one call, Hastings stated:

"I've drafted all those ah, ah, letters, ah, for him, and everything's okay. The only thing I was concerned with was, did you hear if, ah, hear from him after we talked?". (Edward Cody, "Jury Acquits Judge Hastings In Bribery Case," Washington Post, February 4, 1983) This statement was introduced in his trial by the prosecution.

On October 9, 1981, Borders was arrested as he met the undercover agent to pick up a payment of $125,000.

In spite of the fact that prosecutors had Hastings on tape discussing the bribe, a jury acquitted him when the key witness refused to testify. Congress took up the matter in 1988 when he was impeached and removed the following year for bribery and perjury. Immediately after his removal, Hastings announced his intention to run for Congress in the 23rd Disrict of Florida. He was victorious and there he sits today. This is the man whom Nancy Pelosi nearly appointed to be the head of the House Select Committee on Intelligence until the resulting heat about Hastings' past caused her to reconsider.

So, as you evaluate this statement:

”Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

Consider this:

“I want the order today...Sorry for the rush, but the order has to go out today.”

And this:

"I've drafted all those ah, ah, letters, ah, for him, and everything's okay. The only thing I was concerned with was, did you hear if, ah, hear from him after we talked?".

I suppose the next condemnation of Sarah Palin will come from Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.

The Bailout and "Presidential Politics" According to Harry Reid

While vacationing in Mexico, I was able to catch the bailout crisis on Fox and CNN. I am trying not to be partisan when it comes to this issue. There is blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Not being an economics expert, I don't have the solution to this crisis. I do believe, however, that whoever came up with the idea of presssuring lending institutions to give money to home-owners who couldn't afford the home they were buying was hare-brained, to put it mildly. This is apparently what the geniuses in Congress, led by Barney Frank, did. While I could never write authoritatively about this issue, I was dumbfounded by this week's ridiculous comments by Harry Reid at his press conference.

Reid, accompanied by Chris Dodd, opened his remarks by proclaiming that is was "unfortunate" that "presidential politics" had entered into the discussions over crafting a bailout deal. He then proceeded to insert presidential politics into his remarks. He proceeded to attack John McCain, accusing him of coming to Washington and sabotaging the deal. ("..and then 'you know who came to Washington'"). The fact of the matter is that the deal had fallen through before McCain even arrived in Washington and before the White House meeting with President Bush. Reid also referred to Democrats as wanting a deal based on the principles laid down by Barack Obama.

Huh? You mean the Barack Obama who said that he had a phone and could be called if needed? That Barack Obama? The Barack Obama who has had as his campaign advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, who ran Fannie Mae and Frddie Mac into the ground and walked away with millions in bonuses. You mean that Barack Obama? What did he contribute to the White House meeting? (The same question could be asked of McCain.)

Of course, Reid made no mention of the leading role Barney Frank played in pressuring lending institutions to make loans to lower-income folks, who could not repay said loans. Similarly, no mention of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Reid then went on to talk about some guy in Searchlight, Nevada who had sent him an email, but by then, I don't think too many people were paying attention. Harry Reid is virtually a caricature of himself-everything Rush Limbaugh says about him ("Dingy Harry"). Reports are that Reid blew his stack in the White House meeting. Why shouldn't he? By his own recent admission, he has no clue as to what should be done-other than make sure those homeowners who bought more than they could afford be protected.

So the talks go on by our incompetent leaders (on both sides), who had a hand in creating this mess (notwithstanding Reid's denials- "We didn't create this mess."). It would be nice if we could feel confident that our leaders will fix the problem. I don't have such a feeling, however.

Do you?

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Shariah Law? Not in Our Country!

This is why the West must never allow the imposition of Shariah law

It's Unanimous! America Must Elect Obama!

"Vote for Obama"

Let's face it folks. We are outnumbered. The tide for Barack Obama has turned into a virtual tidal wave. In spite of recent polls that show McCain pulling ahead among ordinary American voters-it's no use.

Consider the following:

The entire mainstream news media wants Obama elected. America's signature newspaper of record, the New York Times, wants Obama elected. Our leading commentators, from Katie Couric to Keith Olberamnn want Obama elected.

Our entire academic establishment-from university to university-from sea to shining sea wants Obama elected. Our greatest professors, from Noam Chomsky to Ward Churchill want Obama elected.

Don't forget our "Greatest Living Former President", Jimmy Carter. He wants Obama elected.

Virtually everyone in Hollywood who matters wants Obama elected. I mean I am talking about greats like Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Steven Spielberg, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Matt Damon. I could go on and on. Let's just say that except for Chuck Norris and Jon Voight-all of Hollywood wants Obama elected.)

And don't forget the "stars" in New York-Barbara Walters, David Letterman, Joy Behar, Rosie O'Donnell, it never ends.

Our friends, the Europeans, want Obama elected.

The Canadians want Obama elected.

And down in Latin America, Hugo Chavez wants Obama elected.

The Arabs (whose "friendship" we absolutely must regain) want Obama elected.

The whole world wants Obama elected. (If you don't believe me, ask the great British comedian, Russell Brand.)

Finally, the Man in the Moon wants Obama elected.

After much thought, I have concluded that those of us who were prepared to vote for McCain cannot ignore the voices of America's greatest thinkers. How can we ignore the voices of the rest of the world-including the United Nations, itself?

In the face of such opposition, what chance do we, the ordinary American voters have? What right have we to go against the rest of the world in deciding who our president will be?

So when you head out to vote in November, let the literati in America and the rest of the world know that you have heard their voices and voted accordingly.

Send them a message.

Let's Play "Name That Scene"

Which do you think would be the most appropriate title for the above scene?

a Spanish Inquisition

b New York Times-Political Desk

c Keith Olberman's "Countdown" show on MSNBC

d Senate hearing for a Bush-nominated judge

e All of the above

* Correct answer? Whichever you think.

For Deep Thinkers Only

"Go, Justin!"

"Go, Jeremy!"

"Go, Jason!"

"Go, Jonathan!"

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The Muslim Student Associations and Islamic Jihad

I am attaching a post from my friend and colleague, Reut R Cohen, a recent UC-Irvine grad, who has stood up to UCI's Muslim Student Union and the compliant university administration as well. One should be under no illusions as to the origins and goals of the various Muslim Student Associations that exist on our university campuses.

Reut's report begins below:

"Please watch our video (above link) about the Muslim Students Association network and their ties to other radical groups. We have decided to release the video since Islamo-Fascism Week, "Stop the Jihad on Campus," is coming up."

Feel free to share or embed this video.

Here is a description of the Muslim Students Association that I recently worked on with John Perazzo of FrontPageMagazine:


Network of more than 200 affiliated campus chapters
A key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam

Established in January 1963 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National) currently has chapters on nearly 600 college campuses (including more than 150 chapters affiliated with the national organization) across North America. (The relationship between MSA National and the individual university chapters is not a fixed hierarchy, but rather a loose connection. Thus the policies and views of the national organization may differ from those of some of the local chapters.) Stating that its mission is "to serve the best interest of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Canada so as to enable them to practice Islam as a complete way of life," MSA is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America.

Founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, MSA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as one of the Brotherhood's likeminded "organizations of our friends"[1] who shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were described by the Brotherhood as groups that could help teach Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

In its earliest days, MSA was financed largely by Saudi Arabia. In return, says a February 2008 New York Times piece, the organization's leaders "pushed the kingdom's puritan, Wahhabi strain of Islam." In the 1960s and 70s, adds the Times piece, MSA chapters "advocated theological and political positions derived from radical Islamist organizations and would brook no criticism of Saudi Arabia."

From its inception, MSA had close links with the extremist Muslim World League, whose chapters' websites have featured not only Osama bin Laden's propaganda, but also publicity-recruiting campaigns for Wahhabi subversion of the Chechen struggle in Russia. According to author and Islam expert Stephen Schwartz, MSA is a key lobbying organization for the Wahhabi sect of Islam.

MSA solicited donations for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, whose assets the U.S. government seized in December 2001 because that organization was giving financial support to the terrorist group Hamas. MSA also has strong ties to the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

Charging that U.S. foreign policy is driven by militaristic imperialism, MSA steadfastly opposes the American military incursions into both Afghanistan and Iraq. The organization also follows the Arab propaganda line in the Middle East conflict and has condemned the anti-terrorist security fence that Israel has built in the West Bank as an illegal "apartheid wall" that violates the civil and human rights of Palestinians.

An influential member of the International ANSWER steering committee, MSA maintains a large presence at ANSWER-sponsored anti-war demonstrations. The pro-North Korea, pro-Saddam Hussein ANSWER is a front organization of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.

Local chapters of MSA were signatories to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by the radical group Refuse & Resist (a creation of the Revolutionary Communist Party's C. Clark Kissinger), condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. The document read, in part: "[T]hey [the U.S. government] are coming for the Arab, Muslim and South Asian immigrants. … The recent 'disappearances,' indefinite detention, the round-ups, the secret military tribunals, the denial of legal representation, evidence kept a secret from the accused, the denial of any due process for Arab, Muslim, South Asians and others, have chilling similarities to a police state."

MSA strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which it describes as an "infamous" piece of legislation. The organization's chapters across the United States have similarly denounced virtually every other national security initiative implemented by the U.S. government since the 9/11 attacks.

MSA chose not to endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005 "Free Muslims March Against Terror," an event whose stated purpose was to "send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered ... [and to send] a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them."

Noteworthy MSA-related news items from recent years include the following:

On October 22, 2000, Ahmed Shama, then-President of the UCLA Muslim Students Association, led a crowd of demonstrators at the Israeli consulate in chants of "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the Jews!" One guest speaker at the event was Hamid Ayloush, a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which co-sponsored the rally. In his speech, Ayloush solicited contributions for the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation.

In recent years, MSA members at UCLA raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists at their annual "Anti-Zionist Week."

In March 2003, speaker Muammad Faheed told an MSA meeting at Queensborough Community College in New York, "The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"

At its Annual Conference in 2003, the Iowa Muslim Student Association invited, as a guest speaker, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, who had told a college audience in 1994: "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement."

The University of Southern California MSA invited Taliban ambassador Sayyid Hashimi to speak on campus six months before 9/11.

The MSA chapter at California State University-Northridge held a fundraiser for Islamic Relief Worldwide, an organization that received a $50,000 contribution from a pro-Osama bin Laden front group based in Canada.

In 2002, James Madison University's MSA sponsored a "Jihad" panel that included Dr. Abdulrahman Hijazi, who had once extolled an Islamic suicide bomber as a "martyr" whose actions were animated by a hope of securing "the mercy of Allah" by means of "one of the greatest good deeds, which is jihad."

In 2003, University of Idaho MSA President Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was ordered deported because he worked for the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has ties to al Qaeda. While on campus, Al-Hussayen had sought access to a chemical lab containing nuclear material.

Alkalima, the newspaper of the Muslim Student Union at the University of California - Irvine (which is an MSA campus chapter), once published a special report called "Zionism: The Forgotten Apartheid," which glorified Hamas and Hezbollah as noble warriors fighting Israeli oppression. Alkalima's June 2004 edition contained an opinion piece praising Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. It also described Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and former Hamas senior leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi as "martyrs."

At the 7th annual MSA West Conference held at the University of Southern California in January 2005, former MSA UCLA member Ahmed Shama said: "We want to restore Islam to the leadership of society. … The goal … is the reestablishment of the Islamic form of government." Shama praised Hamas and Hezbollah for being "uncompromising" on their principles, and for refusing to "shake hands with the other side." He lauded the terrorist leader Muqtada al-Sadr for "legitimately fighting against [U.S.] occupation" in Iraq. He identified Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the "mainstream Islamic movement." He praised Hamas' resolve that "the only solution to the current occupation is military resistance. Not shaking hands. Not dialogue." And he declared, "We have an obligation to make sure that our MSAs are part of the global Islamic movement."

At the February 2006 MSA West Conference at Sacramento State University, guest speaker Abdel Malik-Ali praised the late Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin and rejoiced at Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's poor health.

MSA co-founder Ahmad Totonji was a major figure in the Virginia-based, Muslim Brotherhood-dominated SAAR network which, according to federal investigators, had financing ties to al Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas.
A notable former member of MSA is Asan Akbar, an American Muslim extremist who attended the MSA-controlled student mosque at the University of California, Davis. After college, Akbar joined the U.S. Army and, in the early hours of March 23, 2003, he intentionally detonated a grenade amidst sleeping members of his 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division stationed in Kuwait -- killing two and wounding fifteen. Not long before this incident, Akbar, who had been reprimanded for insubordination, reportedly had told his mother that he felt the military was persecuting him because he was a Muslim.

Though the Muslim world is replete with the oppression and abuse of women, in 2007 MSA published a brochure stating the following about Islam and women's rights:

"Today people think that women are liberated in the West and that the women's liberation movement began in the 20th century. Actually, the women's liberation movement was not begun by women but was revealed by God to a man in the seventh century by the name of Muhammad … The Qur'an and the Traditions of the Prophet (Hadith or Sunnah) are the sources from which every Muslim woman derives her rights and duties. … Islam, fourteen centuries ago, made women equally accountable to God in glorifying and worshipping Him -- setting no limits on her moral progress. Also, Islam established a woman's equality in her humanity with men. … In Islam, a woman has the basic freedom of choice and expression based on recognition of her individual personality. … The Muslim woman was given a role, duties and rights 1400 years ago that most women do not enjoy today, even in the West."

Offshoots of MSA include the Islamic Medical Association, the Muslim Arab Youth Association, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Islamic Society of North America.

MSA has published a MSA Starter's Guide: A Guide on How to Run a Successful MSA, which states: "It should be the long-term goal of every MSA to Islamicize the politics of their respective university … the politicization of the MSA means to make the MSA more of a force on internal campus politics. The MSA needs to be a more 'In-your-face' association … For example, the student body must be convinced that there is such a thing as a Muslim-bloc."

The MSA Starter's Guide further advises: "Aim to rise within the ranks of the Union [student government] and to get on selected executive committees … I cannot stress this enough, the Union has vast powers that Muslims need to control."

In addition, MSA has prepared and published a guide on "How to Establish a Prayer Room on Campus" for its student leaders, to help them press their schools with demands for separate, rather than a shared, religious space on campus as part of their Muslim Accommodations Task Force. A supplement to the guide specifically instructs MSA leaders on setting up a "Prayer Room Demand Survey."

End Note:

[1] Other organizations identified included the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Arab Youth Association, Muslim Youth of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the United Association for Studies and Research, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Reut R. Cohen

Thank you, Reut, for the above report.

Don't Bother Me-I'm Drinking- Fall Edition

Tomorrow, me, the missus and our daughter are off to Cancun for a week. Gotta get rid of all the "stress" of dealing with liberals, academic types, Dems and Keith Olbermann. I figure a few shots of Patron, along with some Bohemia will give me all sorts of new ideas for the blog when I get back.

But I want to ask a favor of all my friends; keep on eye on old Keith, will'ya? I'm worried about him.

The Dems Trot Out the Race Card

Leave it to the Democrats and their surrogates in the media to bring out the race card now that Barack Obama has fallen behind in the polls. After all these months of campaigning, as well as the bruising Democratic primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton, it is now the Republicans and their white voters who are exhibiting racism because Obama is not winning.

Here is CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin campaign attacks.

He writes, “Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright - attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man.”

The angry black man, he goes on to say, doesn’t have broad appeal in White America. And even though the makeup of our population is changing, whites are still the majority in this country. How ironic that the giant step forward of nominating an African American for president may ultimately keep us mired in the past.

Here’s my question to you: Will Barack Obama’s race cost him the White House?"

And here is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius speaking before a crowd in Iowa City, Iowa on Tuesday:

“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked in response to a question about why the election is so close. “That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”......(Republicans) "will not go quietly into the darkness."

First, let me address the partisan Mr Cafferty (who clearly wants Obama to win): Jack, race is not the biggest issue in this campaign. America is fully prepared to elect a black president, Hispanic president, female president or Asian American president. Unfortunately for you, however, it may not be ready for Barack Obama and his leftist philosophy. If there are racial issues, it is not because he is part African-American. Any racial issues would be derived from the incendiary language of people like Jeremiah Wright, the man who infused race into this campaign big time. If whites associate Obama with Wright and are turned off by that whole mess, it doesn't make them racists. Obama stated at the outset of this campaign that if he failed to be elected, it would not be because of his race; rather it would be because his message did not resonate with the voters. He was correct. You are wrong, and you will not shame voters into voting for your candidate to disprove your race theory.

As for Governor Sibelius, yes, we have noticed that Obama is part African-American. Don't you Kansans have TVs in your state? As for the Republicans not going quietly into the darkness, did we not see a Democratic Primary obsessed with race? Bill Clinton was not using any code language when he accused Obama of "playing the race card on me-big time".

If race winds up playing any role in this election and Obama is defeated, then it will be because some voters perceive that he has a racial agenda that is closer to people like Jeremiah Wright than what he publicly proclaims. That would not be racism on the part of the voters.

Finally, what will the Caffertys and Sibelius' out there say in a future election when someone like Michael Steele or Lynn Swann gets the Republican nomination for president/VP? They will pull out the race card like they did against Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. You will hear all the old "Uncle Tom" slurs that are trotted out against black conservatives/Republicans.

Maybe by then, they will at least do it in code language.

Keith Olbermann and Seasonal Affective Disorder

"Kevin Williamson-Worst Person in the Wooorld."

After catching Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" show last night, I have a confession to make.

I am truly worried about Keith.

Last night, Keith went into his occasionally humorous "Worst Person in the World" segment, in which he hands out first, second and third place awards to some conservative or another (usually Bill O'Reilly is included) for some perceived outrage. Sometimes, Keith treats it with humor. Sometimes, he treats it with undisguised anger.

Last night was the latter.

First place this time went to Mr. Kevin D. Williamson, who wrote a piece in National Review Online about Sarah Palin's "infamous" tanning bed. Mr Williamson opined that, given the long winters in Alaska, it was possible that the tanning bed was being used as an antidote for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD?). According to Mr Williamson, tanning beds were not uncommon in Alaska for just this reason.

So why did this explanation earn Mr Williamson the gold? Krazy Keith used the occasion to launch into a five minute tirade against the gentleman. According to Keith, Mr Williamson failed in his sacred civil duty to alert the proper authorities that the Governor of Alaska, the Republican VP nominee, the woman who may be one heartbeat away from the presidency-might be suicidal-or worse.

Keith began by informing his listeners (me and a couple of other guys) that SAD is a medically-recognized illness and asked Mr Williamson why he had not reported the Governor to....whomever. By the time Krazy Keith had finished with his 5 minute lecture/tirade (with the organ working overtime), Mr Williamson was, for the whole world to see, the "Worst Person in the Woooorld" for not calling 911 before it was too late.

Speaking of Seasonal Affective Disorder, I haven't been following the weather in New York lately, but it seems to me that Keith, locked in the MSNBC boiler room night after night with Rachel Maddow, Eugene (Chuckles) Robinson, Richard Wolffe (with 2 f's), Howard Fineman and the rest of the gang, might be suffering from the same thing. (I'd better call 911.)

I'm prayin' for you, Keith. Remember-with that new contract extension, you've got 4 more years to go.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Breaking News- Palin Bought a Tanning Bed

"The tanning bed that may change history. (No, that is not Governor Palin.)

The onslaught of breaking stories on Sarah Palin never ceases. It looks like those 30 lawyers Obama sent to Alaska to dig up dirt, augmented by the media, are striking gold.

Now Us magazine is reporting that Governor Palin had a tanning bed installed in the Governor's Mansion in Juneau. It is also reported that a tanning bed can cost up to $35,000. Here are the shocking details:

Sarah Palin Installed Tanning Bed at Governor's Mansion
Monday September 15, 2008

"Self-proclaimed "hockey mom" Sarah Palin had a private tanning bed installed in the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, Alaska, confirmed on Monday."

Well, there you go. Is this the smoking gun that will finish off Palin's candidacy?

No. There is one problem, which the reader must get past the headline to learn:

"She did. She paid for it with her own money," Roger Wetherell, chief communications officer of Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities told the magazine.

Nice try, kids.

In another front, Palin has released numerous e-mails showing that ex-Director of Public Safety, Walter Monegan, was indeed involved in an insubordinate relationship with the governor, going around her back and trying to obtain funds that she had already turned down.

It is great to watch the media, Hollywood, feminists, and the Democrats attacking Sarah Palin. So much attention being directed against the VP candidate. The more they try to tear down Governor Palin with their petty charges, the more the polls move in McCain's direction.

Meet Jamie Gorelick-9-11 and Fannie Mae

If you don't know the name Jamie Gorelick, you should. This mover and shaker in Democratic circles has shown up in two major American disasters since the 1990s (9-11and now Fannie Mae). And how she has moved and shaken!

Gorelick, in case you didn't know, was a political appointee to the position of Deputy Attorney General (number 2 position) under the incompetent Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration. In fact, she was the eminance gris behind the scenes.

In 1995, Gorelick authored a memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and then US Attoney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White that, in effect, set up a (pre-Patriot Act) wall separating the exchange of information between the FBI and intelligence agencies, principally the CIA. This came in the wake of the 1993 attack of the World Trade Center. After 9-11, the memo and resulting policy were blamed in part for the break-down of terrorist investigations that led to 9-11 happening. It was specifically blamed for the delay in arresting Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker" and possibly uncovering the 9-11 plot.

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation" (Gorelick memo dated March 4, 1995 entitled; Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counter Intelligence and Criminal Investigations)

This memo, in effect created additional barriers between agencies than had already existed under the 1978 FISA Act.

So, one would have thought that Gorelick would have been a prime candidate for subpoena when the 9-11 Commission hearings got under way. Think again. Instead of being called to testify under oath as to her prominent role in handcuffing the agencies tasked with countering terrorism against the US, Gorelick was actually appointed as a 9-11 Commissioner!

This appointment was almost tantamount to appointing Hermann Goering to a judgeship on the Nuremberg Tribunal. In legal terms, this would be called a "Conflict of Interest".

Many voices were raised as to the irony of Gorelick serving on the Commission instead of being a subpoenaed witness. John Ashcroft specifically brought up Gorelick's memo during his testimony, much to Gorelick's chagrin.

"In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.

"When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

"At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain 'problems.'" (John Ashcroft testimony)

Typically, however, Gorelick refused to step down and continued to sit on the Commission. When asked about the memo by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, she said,

"No, and again, I would refer you back to what others on the commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It's existed since the mid 1980s. And while it's too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid-nineties, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy by the way, it was the attorney general's policy, was ratified by Attorney General Ashcroft's deputy as well in August of
2001. So we are just going to move on from this. This is not a basis for resignation."

One would have thought that, given this embarrassment, Gorelick would have slipped out of town and disappeared forever. Like Forest Gump, however, she continues to show up at the scene of historical catastrophes. Been reading about the collapse of Fannie Mae lately? Try this on for size.

From 1997-2003, Gorelick served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and reportedly earned 26 million dollars during that period (in spite of the fact that she had no previous financial experience). In 1998, Fannie Mae was involved in a 10 billion dollar accounting scandal that resulted in a false report of the company reaching its earning target-which reportedly resulted in Gorelick receiving a bonus of $800,000.

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of "Fanny Mae". Gorelick was quoted as saying, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

One year later, Government Regulators accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting in the amount of $9 billion in unrecorded losses.

Last reported, Gorelick was working for the Washington law firm of WilmerHale and involved in defending Duke University in a lawsuit brought by its former lacrosse players accusing the school of unfair treatment of them during the rape accusation.

Barbra Streisand Songfest for Obama

"Oh, isn't it awful about the Bush economy?"

"Quiet! Barbra's about to sing."

In case you are wondering where Barack Obama will be today, here's a news flash. Tonight, Obama will be in Beverly Hills attending a dinner and songfest hosted by none other than Barbra Streisand. Actually, the proper name for this event is fundraiser.

And talk about funds! Tonight's extravaganza will be a $28,500-a-plate affair that is expected to raise 9 million dollars for Obama's campaign. And no-I don't think there will be any "fat-cat" Republicans or oil barons present. Just common folks, you know.

Surely, the Great Man will stand up and say a few words to the humble masses gathered. Surely, Ms Streisand will sing a few ditties interspersed with some profanity-laced tirades against McCain and Palin. Maybe we will hear words of concern for the poor economy in between gulps of foie gras washed down with bottles of French champagne

And as you read all about this masked ball in tomorrow's papers (if they choose to publicize it), remember all the words you have heard over the years about the rich Republicans and the Democrats being the party of the common people. Maybe you will be spurred to look into who the richest people in Congress really are (they are virtually all millionaires).

And if you are interested in tickets, don't ask me. Call Ticketmaster.

"People...people who need people......"

Aw shaddup!!

Chevy Chase: "I Want Her to Decimate This Woman"

Chevy Chase

Add comedian Chevy Chase to the exploding list of Hollywood celebrities who are exorcized about Sarah Palin. Below is Chase's comment on the Saturday Night Live performance of Tina Fey impersonating the Alaska Governor.

"I thought it was extraordinary how well she played her and much she looked like her. I'd just like her — personally I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff — I'd like her to go even harder."

"I want her to decimate this woman. This woman is, I can't believe there hasn't been more about it. ... It's just unbelievable to me this woman is actually running for vice president."

Although I have never had the "pleasure" of meeting Mr Chase, I have gotten the impression from hearing some of his off-stage comments over the years that he really has no sense of humor when he is off-duty. I could be wrong, of course, but I recall his angry exchange on the radio a few years back with shock-jock Howard Stern.

"I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff..."

Well, of course not. Never mind that the woman playing Hillary simply mouthed some position platitudes while Fey made Palin look ignorant. According to Chase, Hillary must be sancrosanct-off-limits, if you will. I have no problem with political satirists making fair game out of Sarah Palin or anyone else, but...." I felt we didn't need the Hillary stuff...." Seems a little hypocritical to me.

But far be it from me to complain about Mr Chase and his sand-box playmates in Hollywood. The main reason I write about Chase, O'Donnell, Damon et al is to illustrate to the reader who Hollywood is rooting for and against. I hope these plastic banana folks continue to exercise their right of free speech to attack Governor Palin. For every star-sruck fan who decides to vote against Palin because of what people like Chase say, ten others will decide to vote for her.

Monday, September 15, 2008

The Daily Kos and the World Trade Center Cartoon-"It Never Happened, Dude"

"Cartoon? What cartoon?"
"Yeah, right. What cartoon?-Hey, anybody seen Vladimir?"

Some of you who are old enough to remember might recall those old Soviet era photos taken in Red Square with all the top Soviet leaders on top of the Lenin Mausoleum reviewing Red Army troops on parade in Red Square. The Soviets had a great little trick that signaled to wise observers when a certain leader had fallen out of favor. They would airbrush his image out of the photo as if he had never existed-a non-person to use their own language.

But in the computer era, who needs to do that? Today, we can simply click the "delete" button and everything can disappear-even what we write and post on our blogs.

This is a lesson not lost on the Daily Kos. When they published an offensive cartoon of the World Trade Center on 9-11 from some sick British blogger, many of their own readers got angry and let them know in no uncertain terms. (see "Daily Kos Mocks 9-11Remembrance", Fousesquawk, Sept 12, 2008)

Radarsite blog, however, is not about to let them get away with it. Not only has Editor Roger Gardner reported the story, but the effort of Daily Kos to simply delete it all away-as if they had never posted it in the first place. Now the cartoon and Kos editorial comment has disappeared from the site.

Which, for some really dumb types, is all they need to do. There are many Kos supporters out there who refuse to believe the cartoon had ever appeared in the first place. Just some right-wing conspiracy.

Thanks to Roger Gardner at Radarsite for putting up these posts to the History Channel comment board:

that "quote" is NOT ON THEIR WEBSITE
Sep 14, 2008 8:57 PM
"i just looked at the whole day-full of posts. kos and crew were busy.... but the little poster and quote you refer to were not on his website.... you have been tricked..... the radar guy faked you out, dude.... check it out for yourself: google the quote: "All this 9/11 worship is ghoulish and downright silly. Some Brit on is even making fun of our pompous charade." and all you get is conservative reactionary sites lambasting Kos for something he didn't write...."


"the fact that those conservatives would MAKE UP STORIES and attribute them to Kos, and then rag on him for days for stuff he didn't write.. that is really too much!!

perhaps somebody who still thinks that this actually appeared on daily kos could show us where it is/was???"

"yeah, i thought not..."

Yes indeed, as they used to say in the USSR; "Nikita who?...Khruschev?...Never heard of him. Never existed."

Well, actually he did exist. I actually saw him when I was a boy and he came to Los Angeles. I also saw what appeared in the Daily Kos.

Rachel Maddow Interviews Walter Monegan on MSNBC

Rachel Maddow, who went from Air America to her own show recently on MSNBC, interviewed Walter Monegan, former head of Alaska's Department of Public Safety tonight on her show. This came in the wake of Sarah Palin's denial to Charles Gibson that she or her husband pressured Monegan to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten. (Wooten, who was involved in a bitter divorce from Palin's sister, has admitted that, at one point, he tasered his 10-year-old stepson.) Monegan was eventually terminated by Governor Palin, according to her, for reasons having nothing to do with Wooten. (It has been reported today that Governor Palin has declined to be interviewed by an investigator regarding the controversy.)

As the telephone interview opened, Maddow asked Monegan if Palin had told the truth to Gibson about not pressuring him to fire Wooten. In his answer, he stated, "not exactly".

Here is where it gets dicey. Monegan stated, as he has in the past, that Palin never told him to fire Wooten. Instead, he recounted how Todd Palin had attempted to bring certain items to his attention about Wooten's fitness to be a trooper. (He did not specify what those items were.) Monegan also recounted a series of contacts (e-mails, etc) from staffers of Governor Palin, again bringing up information about Wooten's fitness to be a trooper.

I am in no way attempting to cast doubt on what Mr Monegan is saying. Like everyone else, I don't really know what the facts are. Whether Governor Palin, her husband and her staff tried to get Wooten fired and how they may have attempted to do that is open to interpretation at this point.

What I have noticed, however, is the reticence of people like Maddow and Keith Olbermann to spell out a fact that even Wooten has publicly admitted to; that he tasered his 10-year-old stepson. (I have heard Olbermann concede on one show that Wooten may be less than a good guy.) It seems to me that there was ample reason to fire Wooten. (There were other allegations against Wooten which he has not admitted to, such as drinking in his patrol car.) My point here is that Wooten definitely should have been fired for the taser gun incident. Whether it was proper for the Governor to intercede in this matter given her personal relationship is open to debate, but who outside of the family would have known of the incident and been able to bring it to Monegan's attention? At any rate, Monegan could not give Maddow the answer that she clearly wanted in the interview.

Let me ask the reader a question: If you were a governor, and this happened within your family, would you say the following to the Director of Public Safety (who reports to you), "Do you know what one of your troopers did to my ten-year-old nephew? Do you think this kind of person should be working for you as a trooper? Are you going to look into this?"

I think I would. Anyway, that's the way I see it-at this point.

Quotes for the Ages-Rosie O'Donnell

Rosie's worldview (which really gives one pause)

I don't know how much longer I can hold out against the tide. This weekend, Rosie O'Donnell joined the long chorus of America's "intellectual elite" in putting down Sarah Palin. Not only that, Rosie killed two birds with one stone in lumping Palin together with former "The View" colleague, Elizabeth Hasselbeck (the only sensible person on the show). Behold the lyrical prose contained in Rosie's Blog:

"sarah p - elisabeth h
identical cousins
women who hunt in high heels
gives one pause"

In "pouring over" Rosie's blog and its "archives", this seems to be a typical entry. It's like reading coded messages in a spy novel.

Maybe it should read like this:

"pause one gives
heels high in hunt who women
cousins identical
h elizabeth-p sarah"

...which translated means, "the secret to the atom bomb will be hidden under a rock in Central Park-200 meters west of the dead squirrel."

Sunday, September 14, 2008

9-11 at Washington State University

(Thanks to Tom Forbes of Eastern Washington for posting this report on Red County blog)

This week, at Washington State University, it was left to the school's College Republicans to commemorate 9-11 by planting over 2,000 American flags in memory of the lives that were lost 7 years ago.

According to Friday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

Annan Bowlby said she wouldn't have remembered the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks if she had not seen more than 2,000 flags sticking out of the ground on the Washington State University campus Thursday.

"A public display was a good way to honor them," she said of the memorial behind Bryan Hall. "It's a nice gesture."

According to WSU College Republicans Vice President Chris Johnson, "it took two hours Wednesday night to decorate the lawn with the flags".

Of course, there were those left-wing students who thought the display was "too patriotic" and that there were "better ways" to honor the victims (whatever that might be).

What is significant is that only the College Republicans at WSU commemorated 9/11. Not the university itself nor any other affiliated group. Johnson stated that it would have been great if WSU had called for a moment of silence.

"I wish there could be more done," he said. "I would like to see other groups getting involved to do something."

As I have said before, the College Republicans are the best thing that the Republican Party has going for it these days. In addition, the so-called responsible adults who run WSU could learn a lesson or two from their students in the College Republicans.

Free Speech on University Campuses

With a tip of the hat to cartoonist Steve Greenberg, Jewish Journal Los Angeles, issue dated September 12-18, 2008.

This picture speaks volumes about what is happening on American university campuses all over the country. To me, it especially rings true at the University of California at Irvine, where a radical Muslim Student Union expouses anti-Semitism, while the administration hides under their collective desks and talks about "freedom of speech."

I know what I am talking about; I work there.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

ABC's Editing of the Palin Interview

ABC Editors in action

"Let's see. Can't have this. Better cut that. How does it look now, Charlie?"

Like many, I had conceded that Sarah Palin at times seemed awkward in some of her responses to Charles Gibson during their interview. Her opponents have jumped all over her performance in an effort to show she is "not ready for prime time". Now it is revealed that ABC edited an awful lot of Palin's remarks, which confirms my suspicion from watching segments. I have concluded that much, not all, of her perceived awkwardness in answering Gibson's questions is a direct result of the editing.

Below is a transcript of the edited parts of the interview (with a tip of the hat to PJ Gladnick of Newsbusters 9-13-08 and the Mark Levin Blog). The edited lines in are bold print.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

(PJ Gladnick points out that Palin's answer is actually to an earlier question from Gibson.)

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

On Iran

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

Then there are these edits from the part of the interview dealing with the question about the Bush Doctrine (Thanks to Mark Levin blog):

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Sarah Palin on God:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

So, did ABC edit the interview to make Palin appear more uncertain, more hawklike, and more uninformed? You be the judge. Compare and contrast this interview with the interview of Barack Obama by Bill O'Reilly. Nothing was edited. Indeed, O'Reilly had to show it over several segments of his show because Obama only gave him 30 minutes!

Just another example of how the Mainstream News Media is trying to bend this election to its desired outcome.