Reviewing some of the 2004 election coverage, I am struck by how different 08 is shaping up to be. A few things jumped out at me:
1. There is no longer a debate about the “meaning of patriotism.” Perhaps the Left is ceding that territory.
2. John Kerry’s essential “gravitas” is no longer relevant for the senator from Illinois.
3. There is no discussion at all about “values voters” or “evangelicals”.
4. The patriotism (i.e., war experience) that was so critical for the Kerry campaign in 08 is not relevant at all for the senator from Illinois.
5. I have heard neither candidate actually say the word “Al-Qaeda” in this campaign.
Have these five issues been finally resolved?
I think McCain is simply so focused on the bland, gushy middle – the yeast of America, as it were – that he can’t be bothered to court actual conservatives who (for better or worse) also account for most of the values voters. McCain assists Obama every time he says “Wall Street greed” or promises to reach across the aisle.
This in turn creates a situation in which Obama is not on the defensive. He may finally be feeling some heat for his terrorist ties, but he is simply refusing to engage on the subject because though McCain is mentioning it, he’s doing it as if he respects Obama’s choice to court the terror vote.
Merely four days away from the polls, any effort for John McCain to veer right will be too little too late. However, he can continue to hammer out the truth of Obama’s tax policies. I guess at this point, it’s the only bullet in the chamber.
That being said, I think that McCain has a better chance at the presidency than is being represented by the media. He’s not a great candidate – he brings nothing to the presidency but his stubborn desire to be president. Even so, I think most people in this country understand that even being as neutral and lefty-friendly as McCain is, he is vastly better suited to be president than the socialist, terrorist-connected senator with 300 days in office.
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one, or both, of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etcetera.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit, and eventually dismantle, the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Another impoverished Obama relative, an aunt, was discovered in a Boston slum. While the article is fascinating, perhaps the most fascinating thing is that it was published on an English website, not in the American media, which has blacked out negative news on the Chosen One.
The hypocrisy of Obama talking about his fate being tied to those of the black community and being “literally my brother’s keeper” and letting his brother live in a Kenya slum hut with an income of $12 a year and allowing his aunt to waste away in Boston is nothing short of breath-taking. Why is he not redistributing his wealth to his own family?
That’s crazy and sad and hypocritical, but it’s not as outright nefarious as this:
She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”
Lastnight, the One seized the airwaves to brainwash us – and apparently he was successful since no media this morning is mentioning the “Civilian National Security Force” he mentioned.
This domestic force, which would violate posse comitatus, is ostensibly needed because “our military can’t do it all” and he wants to “fully fund” this force to the tune of $500 billion – the current national defense budget – which would give us a one trillion dollar budget for national defense.
What on earth would Obama do with such a force?
Is it ironic to anyone else that the Democrats who so loathe Blackwater are attempting to install its equivalent in our domestic territory?
See ya in the gulags!
(A great discussion about our new overlords can be found at Little Green Footballs)
Does this headline and the first two paragraphs make any sense to you?
Record turnout was seen for new voters, young, Hispanics
Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going.
While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn’t vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.
How can it be “record turnout” if it was below average?
In any case, this confirms Gallup’s analysis.
Oh it’s going to be a long six days.
Zombie (who always has the best pictures of protests) has an essay today about Barack Obama’s close encounters with the Weather Underground. It’s worth a look – certainly very provocative.
This article reminds us of the good old days, when we were actually terrified of terrorists. It’s actually an article about a guy who tries to get arrested for terrorism and can’t. And it’s not fiction. So read it. And weep.
The Los Angeles Times is concealing a video showing Barack Obama at a going away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, attended by radical Palestinian activists and former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.. Both Little Green Footballs and Gateway Pundit are all over the story, asking for readers to demand the LA Times release the video after the writer, Peter Wallsten said he won’t release the video or reveal his sources.
The fact that the MSM is withholding possible game-changing material in the days before a presidential election is unconscionable. But enough is known about the video that we can possibly put to rest the fiction that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood.” He was, and is, a political ally with a radical agenda which incorporates the destruction of the United States as we know it. Whether or not Obama’s supporters actually agree with that agenda should be left up to them to decide – not the LAT.
The question has uncomfortable parallels to the comments by some European socialist in 2002 that it was fine if Swedes or Dutch or whoever vote themselves into Sharia law; that’s what a democracy is all about. Is it fine if Americans vote themselves into socialism?
I think not, since socialism is at odds with the Founding Fathers’ values of rugged individualism. The Constitution doesn’t outline an economic system but it seems logical that free-markets, which give the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity to the greatest number of people, is preferable to socialism in any degree, which gives the power to government. It makes us all supplicants to the state.
If that is our fate, shouldn’t we at least have the ability to know it? Shouldn’t we know what we’re getting with any presidential candidate?
This newest weasel move by a so-called reputable paper got me thinking about what would happen if we all had friends like the Los Angeles Times. I have to admit, it would be pretty awesome to have someone who forgot every time you hung out with unsavory characters, someone who endorsed you no matter what, someone who remembered every bad, embarrassing thing about your enemies – and when there was nothing to remember, just made crap up.
Barack Obama has not made any comment on the tape, and since his buddies at the big coastal dailies are not about to cooperate in any investigation into the matter, it will come down to each individual to try and get the story for himself and every other voter. In that sense, we are all bloggers today.
Let us not elect a terrorist into the White House in 2008. We can do better. And the LA Times should be ashamed.
The LAT is running a story this morning about the video and reports:
The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”
That’s noble. I keep my promises to sources too, but if one of them was hanging out with an FBI Most Wanted criminal, they’d be in custody faster than you could say “First Amendment.”
Why is this subject a source of so much angst to reporters? Why are they so beholden to sources that they’re willing to compromise their personal and professional integrity to protect them? The argument is that without confidential sources, nobody would come forward to report on corporate malfeasance or political shenanigans. Whistleblowers would be left out in the cold. But the opposite is not true – those who are doing devious things, socializing with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who would blow up the LA Times building and everyone inside if they got a chance to do so are deemed so worthy of our protections and confidence that that the reporters happily turn a blind eye. The bad guys are given infinite protections.
I think the fact that this is a presidential candidate and not, say, some CEO is also relevant. This is the future of our country. We have the right to know who his supporters, friends, allies, and lobbyists are. I wonder, if the tape showed him palling around with Osama bin Laden, would the journalist in question still be as reticent to reveal the tape? My instinct says yes.
It seems to me that just because you put on your reporter hat, you don’t abandon your integrity. But the LA Times has done just that. By keeping a promise to a source, they are betraying everyone else.
Debbie Schlussel spoke to Wallsten, and then he immediately plagiarized her work. Again: Integrity, anyone?
Drudge remembers that the LAT had no problem releasing a controversial Arnold tape. Perhaps the Arnold source didn’t require the promise of confidentiality. That promise, it would seem, is rock solid. It’s the law.