The New York Times wants it both ways

I am not quite sure what to make of this. It just strikes me is quite odd that the New York Times, who once endorsed Hillary Clinton, would turn right around and scold her.

After all, on January 25, 2008, the New York Times said this:

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

But now this same board of editors, because Hillary Clinton did not play by their expected narrative, they publish this:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

Is there any clearer proof of bias at The New York Times? At the very least, it shows that the New York Times wants Hillary to follow a pre-written narrative. How childish can a newspaper be! The very idea, that a major newspaper would publish an endorsement and then, because that said candidate does not jump through said hoops that the Newspaper wishes her to, that paper puts out a Editorial blasting her.

I can clearly see now why the Conservatives as a whole are rejecting the New York Times as some Liberal rag, which does not have the Journalistic integrity that it once did. The shoddy work on the John McCain story was living proof of that this just confirms it totally.

Others on this:Washington Wire, protein wisdom, Swampland, Balloon Juice, Hot Air, MSNBC, Real Clear Politics, Buck Naked Politics, Guardian Unlimited, The American Conservative, CANNONFIRE, Salon, Comedy Central, The Huffington Post, Top of the Ticket, No More Mister Nice Blog, The Strata-Sphere, American Street, Connecting.the.Dots, TalkLeft, TPMCafe, Marc Ambinder, Hotline On Call, Daily Kos, Commentary, Philly.com and The Mahablog

 

New York Sun reports: Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World

Could this be a sign of things to come?

The Article: Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World Via The New York Sun

Quote:

Many parts of America, long considered the breadbasket of the world, are now confronting a once unthinkable phenomenon: food rationing.

Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, Calif., yesterday, shoppers grew frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain for the large sacks of rice they usually buy.

(Snip!)

The bustling store in the heart of Silicon Valley usually sells four or five varieties of rice to a clientele largely of Asian immigrants, but only about half a pallet of Indian-grown Basmati rice was left in stock. A 20-pound bag was selling for $15.99.

Spiking food prices have led to riots in recent weeks in Haiti, Indonesia, and several African nations. India recently banned export of all but the highest quality rice, and Vietnam blocked the signing of a new contract for foreign rice sales.

“I’m surprised the Bush administration hasn’t slapped export controls on wheat,” Mr. Rawles said. “The Asian countries are here buying every kind of wheat.”

(Snip!)

Mr. Rawles said it is hard to know how much of the shortages are due to lagging supply and how much is caused by consumers hedging against future price hikes or a total lack of product.

“There have been so many stories about worldwide shortages that it encourages people to stock up. What most people don’t realize is that supply chains have changed, so inventories are very short,” Mr. Rawles, a former Army intelligence officer, said. “Even if people increased their purchasing by 20%, all the store shelves would be wiped out.”

The Bush Administration, long putting other country over ours is now faced with this sort of a dilemma. What will be our Presidents response, if hurricane Katrina is any indication, we could be in for one of the worst food shortages ever.

I would advise everyone to stock on needed items, as it could get ugly before too long.

Others Bloggers covering this: Raw Story and Bob McCarty Writes

Cross-Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service

Editorial: I just lost all respect for Hillary Clinton

Undoubtedly, you already know what it is that I am referring. The statement by Hillary Clinton that she would obliterate Iran, that country attempted an attack on Israel with nuclear weapons.

Here is the snippet of the interview, that is coming up on Good Morning America.:

She did, however attempt to back off the statement on MSNBC:

 

My friends, this is nothing more than a page out the George W. Bush playbook.  Was it not Hillary Clinton, when confronted by some facts about her policies, fly into a screeching premenstrual rage, about Barack Obama’s tactics being right out of the playbook of Karl Rove?  Now, with the table’s turned and Hillary being under the gun, Hillary herself does the same exact thing, only notches up the rhetoric more.  Yet, she gets a free pass, because she is trailing, because she is the underdog.  Not from this writer she does not.

This Nation, for the last 6 years, has been in quagmire called Iraq.  We were lead into this war, based upon intelligence that, in fact, was found to be false.  Yet, this administration has continued to move the goal posts as to the reason we had to remain in Iraq.  Yet our President in his stubbornness and blind allegiance to a totally flawed and poisonous political ideology has almost strained our Military to the point of almost breaking the back of those of whom we entrust our safety, our lives, our well being.

Now we have some so-called underdog Presidential candidate who is attempting to compare herself to Franklin D. Roosevelt, or John F. Kennedy, both paramount leaders in the annals of the history of America, all so she can attempt to appeal to those who think striking Iran might just be a good idea.

The tough reality is, that involving this country in another military escalation of this sort would do nothing more than further strain and possibly destroy what military we have left.  This is outside of the scope of instituting a military draft.  Not to mention, any sort of Military action, outside of the approval of the United Nations would result in further destabilization of that very region.  Not to mention the United States relations with our allies in the region.

I am not sure exactly what Hillary Clinton is attempting to do, but it could spell the very end of her bid for the office of President of United States.

More Coverage At Memeorandum

 

Crazy Video of a kid threatening the President of the United States.

No, this isn’t a joke. I saw this earlier today, but because I figured it would get yanked, I did not blog on it.

But it seems it is still there. Believe it or not, some idiot kid, has recorded a threat to President of the United States. Of course, he’s a black kid, and a Obama supporter.

Now I’m not a big fan of the President, at all, nor his Political Party, But threats?!?!? Yikes! Time out Surprise That’s totally crazy!

Doesn’t anyone remember the young lady who posted a threatening picture of the President on her website, and got a visit for the Secret Service? I have to wonder aloud, will they pay this kid a visit? Or will they let him skate because he’s….do I dare say it? because he’s black?

It should be an interesting story to follow, I am surprised that Fox News and the other Media outlets haven’t reported on this one yet.

Others following the Story: Hot Air, Gates of Vienna, Fausta’s blog, NewsBusters.org, Macsmind, Gateway Pundit, Atlas Shrugs and Right Voices

WaPo does a piece on McCain’s temper.

Good grief, John McCain can’t even catch a break on Sunday. (Come to think of it, neither can I! WinkingBig Grin )

Seems that The Washington Post has now put out another article on John McCain’s temper.

The McCain camp says it’s totally dishonest and misrepresents him. 

In the Blogosphere, The left is breaking out the surrender hymnals and the defeatist scrolls and treating this piece as The Gospel According to St. WaPo. That is after offering their hourly prayers for the Obamassiah. You know, St. Magic Negro?

Even the Moderate Voice, which is supposed to be a moderate voice of reason in the Blogosphere, is accepting this article as gospel, maybe they should change their name to Liberal Voice, because any open minded Moderate would want to know the truth, before accepting something as Gospel. 

The response on the right has been as expected, they’re crying "Foul!" and dismissing it as a liberal hit piece on John McCain. Which is to be expected.

My Take on it:

First off, I don’t know John McCain, So, I am not about to sit here and pronounce Judgement on someone, that I do not know. Second of all, I find it very disturbing that the Washington Post, which is a supposed to be a respectable news organization, would take an article like this, based upon half truths and gossip, and print them as fact. I would expect this from say, a DC Gossip Blog, like Wonkette, but from the Washington Post? Come on. They can do better than this. I feel that if the Washington Post wants to trash Senator McCain, trash him on his politics, trash him on his policy positions, but leave the gossip, the innuendo and the downright blatant stupidity to the National Enquirer, and other Magazines. 

Others on this:Hot Air, The Corner, Roger L. Simon, THE LIBERAL JOURNAL, The Moderate Voice, The American Conservative, The Carpetbagger Report, DownWithTyranny!, The Caucus, AMERICAblog, Shakesville, Ed Driscoll.com, Jonathan Martin’s Blogs, The Seminal, TownHall Blog, Althouse, Redstate, Pam’s House Blend, The Swamp, Booman Tribune, JammieWearingFool, NewsBusters.org and Macsmind

 

Did the Pentagon try and shape the war’s image?

 Red Meat for the Democrats, but it doesn’t surprise me. Of course, Some are living in denial. Some more than others

The Article: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (Via New York Times)

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

I’d head on over and read it, it is a 11 page report on how the Government attempted to shape the image of the war, Gitmo and the whole deal. It is no big surprise to me. See, I know how Neo-Conservatives work, they know no bounds. War is just a means to justify making a profit. Even it means sacrificing some of our own. Now, I won’t sit here and attempt to compare Neo-Conservatives to Nazi’s, that’s going a wee bit overboard. But there are striking similarities. But to say that they’re exactly alike, that’s pushing it. Even I won’t get drawn into such foolishness.

Now, before anyone accuses me of being a Liberal, and just hating conservatives, Let me set you straight, I grew up in Church, I have the Christian morals instilled in me as a child. I know that Homosexuality is immoral, I do not believe in gay rights, at all. I believe abortion, of any sort, is quite frankly, murder.

However, I also know that there is evil within the Conservative Party. The Neo-Conservatives, who are, made of, or at least originally were, made up of ex-Democrats, who brought their warmongering mentality with them. They crossed over, when the Democrat Party began to embrace the civil rights movement. Some of you might remember the Dixiecrat debacle, that was the first wave, the second wave was in 1964, when the civil rights bill was passed.

Many Democrat’s and most real Conservatives, felt that the bill was wrong, in that the civil rights act should have been a State issue and not one of Federal Government. Notably, one of those people was Barry Goldwater, A Conservative, of whom many Liberals hold up today as some sort of a hero. I just don’t understand, why some Liberal talk show hosts, claim to love a party, who in fact, turned on their father’s in 1964, and painted him as mentally unstable. Odd bunch they are.

Another thing that I’d like to point out is that not every person in America, who holds to any sort of Conservative convictions, considers the Republican Party to be on the mark. One only need go to NewsWithViews and WorldNetDaily to see that there are many people out there that just feel that the G.O.P. is not the party of old. Now I realize that those links might generate a giggle among some of you, and yes, there is some propaganda on those sites. I don’t deny that. But there’s a whole bunch of truth on them sites too. On average, the truth to propaganda ratio on those sites is about 10 to 3, really. This is why I read them.

The people that quite frankly disturb me, are the people who blindly accept what the G.O.P. says and does, as pure Gospel, those are the strange folk.

Others on this article: Washington Monthly, Democracy Project, Weekly Standard Blog, Emptywheel, The Garlic, The Gun Toting Liberal™, Blue Girl, Red State, Firedoglake, Feministe, Matthew Yglesias, Economist’s View, Truthdig, SWJ Blog, Macsmind, Blog entry, Corrente, Think Progress

A Video, that everyone needs to watch…

I think everyone needs to watch this:

It’s pretty scary, but all true.

If you enjoyed this video, please consider a donation to this Blog. Click here to listen to a message from me, about why I need the donations.

Sometimes watching Fox News is like shooting fish in a barrel

I’ll tell ya… I don’t know whether to laugh at him and feel sorry for him.

It’s just like being at the scene of a horrible accident. You don’t want to look, but it’s just so damn tempting. SmugRolling Eyes

Kathy Ham is hot as hell though, Oh Yeah, I’d tap that. I’d would need some duct tape for her mouth though. That and a good sock. SurpriseWinkingBig GrinBatting Eyelashes

John Aravosis has questions for McCain….

Valid Questions. 

Does John McCain require his mistress to wear a flag pin? (via AMERICAblog)

McCain is going on Stephanopoulos’ show this Sunday, so I’m hoping Stephanopoulos will be pushing McCain hard on the following issues…

Oh, and before the outrage machine kicks in – ABC just asked a presidential candidate on national television if his pastor loves America. After that little ditty, what isn’t fair game?:

1. Adultery. McCain reportedly was seeing his second wife while still married to his first wife. And, then we have the issue of the blond lobbyist who looks like McCain’s second wife. America deserves answers.

2. Does John McCain require his mistresses to wear a flag pin?

3. McCain working for the enemy. If a US soldier made propaganda tapes for the enemy (like John McCain did), then went on to run for president as a Democrat, the Republicans would eviscerate that candidate. I want George Stephanopoulos to ask John McCain if he loves America as much as soldiers who didn’t make propaganda tapes for the enemy while in captivity. Oh, and in case you think I’m kidding, here are McCain’s own words:

Later, I made a second, feebler attempt at suicide. On the fourth day, I gave up. I signed a confession that "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pilot".
The guards ordered me to record my confession on tape. I refused, and was beaten until I consented.

Well, I’m sure a POW has never been beaten before, so it’s totally understandable why McCain betrayed his country during his "hero" years in Vietnam. (Or are we to assume that all American POWs betray their country while in captivity, right?)

4. Old age. John McCain is old, everyone knows it. I love my parents, they’re in their late 70s, they’re great people, but they probably shouldn’t be president at this age. John McCain would be the oldest new president EVER if he gets elected (and we all saw what happened to Reagan in his second term). I hope we’ll be seeing some hard hitting questions about McCain being simply too old.

5. That enormous thing on the side of McCain’s face. McCain had skin cancer a few years ago. He now has some enormous thing on the side of his face that no one is talking about. I want to know why we shouldn’t be worried that John McCain is going to get sick and die in office.

6. Cindy McCain’s drug addiction. What message does it send to America’s children to have a drug addict, who actually stole drugs, as first lady?

7. Would John McCain quit a church that had his wife as pastor?

8. Is John McCain going to jail for 5 years? McCain has illegally pulled out of the public campaign finance system. That’s a crime punishable by 5 years in prison. Is Stephanopoulos going to break media silence on this issue and ask John McCain whether he’s too old to go prison?

9. Will McCain make propaganda tapes while he’s in prison?

WOW! Surprise I thought I was harsh…

But they are valid questions. How much you want to bet, that they won’t get asked? Money Eyes

Others: Oliver Willis and The BRAD BLOG

A new Progressive Jewish PAC

(via Huffington Post)

Video:

Quote:

At last, at long last. There will be a hard money lobby in Washington that represents progressives on Israel/Palestine issues, that lobbies for Israeli/Palestinian peace, that acts as a counterweight to AIPAC.

(Snip!)

Unlike the existing groups, this group will actually support candidates for office.

Right now, they are taking nominations for who they should support in the fall. Make the best case that your favored candidate will work to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace. That’s exactly the dynamic we need: candidates competing to do the most to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace, as opposed to competing to do the opposite.

There is no time like the present. This week, former President Carter is meeting with the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, in Syria. As Carter has said, "There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Of course, as the Washington Post notes, it will be the case for the foreseeable future that AIPAC will have more money and more people.

But that misses the fact that those with less money can have more influence when they are telling the truth, if they can just muscle their way to the microphone.

While I must agree with the content of this video, the rhetoric used by those on the far right, is not what the majority of the main stream America believes. 

On the other hand, the idea that Jimmy Carter met with a convicted terrorist living in exile, totally burns my boots. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and anyone who meets with them, supports that mentality. Sorry Liberals, I don’t believe there is any way anyone, who claims to be Pro-American, could go and meet with someone, who is against the values that America stands for, and supports Islamic rule.  Sorry, I don’t buy the diplomacy line.

For all we know, Hamas helped fund the Sept 11’th attacks in America.

Of course, not everyone is convinced. See here and here.

As if Obama needed any other problems… there’s this…

Oy….

Quote:

While Sen. Barack Obama sought to improve his relationship with the Jewish community today by meeting with leaders Philadelphia, comments by a Hamas political adviser this weekend could potentially hurt the Democratic presidential candidate.

During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

Of course, the far right choir starts singing:

On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change." 

Funny, the far right just cannot seem to get over that "Obama is a covert Terrorist!" nonsense.  I’ll tell you, that is going to come back and bite them in the behind in November, because it smacks of not only Black Racism, but Islamic homophobic nonsense.

Others: Dartblog, Israel Matzav, Associated Press, Hot Air, A NEWT ONE, Jihad Watch, Commentary, Jules Crittenden, Redstate, NO QUARTER and Counterterrorism Blog

Obama’s Dad, A Marxist?

It seems so….

 

An Article that was reported by The Politico, exposes an paper, that was originally written in 1965. The Article that was dug up by Greg Ransom at PrestoPundit. However, he didn’t get much of a acknowledgement, which is telling of the MSM.

 

The Original Article can be found here.  Adobe reader is required.

 

Some of the Highlights of this Paper:

 

OBAMA ON COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP OF LAND

"[Session Paper No. 10] goes into use and control of resources.  The first statement concerns conflict of opinion on attitude toward land ownership.  It is true that in most African societies the individual had sole right as to the use of land and proceeds from it.  He did, however, own it only as a trustee to the clan, tribe or society.  He could give it on loan to someone outside the tribe to use, but he had no right to sell it outside the tribe .. How then can there be a conflict of opinion on communal ownership?  ..

It is surprising that one of the best African traditions [the communal ownership of land] is not only being put aside in this paper [in favor of private ownership] but even the principle is not being recognized and enhanced .. we can avoid economic power concentration and bring standardized use and control of resources through public ownership, let alone the equitable distribution of economic gains that follow ..

Will [land consolidation] be easily done through individual action, through co-operatives or through government ownership?  Realizing social stickiness and inflexibility and looking at the society’s distrust of change, one would see that, if left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come.  We have to look at priorities tin terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.

Would it not seem, then, the government could bring more rapid consolidation through clan co-operatives?  Individual initiative is not usually the best method of bringing land reform.  Since proper land use and control is very important if we are going to overcome the dual [rich Indian & European vs. poor black African class] character of our economy and thereby increase productivity, the government should take a positive stand and, if need be, force people to consolidate through the easiest way, which, I think, would be through clan co-operatives rather than through individual initiative."

OBAMA ON A CLASSLESS SOCIETY

"If one says that the African society was classless as the paper says, what is there to stop it from being a class society as time goes on?  Is what has been said in the paper, if implemented, enough to eschew this danger?  .. The question is how are we going to remove the disparities in our country such as the concentration of economic power in Asian and European hands while not destroying what haws already been achieved and at the same time assimilating these groups to build one country?

.. On class problems, the paper states that since there was not such a thing in Africa, the problem is that of prevention.  This is to ignore the truth of the matter. One wonders whether the authors of the paper have not noticed that a discernible class structure has emerged in Africa and particularly in Kenya.  While we welcome the idea of prevention, we should also try to cure what has slipped in.

The elimination of foreign economic and political domination is a good gesture towards this, so are plans to develop in order to prevent antagonistic classes.  But we also need to  eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.  It is a case of cure and prevention and not prevention alone."

OBAMA ON THE NATIONALIZATION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

"There is a statement made on nationalization [in Sessional Paper No. 10].  True there are cases in which nationalization is bad, but there are, likewise, quite a few benefits to be derived from it.  On this subject I would like to refer the authors to Prof. Bronferbrenner’s [sic] work on the "Appeals for confiscation in Economic Development"* [sic — the referenced article is titled "The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development"].  Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest .."

*Econ. Development and Cultural Change — Vol III, No. 3, 1955 pp. 201-18

OBAMA ON THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY KENYANS OF ASIAN AND EUROPEAN DECENT

"There is also a statement that nationalization will apply to African enterprise.  How can we talk of nationalizing African enterprise when such enterprises do not exit?  If we are going to nationalize, we are going to nationalize what exists and is worth nationalizing.  But these are European and Asian enterprises.

One need not be a Kenyan to note that nearly all commercial enterprises from small shops in River Road to big shops in Government Road and that industries in the Industrial Areas of Nairobi are mostly owned by Asians and Europeans.  One need not be a Kenyan to note that when one goes to a good restraurant he mostly finds Asians and Europeans, nor has he to be a Kenyan to see that the majority of cars running in Kenya are run by Asians and Europeans.  How then can we say that we are going to to be indiscriminate in rectifying these imbalances?  We have to give the African his place in his own country and we have to give him this economic power if he is going to develop.  The paper talks of fear of retarding growth if nationalization or purchases of these enterprises are made for Africans.  But for whom doe we want to grow?  Is it the African who owns this country?  If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?

It is mainly in this country that one finds almost everything owned by the non-indigenous populace.  The government must do something about this and soon."

OBAMA ON 100% TAXATION

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

OBAMA ON MARX AND TAXATION

"The paper wishes to encourage domestic accumulation.  This is a good gesture except for the underlying assumption which one only reads between the lines, that it is individual private enterprise and business that tends to encourage accumulation.  True, in the paper there is a realization that taxation can be used as a means of forced saving, but it is given a secondary place in this respect.  Certainly there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay.  It is a fallacy to say that there is a limit and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on the individual fre

e enterprise to get the savings.  Who are we going to rid ourselves of economic power concentration when we, in our blueprint, tend towards what we ourselves discredit?  In paragraph 47 the paper state that the company form of business organization is a departure from the direct individual ownership typical in Marx’s day.  Yet one who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism but Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many and through this have not only economic power but political power as well."

OBAMA ON THE POLICY OF "NON-ALIGNMENT"

"It is a tautology to say that we want to be independent of other countries since every country has always wished this.  It would have been more important to talk of how we intend to break our dependence on other countries politically and economically, since this is fait accompli.  It may be true that this is still the case because of our lack of basic resources and skilled manpower, yet one can choose to develop by the bootstraps rather than become a pawn to some foreign powers such as Sekou Toure did.  While the statement of the policy of non-alignment is good and encouraging, one would wish to see it put into practice."

[Note:  At the time Obama’s article was written Guinea President Sekou Toure was accepting aid from the United States and acceding to many of its foreign policy demands, after an earlier period when Toure had accepted aid from the Soviets and the Soviet block.  Relations between Toure and Moscow had cooled after Toure accused the Soviets of helping to plot the overthrow of his government.]

Now, honestly? I don’t believe that we should base our judgement of Obama, based on a paper, written in 1965 by Obama Father. Obama’s Father is not Barack Obama. Obama’s Dad had some serious issues, It has been reported that his Dad was an alcoholic and ended up committing suicide. Well,  at least was in a Alcohol related accident.

 

However, anyone who is a rational person, will look at this, and would want to know more about him, he should be pressed, HARD about his feelings about this Paper. He needs to be grilled, hard on his Political and World-view, he should be cornered and asked if he agrees with this paper, point by point.

 

Although, if I know the MSM, like I do, they will go easy on him and won’t press him at all. Because, basically, they’re acting like he’s freaking Jesus Christ, and I think it is totally wrong. The main reason they won’t press him, because he is black, if they start needling him with questions, some feckless Negro or Liberal (Same difference anymore!), screams "RACE!"

 

We need answers, but, if I know the media like I do. We won’t get them.

 

Others on this: PrestoPundit, michellemalkin.com, Liberal Values, Hot Air, Sweetness & Light, The New Republic, Outside The Beltway, baldilocks, Gateway Pundit, The Opinionator, The Page and Balloon Juice

An Excellent Video

I like this video. I think no matter what your opinion is of the Iraq War and Politics behind it. Our troops deserve nothing but our support. Anyone one who does anything other than this, quite frankly, is un-American.

 

 

What strikes me, is how the person the introduced this, is like so no interested in handling the story. He can’t even smile when doing a report? Can you say Bias?

Cross Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service and Chuck’s Place

Obama Bin Laden?

Oy…..

The Video:

The Story:

At the close of Q and A at an Associated Press luncheon in Washington, DC, AP chairman Dean SIngleton skipped over a question on what’s becoming known as “bitter-gate” in favor of asking Illinois Senator Barack Obama what he surely thought would be a less controversial question on Iraq.

Would the senator be willing to shift a substantial number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, asked Singleton, where the Taliban has been gaining strength — and “Obama bin Laden” is still at large.

The room was quiet – as the crowd contemplated whether they’d in fact heard what they thought they heard. But Obama, apparently, heard the same thing. After a pause and a smile, he said “I think that was OSAMA bin Laden.”

A red-faced Singleton put his hands to his head. “If I did that, I’m so sorry!” he said.

Obama assured Singleton that the verbal misfire was a-ok with him. “This is part of the exercise that I’ve been going through over the last 15 months,” he said, breaking into a grin. “Which is why it’s pretty impressive I’m still standing here.” The professionally-stoic crowd of journalists gave Obama a round of applause.

Had that been Fox News or anyone on the Conservative side, the Liberal roar of outrage would be deafening.

No Job for Gonzo?

gonzo

No, not that Gonzo!

 

Update: I just freakin’ noticed that picture up there of Gonzo, has a gun it it’s handSurpriseDohBelieve me, I didn’t mean a thing, by posting that. I just wanted a funny Gonzo Picture… It was just something I grabbed off of Google Images. I think everyone is smart enough to know that… but you never know… so, I’m just letting everyone know!

 

This one: (H/T New York Times)

13gonzales.190

 

Quote:

Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

Well, I would guess so, seeing how he basically assisted George W. Bush destroy  America’s Constitution.

He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought.

A longtime loyalist to George W. Bush dating to their years together in Texas, Mr. Gonzales was once widely viewed as a strong candidate to be the first Hispanic-American nominated one day to the Supreme Court. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he carried an impressive personal story as the child of poor Mexican immigrants.

Despite those credentials, he left office last August with a frayed reputation over his role in the dismissal of several federal prosecutors and the truthfulness of his testimony about a secret eavesdropping program. He has had no full-time job since his resignation, and his principal income has come from giving a handful of talks at colleges and before private business groups.

“Maybe the passage of time will provide some opportunity for him,” said one Washington lawyer who was aware of an inquiry to his firm from a Gonzales associate. “I wouldn’t say ‘rebuffed,’ ” said the lawyer, who asked his name not be used because the situation being described was uncomfortable for Mr. Gonzales. “I would say ‘not taken up.’ ”

Party Loyalty has it’s downside, eh Gonzo? Karma is such a terrible thing.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Galatians 6:7 KJV)

Amen.

 

Others on this: Shakesville, MoJoBlog, DownWithTyranny!, Rox Populi, Donklephant and Cliff Schecter …

Cross-Posted at my other Blog: The American Nationalist News Service

Obama says, "Ooops."

Update: In Fairness to the man, here is what was said…..:

 

 

Honestly the only people freaking out about this, are the Far Right Wing Conservatives and the Hillary supporters. Which I think is stupid, did he insult people? No. Did he possibly say something in a bad manner? Yes. But people are acting like he just insulted the damn pope or something! Which I think speaks volumes for the people insulted, if you ask me. and that last part, that some people are going ape over, was, in fact, a joke. I think some turban headed pundits, need to find something else to bitch about. Things must be slow over there at a well known, pseudo-Conservative Blog, and they’re now grasping at straws. No wonder Preston left. Rolling Eyes

 

It appears that Senator Obama is now eating crow. Here’s the story via the AP, which comes in via Yahoo:

 

The Article: Obama concedes remarks were ill chosen (via AP/ Yahoo! News)

Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that comments he made about bitter working class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that he is condescending.

 

"I didn’t say it as well as I should have," he said at Ball State University.

Here is the Video:

 

 

And…. of course, Senator Hillary Clinton felt the need, that she just HAD to pile on.

 

 

Quote:

 

As he tried to quell the furor, presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton hit Obama with one of her lengthiest and most pointed criticisms to date.

 

"Senator Obama’s remarks were elitist and out of touch," she said, campaigning about an hour away in Indianapolis. "They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."

 

I got news for you lady, there is a quite a few things that I could say about YOU being out of touch with the rest of America.  However, because I do not wish to sit here and get into a dissertation about your Husband’s Presidency, I shall refrain, but let me just say this here, that "out of touch" stuff goes both ways Hillary. You know it and your feckless Husband knows it.

 

Others on this: American Street, Little Green Footballs, NY Daily News, Examining Presidential … and Liberal Values

 

Editorial: Answer to a very stupid Question

Tom Blumer at Pajamas Media asks this question.

Quote:

The current president has done more than any other to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa. Why haven’t the media noticed?

 

Two Reasons, for one there is an election taking place, just in case you forgot, and the main stream media is also too busy covering our President ripping our Constitution to shreds and violating the various Geneva conventions.

 

Let me give you some working examples…:

 

These Videos come from one of the best political shows on American television, his reporting transcends political parties and appeals to Americans who still believe in that Constitution and the values it stands for.  

 

The Videos:

 

 

 

and finally, one of the most telling of videos ever to be broadcast on National American Television, This Commentary, by one of the highest rated Political Television Commentators out there:

 

 

Now as to your question about AIDS, While I know and personally believe AIDS is a horrible and dreadful disease, it is being over shadowed by a Presidency that is, in the most Conservative of terms, shameful. George W. Bush and his clan of Neo-Conservative, war-mongering, thugs have disgraced America, Disgraced the Republican Party, possibly to the point of never, ever, being able to gain access to the White House, for the next four to six years or possibly and quite frankly, hopefully, for longer than this. Why? All because a very simple minded man, who felt he needed to out accomplish his Father, and in the process has put the United States of America in one of it’s worse positions in foreign relations, in it’s many years of existence as a Nation.

 

Now it would be easy, to dismiss me as some disenfranchised, Anti-American, Liberal with an attitude, but allow me to make some very valid points here. When the John Birch Society, Writers at NewsWithViews.com, WorldNetDaily, like Dr. W.R. Marshall, Ph.D, Cliff Kincaid, Chuck Baldwin, Devvy Kidd, Joseph Farah, Ilana Mercer are saying that the President of the United States of America has abused his powers, disgraced the Nation and totally ignored the Constitution all for his perverted and rather narrow sighted political view, then something is very wrong.

 

And yet, the Republicans just continue to sit, like mindless trolls and continue to allow this man to completely and abjectly, lie to them and tell them that he is protecting America.  All because of a now dead, half baked, Former Democrat, Former President told some reporters, "Thou Shall not speak against thy fellow Republicans".  I am sorry, But I do not, for one second, believe that Ronald Reagan meant that you should sit idly by and watch as some criminal warmonger destroys America, the values it was based upon and the Constitution that serves, as the very underpinnings of founding principles of this Nation.

 

I will end this rather lengthy Blog entry, turned editorial with this thought, if the Republican Party and Conservatives in America do not wake up to the fact that they have been betrayed, lied to, and double crossed by the most evil of persons, within the Conservatives and within the Republican Party. The Republican Party will, in fact, go the way of the Whig Party of old.

 

I truly hope that they awake from their slumber before then.

Republicans Reportedly "transitioning" away from the FISA Telecom Immunity fight….

Glenn Greenwald Reports that The Hill is reporting the following:

I’m still traveling and so have only a little bit of time to comment, but The Hill is reporting that the GOP is de-prioritizing their efforts to enact the Rockefeller/Cheney FISA bill:

"House Republicans are poised to shift their focus from national security to the economy, hoping to rally opposition to what they claim are Democratic plans to raise taxes amid the economic downturn.

 

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is expected to announce Thursday that the House GOP floor emphasis will transition away from passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and earmark reform to "stop the tax hike.""

I tend to think that the Republicans, at least the ones in the Senate realize that they are not going to win this fight and that it could cost them some serious votes in the coming election. So, I tend to think they’ve changed their priorities. 

 

Unlike some of the more of the ardent Right Wingers or as the rest of the World calls them, the Right Wing Lunatic Fridge, I know that if these companies get immunity, America’s Justice system would be totally undermined. Now, do I believe that the Bush Administration broke the law? I do not know that, as I have zero proof of such claim. 

 

My feelings are, if the Bush Administration has done nothing wrong, then what do they have to hide? If they’ve done nothing wrong, they should not have a problem with the investigations or lawsuit, because they would be vindicated.

 

Unlike some of the more far right Conservatives, I do not believe that Corporate power should be protected. Every American, of any Religious persuasion, and yes, that does include Muslim, have the right to legal recourse, if they feel that they’ve been unfairly investigated. That is one of our Nation’s founding principles.

 

Others: Think Progress

McCain closes Obama’s lead in a poll…..that includes "leaners"….

An interesting poll, taken by the Associated Press-Ipsos shows that McCain is basically tied with Obama. 

 

Quote:

An AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February had Obama leading McCain 51-41 percent. The current survey, conducted April 7-9, had them at 45 percent each. McCain leads Obama among men, whites, Southerners, married women and independents.

 

Clinton led McCain, 48-43 percent, in February. The latest survey showed the New York senator with 48 percent support to McCain’s 45 percent. Factoring in the poll’s margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, Clinton and McCain are statistically tied.

 

However, here’s the thing that kind of makes this poll a joke:

 

Although the race between Clinton and Obama remained unchanged, there were a few shifts in whom voters are choosing:

 

• The gender gap has mostly disappeared, with Clinton losing her advantage among women. In February, 51 percent of Democratic women supported Clinton while 38 percent were for Obama. Now they’re statistically tied at 44 percent for Clinton, 42 percent for Obama. That is partially offset by a decline in male support for Obama, down 7 points to 50 percent, while Clinton gained 10 points among men. She is now at 42 percent.

 

• Obama and Clinton are now statistically about even among households earning under $50,000. In late February, Clinton led 54 percent to 37 percent, but now it is just 48 percent to 41 percent.

 

• Obama now leads Clinton among self-described moderate Democrats, 51 percent to 35 percent. Previously they were 45 percent Clinton, 40 percent Obama.

 

The poll questioned 1,005 adults nationally. Included were interviews with 489 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 points; and 369 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.1 points.

 

I mean, how fixed can a poll be? If that wasn’t a bad poll, I don’t know what is. Rolling EyesFrustrated

 

Leaning?!?!?! That could mean anything, how do we know those people weren’t lying?

 

I really do not think that this will really matter, the general public and those paying attention, know the John McCain is going to be equated with Bush and his Policies and people will not vote for him. Obama will win, I think, I would be wrong. But I highly doubt people will vote for him.

 

Others: MSNBC, Wake up America, TalkLeft and PoliGazette (via Memeorandum)

Jewish Racism by a Obama Supporter!

The Article: Reverend Eric Lee’s Anti-Semitism: A Personal Story (via Pajamas Media)

 

On April 4, 2008, at a Los Angeles event commemorating the assassination of Martin Luther King, the African-American fraternity Alpha Kappa Psi gave Israeli-American Daphna Ziman its Tom Bradley Award for community service. Then the event’s keynote speaker, Reverend Eric Lee, turned to Ms. Ziman and launched an anti-Semitic diatribe. Roger L. Simon interviewed Ms. Ziman.

 

Watch this Video:

 

 

That’s the saddest thing I have ever had to watch. I think Senator Barack Obama needs to publicly condemn this, there’s just no call for it.

I look for this to be the big story in the next couple of days.

 

Update: Thankfully, this is being picked up, several Bloggers have started talking about it: Roger L. Simon and Classical Values

Early Evening Political Humor

Political Blog Wars are so amusing to watch.

 

Mainly because both sides talk past one another. Not once do they listen to the other side.

 

Go see what I am talking about. I think that’s the reason why the main stream media hates us Bloggers so much. I doubt one could argue the fact that most Bloggers, especially Political Bloggers, like me, always feel the need to be right and to get the last word.

 

To me, watching a Blog war, is like watching a roman conquest. Flaming boulders being shot back and forth, it’s quite amazing. Grown people, squabbling like children.

 

But then again, that’s Politics.

Did Petraeus Overplay His Hand?

Philip Carter thinks so… 

 

The Article: Petraeus Overplays His Hand (Via Intel Dump @ WaPo)

Except that in making this pitch, Petraeus and Crocker overplayed their hand. They overstated the threat posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq in an effort to justify the mission — a mindset that has generated a deeply flawed strategy. They also overplayed the surge’s success — downplaying or discounting factors that likely did more to create today’s improved security conditions. While their "Anaconda" strategy looks cool on a PowerPoint slide, it confuses the issues of control and influence, putting too much stock in America’s ability to engineer success in Iraq. And, perhaps most tellingly, the two men made the case for perseverance without placing Iraq in the context of vital U.S. national interests, offering only apocalyptic predictions of what would happen if we don’t stay the course.

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

But that was their carefully prescribed task. I don’t fault them. They’re not responsible for overall strategy. At one point last year, I was worried that Petraeus was being used politically. I was wrong. He’s been a magnificent general, in a near-impossible situation. Ditto Crocker. Along with Patrick Fitzgerald, they strike me as among the most impressive public servants of our time.

 

Now that is a bit overstated, I think, Because I personally believe that General Patraeus is, in the Bush Administration’s eyes, a pawn. A Pawn in a Neo-Conservative chess game.

 

While I admire Patraeus for doing his job, I think he knows what he is doing. He’s keeping his head down, and doing his job, and when the President is out of office. He will write a book, that will basically indict his bosses. I could be wrong, but I think General Patraeus is holding his cards to his vest and will tell all, when it’s all over with.

 

Should be interesting indeed.

 

Others: Washington Post and SWJ Blog