Resisting Censorship and Advocating the Dissemination of Information

In light of the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to release the video tape of Barak Obama at Rashid Khalidi’s going away party, the responsibility the press immediately comes to mind. It is ironic that the LA Times would quash the Khalidi video, while they utilize those same liberties that allow them the freedom to publish their opinion. To think that the press would align themselves in such a position is clearly self destructive and outright Anti-American in the mind of many U.S, citizens. After all, the sole reason for the existence of the press rests on the subscription of its viewers and on the autonomies of the 1st amendment, which were fought for by the many generations of America’s veterans. Over the last 8 years the Tribune Company’s stock, has tanked from excesses of $60 per share back in December of 2000, to less than $30 dollars a share in December 2006; in the last two years it has only rebounded by $5 per share at best. The enormous loss should be an indication to the media outlet that it has lost the respect of its readers, so why it would want to further its downward spiral, by actions that exemplify censorship and the repression of valuable information is beyond comprehension. What is more inconceivable is the lack of protest from their shareholders; of course there is a good chance that the majority shareholder has an agenda of his or her own, then that person should be publicly harangued as well. I, for one, don’t buy into the LA Times claims that they are merely protecting the source of the video. The fight to resist the censorship and dissemination of information that is vital to our nation’s capability to endure is a struggle throughout time that can be witnessed since before the existence of the Roman Empire. To think, that in this day and age, a news outlet would stand in the way of the truth, leads me to reminisce of the time that Daniels Shays led a group of revolutionaries carrying pitchforks and torches, who intended to “light a fire” that would illuminate the repressive nature of those who tread on their liberties.

Daniel Shay's Rebellion

Daniel Shay

 The following is an excerpt from the article, “The long history of censorship” that can be found at beaconforfreedom.org:

Censorship has followed the free expressions of men and women like a shadow through history. In ancient societies, such as China, censorship was considered a legitimate instrument for regulating the moral and political life of the population. In China, the first censorship law was introduced in 300 AD. The origin of the term censor in English can be traced to the office of censor established in Rome in 443 BC. In Rome, as in the ancient Greek communities, the ideal of good governance included shaping the character of the people. Hence censorship would have been regarded as an honorable task. The most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities. But it is fair to assume that Socrates was not the first person to be severely punished for violating the moral and political code of his time. This ancient view of censorship, as a benevolent public service in the best interest of the people, is still upheld by countries such as China, as it was advocated by the rulers of the Soviet Union (USSR), responsible for the longest lasting and most extensive censorship of the 20th Century. 

Given this retrospective look into the “honorable” intentions of censorship, it isn’t hard to dispel the reasoning propagated by those of times gone by. The line of reasoning, offered by these repressive regimes, to suppress the dissemination of information can be refuted in one single statement averred long ago by the Greek tragic poet, Euripides, who declared . . .  “This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.” Euripides lived in a time when people were more focused on their surroundings, because they didn’t have the many material distractions in contemporary society. Euripides is known primarily for having reshaped the formal structure of the “traditional attic tragedy” by showing strong women characters and intelligent slaves, and by satirizing many heroes of Greek mythology. It has often been said that our social order has been based largely on that which was championed by the Roman Republic; so it’s not hard to see the ideologies advocated by Euripides some 2500 years ago, are some of the same values that guide us today. Pro-feminine values and [and I must admit I say this with a varying degree of contention] a respectable level of intelligence can be found at most levels of our society; the reason these things are prevalent in our society is that we are at liberty to speak our minds. Euripides’ twist on attic style tragedies, along with his aforementioned statement regarding the hazards of enslavement through censorship, exemplifies why America has become the great country it is. By reverting to those questionable antics endorsed by the likes of China, and the now defunct U.S.S.R., we have got to question the direction in which our country is headed. More disturbing is that this recent incident, where the LA Times has refused to release a pertinent piece of potentially incriminating evidence involving the current democratic presidential nominee, is not just a single isolated incident. As in recent months, Senator Obama’s campaign has attempted to stifle his opposition; listed below are just a few examples of those attempts:

 

Kevin Miller, a conservative talk show host on Pittsburgh’s KDKA-AM, was given an on-air CBS corporate reprimand Wednesday, read by his executive producer and prompted by listener complaints after Miller dared to interview guests critical of Presidential candidate Barack Obama and express his own negative opinions about the candidate. 

Former Hillary Clinton supporters from “Political Unity My Ass” [a.k.a — P.U.M.A.], who now are throwing their weight behind the McCain/Palin ticket, initiated a blog titled “Count Us Out.” At their website the headline reads:

 Obama Attacks Free Speech – Attempts Censorship of Chicago Talk Radio Station

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an “Obama Action Wire” alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat. Monday night’s target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time. “The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don’t gain credibility,” an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads. “David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering,” the message said. “And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves.” The station was flooded with calls and e-mails about an hour before an Aug. 27 interview with Stanley Kurtz, a conservative writer who examined Obama’s ties to former 1960s radical William Ayers. A WGN producer said Monday night’s response was about the same as when Kurtz was on the station.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/obama-hates-free-speech-attempts-censorship-of-chicago-talk-radio-station/

At “joeschmoepolitico,” below a picture of Obama and his Storm Troopers accosting John McCain, writers exposed the truth about Obama’s “Truth Squad” by posting a reference to a lawsuit filed against the “American Issues Project” for airing advertisements that portray Obama in a negative light.

Washington, DC – September 26, 2008 – Barack Obama is now using local law enforcement officials to carry out his campaign of legal intimidation by assembling a group of high-ranking Missouri police officials and prosecutors – including St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCullough and City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce – to identify and target anyone the campaign determines is producing “misleading” political advertisements.

“This is an outrageous and shocking attempt by the Obama campaign to again employ Stalinist, police state tactics against those who dare to disagree with Barack Obama,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Projects president.   “I am frankly stunned to see public officials like McCullough and Joyce abusing their official prosecutorial positions to serve as attack dogs for a national political campaign.  I am quite certain Missourians elected these individuals to enforce the laws and arrest criminals, not to throw people in jail for daring to practicing free speech.

“The Obama campaign continues to provide a chilling preview of what would happen to political freedom in an Obama administration.”

This new effort is only the most recent attempt by the Obama campaign to crack down on free speech.  Obama’s lawyers twice demanded the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors.  The campaign also threatened stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot, and ran its own ad in response.

https://joeschmoepolitico.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/obamas-storm-troopers/ 

What are bloggers saying?

At conservablog.com the author wrote:

I disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it,’ which changed to, ‘If you don’t like it, turn the channel,’ and now we hear, ‘you’re inciting hate, so I will have you charged with a Hate Crime, you bigot!’”

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/10/17/pro-obama-censorship-at-blogtalkradio/ 

“In an ABC news blog, entitled, “Political Punch,” Pastor Swope commented:

So…I’m to believe that those involved in a “Truth Squad” have the corner on truth, and clearly see the right answers to all debate that running for the office of President of the United States generates? Am I perceived as mindless enough that I would want a man in the Oval Office who would allow such activities to be associated with his campaign? Wake up citizens of America…for you will certainly have to endure the rule of the one you vote into office. Shame on you, candidate Obama, for your inexperienced lack of understanding of the proper use of power, you who desire to head the Executive branch!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/attacking-obama.html

At another blogspot entitled, “Advance Indiana” the writer refers to Obama’s admitted drug use in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” and chastises the Obama “truth squad” with challenges to silence him. He writes:

“The Indiana campaign of presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama announced the formation of an “Indiana Truth Squad” today to ‘debunk any unfounded attacks against Senator Obama in the final weeks of the Indiana campaign and show Hoosiers why Barack Obama is the only candidate in this race who will bring change we can believe in’ . . .  Allow me to offer the first challenge to this so-called truth squad to tell Hoosiers and the American people the full truth about Sen. Barack Obama’s drug use.”
“Before the Obama people start jumping up and down screaming that this is just another “unfounded attack,” let me remind them that it was none other than Obama himself who injected the issue of drug use into this campaign. As an aspiring, young politician, Obama openly admitted his drug use in his 1995 book, “Dreams from My Father.” ‘Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though,’ he wrote. He talks about “smoking reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and “getting high.” As a candidate for the state legislature or the U.S. Senate in Illinois, Obama didn’t have to answer questions about his past drug use according to Sun-Times political columnist Lynn Sweet. As a candidate for president, Obama has answered few questions about his past drug use.”

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2008/04/will-obamas-indiana-truth-squad-address.html 

What is more discouraging is that it has been reported the Democratic Party has intentions to reinstate the “Fairness act. ” The “Fairness act” was formally adopted as an FCC rule in 1949 and repealed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan’s pro-broadcaster FCC, “The Fairness Doctrine” had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. Sound like censorship to you? That’s because it is.        I assume that the Democratic Party missed that history lesson; a long time ago, the “Sedition Act” was enacted by John Adams, and it damaged his presidency bad enough that he was not reelected to a second term. The “Sedition Act” was used to attempt to limit criticism of government. It was later removed because of the unconstitutionality of the limitation to argument against the government. If this is what we can expect out of the press, our politicians, and the American people, themselves, we are without doubt headed for a downward spiral, from which we may never recover. Eerily enough, we may come to that uncertain fate where we may have to follow the actions of Daniel Shays and his cohorts, and get out the torches, pitchforks, and any other necessary means to prod those ne’er-do-wells in our society to fall back in line. If only Ben Franklin and his contemporaries could see us now, for certain they’d be proud . . . naught!

Advertisements

“OBAMA, NO MERCI BEAUCOUP” by Poor James and the Swamp Crows

 

McCain Delivers Remarks at a Hershey, Pa. Rally

CQ Transcript Wire

Tuesday, October 28, 2008; 11:48 AM

MCCAIN: It’s great to be back in Pennsylvania. We need to win Pennsylvania on November 4th, and with your help we’re going to win here, and bring real change to Washington, DC. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: hoping for our luck to change at home and abroad. We have to act. We need a new direction, and we have to fight for it.

I’ve been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I’m elected President, I will fight to shake up Washington and take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I’m not afraid of the fight, I’m ready for it.

I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home. We’re going to double the child deduction for working families. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America. Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.

If I’m elected President, I won’t spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money. Senator Obama will. And he can’t do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I’m going to make government live on a budget just like you do.

I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes.

I’m not going to spend $750 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I’m going to make sure we take care of the working people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington.

I have a plan to fix our housing market, so that your home value doesn’t go down when your neighbor defaults, and so that people in danger of defaulting have a path to pay off their loan.

If I’m elected President, we’re going to stop spending $700 billion to buy oil from countries that don’t like us very much. Senator Obama will argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and against building new nuclear power plants in America. If I am president, we will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternatives — nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs.

We’ve learned more about Senator Obama’s real goals for our country over the last two weeks than we learned over the past two years, and that only because Joe the plumber asked him a question in Ohio. That’s when Senator Obama revealed he wants to quote “spread the wealth around.”

Now, Joe didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house, and he didn’t ask to be famous. He certainly didn’t ask for the political attacks on him from the Obama campaign. Joe’s dream is to own a small business that will create jobs, and the attacks on him are an attack on small businesses all over the country. Small businesses employ 84 percent of Americans, and we need to support small businesses, not tax them.

After months of campaign trail eloquence, we’ve finally learned what Senator Obama’s economic goal is: to spread the wealth. In a radio interview revealed this week, he said the same thing — that one of the quote, “tragedies” of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about “redistributive change.”

You see, Senator Obama believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He said that even though lower taxes on investment help our economy, he favors higher taxes on investment for quote “fairness.” There’s nothing “fair” about driving our economy into the ground. We all suffer when that happens, and that is the problem with Senator Obama’s approach to our economy. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it … in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Senator Obama is running to be Redistributionist in Chief. I’m running to be Commander in Chief. Senator Obama is running to spread the wealth. I’m running to create more wealth. Senator Obama is running to punish the successful. I’m running to make everyone successful.

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than 200,000 dollars you’ll benefit — but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year.” It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can’t let that happen.

My opponent’s massive new tax increase is exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown. The answer to a slowing economy is not higher taxes, but that is exactly what is going to happen when the Democrats have total control of Washington. We can’t let that happen. We need pro-growth and pro-jobs economic policies, not pro-government spending programs paid for with higher taxes.

This is the fundamental difference between Senator Obama and me. We both disagree with President Bush on economic policy. The difference is that he thinks taxes have been too low, and I think that spending has been too high.

If we are going to change Washington, we need a President who has actually fought for change and made it happen. The next President won’t have time to get used to the office. We face many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world. Senator Biden warned that Senator Obama would be tested with an international crisis. I have been tested. Senator Obama hasn’t. Senator Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis and I have a little personal experience in that. I was on board the U.S.S. Enterprise, and I sat in a jet cockpit on the flight deck waiting to take off. We had a target. I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested.

We know Senator Obama won’t have the right response to that test, because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world’s worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint. He’s been wrong on all of these. When I am president, we are going to win in Iraq and win in Afghanistan, and our troops will come home in victory and honor.

Let me give you the state of the race today. There’s one week to go. We’re a few points down. The pundits have written us off, just like they’ve done before. My opponent is working out the details with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid of their plans to raise your taxes, increase spending, and concede defeat in Iraq. He’s measuring the drapes, and he’s planned his first address to the nation for before the election. I guess I’m old fashioned about these things I prefer to let the voters weigh in before presuming the outcome.

What America needs now is someone who will finish the race before the starting the victory lap … someone who will fight to the end, and not for himself but for his country.

I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. There are other ways to love this country, but I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.

I know you’re worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future.

Will we continue to lead the world’s economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren’s future be brighter than ours?

My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.

I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight. Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America.

Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington. Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Now, let’s go win this election and get this country moving again.

Original article can be found at www.washingtonpost.com

 

 

 

 

Obama Supporters Receive Sunshine, Rainbows, and the Inevitable Pot of Gold

rainbow_pot_of_gold_hg_wht

“I am my brother’s keeper”

Michelle Malkin summed it up when she wrote . . . “The phoniness reeks.

 

In my eyes, anybody that spends that kind of money and exerts that kind of effort to get elected needs to be questioned why. The fact that the guy reverted from the government funded campaign financing, when he said he would abide by it, says a lot about his character . . . he is a finagler of the worst sort. What raises my hackles more though, is that there is a good possibility that much of his campaign financing has come from foreign interests, who are not legally allowed to contribute to U.S. election campaigns.

What’s more maddening is that Obama has bent the truth an innumerable amount of times since campaigning for the oval office. From mistruths and omissions, to denials and outright lies . . . his message is always skewed. roughly stated to mean that he will solve all our problems, Obama claimed during the DNC that he would “heal the earth and calm the waters;” that political stunt was yet another of his skewed attempts to gain your vote. Last night, Obama held out another Romanesque attempt, this time without the styrofoam columns. This time, by parading sob stories of mortgages gone wrong, torrid tales of ailing health, and by exciting our fears brought on by our economic circumstance; his intention was to paint the world as a miserable place, and Obama has succeeded. Hardly even before the painting had a chance to dry, Obama began anew by splashing fresh paint on the gloomy future he had just illustrated; piously, Obama went on to add some of his patented and proprietary sunshine, the kind that Obama, and he alone, can only provide. After that, Obama added a few of his trademarked rainbows, and surprisingly, he stopped short of promising a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow; although Obama has recently alluded to the fact that we will actually have to wait until he is elected to receive our pots of gold.  Truth be told, Obama has already gleaned to us, his intentions with a different sort of rainbow, one where the colors are not so bright. All one needs to do is peer into the world of those related to our freshly resurrected “messiah,” and you will find out exactly how Obama cares for those around him.

 

Here is a brief excerpt from Michelle Malkin’s blog:

 

Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr. Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

The US press has repeatedly rehearsed Mr. Obama’s extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family’s American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Mr. Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

 

Read more of Michelle’s article at:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/29/obama-tv-dear-leaders-infomercial/

 

The Myth of Obamanomics

Barack Obama continues to state he will only tax incomes over $250,000 and that 95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut. Does it make sense to you that Obama will increase spending by more than a trillion dollars? Increase taxes on business? Will those ideas be good for the economy? If you think about it for just a minute you will agree that it does not pass the common sense, the smell test.

The following data comes from the IRS for the year 2003 and reveals the number of businesses with revenue over $ 250,000 in 2003. From IRS statistics in 2003:

Revenue Range

Number of businesses

$250,000 – $500,000

1,331,692

$500,000 – $1,000,000

932,914

$1,000,000 – $2,500,000

686,257

$2,500,000 -$5,000,000

263,211

$5,000,000 – $10,000,000

143,693

$10,000,000 – $50,000,000

124,568

$50,000,000 – Above

32,040

 

Many of you work for a company that falls into one of the above categories. Let’s take a little time to examine the practical consequences of Obama raising taxes on these companies: Obama states that he will raise taxes on incomes above $ 250,000. Now look at the number of businesses affected above. Now keep in mind that when businesses pay more taxes, they must make up for their losses somehow, traditionally they resort to one or more of the following ways of offsetting their losses:

·        Increase the price of their products or services, thus affecting consumers.

·        Cut other costs such as salaries, jobs or investment in new technologies such as energy.

·        Move to a country with less tax.

·        Some companies will go out of business due to profits declining, increased taxes and lower sales, when prices increase.

Corporations are primarily taxed three ways. They are taxed on corporate income, on dividends, and on the sale of stock. If you are a retiree and own stock, you will have less money because the corporation will have less profit and if you sell the stock you will pay more tax on the sale.

Government is extremely inefficient. $ 1,000 taken from a business will remove money that drives the economy, creates more jobs and ultimately brings more revenue for the government. That $ 1,000 will be wasted in government bureaucracy and overhead.

Obama is using this old lie to appeal to his core support that is promised everything by politicians that use them to win elections.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took part in a debate several months ago hosted by Charlie Gibson. Gibson asked Obama about his plan to raise the capital gains tax. Then Gibson pointed out that studies have shown that lowering the capital gains tax increases government revenues and is good for the economy. Obama began stammering and stuttering and in one of the most revealing moments of the election, Obama’s lack of understanding of the economy and taxes was made clear. Obama was unable to rely on a canned teleprompter response.

Obama is just another modern day snake oil salesman. If you let him steal this election, Obama and the out of control Democrat congress, will ruin this economy and this country.

Does Obama scare you? http://obamaimpeachment.org

Eric Zorn: 8 Reasons Why Obama Will Lose

8 Reasons Why Obama Will Lose

Imagine my surprise to find this outline in a blog by Eric Zorn, the plumber hater, in the Chicago Tribune. I thought it impossible for him, or the CT, to speak evil of their” Messiah.” He did stray from the path on numerous occasions though and as always, like in number 4, on the table he left talking points which are easily argued. For a guy who claims to be a professional journalist, he never makes a solid argument. Either way, it’s all good clean fun for me, because I get to call him out on his inconsistencies. Too bad though, like Obama his lack of a spine will not allow him to defend himself.

1. “Bittergate.” Obama has been remarkably disciplined in his campaign, but his one “oh, no, he didn’t!?” moment was a doozy—his unscripted comment in April that “it’s not surprising [that residents of small-town America] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

2. He’s played too much defense. Though Obama’s campaign has run bazillions of ads criticizing McCain, they’ve stayed away from trying to raise questions about McCain’s character and his judgment—questions the McCain campaign has been raising relentlessly about Obama and that Obama has had to answer. [Obama doesn’t even come close to matching McCain’s character; that is why he did not go there, in fact, he was invited to, but declined the offer . . . he knew better. C’mon Zorn, there are still many mysteries that are left unsolved where Obama is concerned . . . don’t get me started!]

It’s absurd, for instance, that more ink has been spilled about the judgment Obama showed in the 1990s when working on education reform with former Vietnam-era radical Bill Ayers than about McCain’s judgment in 2002 and 2003 to cheerlead for the invasion of Iraq. [Really, how about the recent rectal examination “Joe the plumber” has gotten over a justifiable question to Obama? An incident you had no problem writing a column about . . . an incident you tried to denounce by smearing all plumbers. An article I will personally haunt you for, for trhe rest of your life. Zorn, when will you ever report something with out your sanctimonious and priggish ideals clouding your judgment?]

3. He was more dismissive than responsive to festering issues. When questions came up about Obama’s real estate dealings with crooked fundraiser Tony Rezko, he tried to brush them off with curt denials rather than bury them with documents and comprehensive answers.

Ditto his lackluster and in places inaccurate responses to concerns about his votes on “born-alive infant” legislation when he was in the Illinois Senate and demands that he give a full accounting of his personal and professional interactions with Ayers. [Zorn, you better get your ditto machine out for that statement. Curt denials have been Obama’s whole campaign . . . no substance . . . just Kool Aid pushing Jimmy Jones and Johnstown Guyana-like promises of “hope and change. When you’re guilty or wrong, it is better to ignore an issue, rather than get caught trying to cover it up. As Lao Tzu would advise, some times the best action is inaction!]

4. He left points on the table. Most of you know about Obama’s sleazy associate Tony Rezko. But how many of you know about McCain’s sleazy associate Rick Renzi? McCain named Renzi, a retiring Republican congressman, a co-chair of his Arizona campaign in January, even though the Wall Street Journal and other publications had reported he was the subject of a federal corruption probe.

Renzi was indicted in February and is facing trial. Yet the Obama campaign, apparently content to try to sit on this lead, hasn’t made an issue of him or of McCain’s friendship with convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy, who once urged his radio listeners to “go for a head shot” if federal agents came to take their guns away. [Wow! After just denouncing guilt by association in this article, you didn’t just . . . nah! You’re not a hypocrite . . . Are you? How is McCain embroiled in Rick Renzi’s wrongdoings? He has no involvement whatsoever. It is kind of hard not to be associated with a congressman from your own state. Following your ideology, it would be safe to say Obama is queer because Barney Frank is; it’s nonsense. Rezno, on the other hand, is legitimately tied to Obama as he sold land to Obama and brokered a sweetheart deal, not to mention the campaign finance rigamarole. Along those same lines, Senator Ted Stevens is being hung out to dry for receiving gifts; will Obama be held accountable for receiving a chunk of land and a house at a price not concurrent with market values or the low interest loan his credit rating may not have decreed? I somehow doubt it! As for Gordon Libby, McCain has been upfront about knowing him, there is nothing to hide, other than completely legal campaign contributions there have been no financial ties; and unlike Rezno, Libby hasn’t recently received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Lebanon. Libby is not currently under investigation, Libby served his time, and Libby never bombed the capitol or government buildings either.]

5. Biden’s blunder. Yes, foreign evildoers tend to test new presidents. But when Obama’s veepmate, Sen. Joe Biden, blathered on recently about an inevitable crisis in the first months of an Obama administration, it gave McCain a fat opening to highlight security concerns, one of his few winning issues, and play the fear card. [like jack Nicholas said . . . “you can’t handle the truth” . . . although I don’t condone any associated ideas that may be inferred by the following statement . . . as Hillary pointed out . . . it seems we are going to need a bigger budget for Casa de Blanco should “that one” end up as the “chosen one.”]

6. The economy now looks more like a chronic woe than an urgent crisis. This has allowed McCain to settle into an anti-tax, anti-spend, anti-liberal campaign groove that often works for Republicans. [Without doubt, especially in this election cycle  . . . as the left wing loon  in the democratic running shoes [spelled democratic nominee] has apparently been taught to drive on the left shoulder, forget the left lane, of the road while crunching numbers with his calculator . . . the “anti-spend, anti-tax groove” is more warranted in this election than any other time in history, if you haven’t caught my drift.]

7. Smoke. I’ve never seen a candidate subject to as many nutty rumors and guilt-by-association smears as those about Obama that land in my in-box every day. If enough voters decide in the end that there must be fire somewhere in all that noxious smoke, Obama’s apparent lead will vanish. [No need for smears Zorny, the proof is in the pudding if you can read and add 2 + 2 . . . in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama tells us that, “It was into my father’s image . . . that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”  He goes on to say, “I did feel that there was something to prove . . . to my father” in his efforts at political organizing. All one needs to do is read the senior thesis, “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” of Barak H. Obama Sr, to grasp the ideology that has been instilled in Barack Obama Jr. Some of the ideologies allowed for in Barak H. Obama Sr.’s senior thesis from UCLA are the nationalization and outright confiscation of foreign owned enterprises, the abolishment of free enterprise, the redistribution of wealth, price regulations for those businesses tied to the service industry, and 100% taxation of income as long as the people get benefits from the government. If that is not a radical approach to socialism then what is? It’s not hard to identify that Obama had socialistic tendencies long before he met the likes of Khalid al-Mansour and William Ayers.]

8. He’s African-American. Let’s be honest. In this rotten year for the Republican brand, if a white Democrat were sitting in the polls where Obama now sits, this “how he might lose” talk would be absurd. [As I recall, several white democrats were sitting in the polls during the primaries, so you and your buddy, Andrew Greeley, need to sell your racism elsewhere. Of course, unless you are actually stating that Obama was not really the people’s choice during the primaries, yet he somehow managed to be elected the democratic nominee?]

 

DEMS’ CAMPAIGN-FINANCE HYPOCRISY

By BOB KERREY

 

On the question of public funding of presidential campaigns, we Democrats who strongly support Sen. Barack Obama‘s candidacy and who previously supported limits on campaign spending and who haven’t objected to Obama’s opting out of the presidential funding system face an awkward fact: Either we are hypocrites, or we were wrong to support such limitations in the first place.

The next time we speak of the virtue of level playing fields or state our strong belief that democracy can’t survive in the modern age unless big money is taken out of campaigns, we’ll be counting on our audience’s forgetting our silence this year, when the free market was flowing in our direction.

A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue – who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we’re doing now.

Former Sen. Wendell Ford once gave me good advice about public issues and votes: “If it takes you more than 10 minutes to explain why you voted a particular way, you probably voted wrong.” It would take me a lot longer than those 10 minutes to explain why I’m not outraged by Obama’s decision to opt out of funding – which has given him a decisive spending advantage over Sen. John McCain.

Actually, I could keep my answer under 10 minutes if I were willing to answer that it’s now to my advantage to act in contradiction to my previously stated beliefs. All I would need to say is that, on the issue of public funding in 2008, I was a hyprocrite.

Of course, there’s another option: Admit I was wrong on such limitations in the first place. And that’s exactly what I’m likely to do.

For the facts in evidence seem to make the case that this presidential campaign is the most exciting, most closely watched and most expensive in my lifetime. That is, there seems to be no correlation between the amount of money spent and disillusionment among the voters. Indeed, the contrary appears to be true.

The argument that money is corrupting our democratic system is as old as our first election. And it is an argument usually made by liberals, who have proposed various interventions in the marketplace of political ideas.

The bedrock federal law here was enacted in 1971 and has been challenged time and again by individuals and groups who view such limits as a violation of the First Amendment. On each of the several occasions when the Supreme Court has ruled against the law, Congress came back with further modifications to the statute.

The most recent effort was in 2002, when Sen. McCain led a bipartisan effort to “clean up the system.” Last year, the high court overturned the key provision of that law, which restricted individuals and groups from engaging in issue campaigns.

There is great irony here, since the key vote in that 5-4 decision was Justice Sam Alito – just the kind of “nonactivist” judge that Sen. McCain has promised to nominate.

So maybe I was simply wrong about placing limits on spending and providing public monies in exchange for adhering to these limits. Of course, it’s possible that I’m making a virtue out of a necessity – since my candidate is now winning in part because, by opting out of the system, he has more money to spend.

In the short term, I’m sad to report that hypocrite is a more accurate label. In the long term, perhaps this will be the moment that causes me to change my views. It certainly feels better than remaining a hypocrite forever.

Bob Kerrey, president of the New School, served as a US senator and governor of Nebraska.

Original article can be found at www.nypost.com