Finkelstein: Calling Blacks 'The Other Folks' Not Racist Topic: NewsBusters
A Nov. 3 NewsBusters post by Mark Finkelstein criticizes the New York Times' Paul Krugman for "impugn[ing] the party of Lincoln as 'a haven for racists and reactionaries.'"
The only evidence Krugman adduces in support of his Republican-are-racists slur is that GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia "observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that 'the other folks are voting.'” Where's the racism, given that 90+% of African-Americans are expected to vote for Obama and presumably for Chambliss's Dem opponent?
Finkelstein doesn't see the racist connotation of calling blacks "the other folks"? We're not sure how to even respond to that.
Obama has already proposed the creation of a homeland police force that will no doubt terrorize those in the "ultra-right" who will become the most vociferous and active opponents of his socialist regime. Hitler had a similar police force called the Gestapo – Geheime Staats Polizie or Homeland State Police – that terrorized the opponents of the Nazi regime.
In 1933 a majority of Germans voted for a demagogue who promised "change" and seemed to be the answer to their economic and national problems. None of those voters could have foreseen that 12 years later Germany would lie in ruins and be occupied by foreign armies.
The young followers of Barack Obama have been well indoctrinated in our public schools to accept slogans rather than actual substance. The Nov. 3, 2008, issue of Time magazine has an extraordinary picture of Obama standing before a huge rally of 100,000 people under the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, with his right arm outstretched reminding one of the famous Nazi salute.
-- Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Nov. 3 WorldNetDaily column
UPDATE: Special bonus Obama derangement:
He favors a weakened America.
He would like to see America become more like the rest of the world – where freedom is rare and happiness rarer.
He would like to see America knocked down a notch or two in the eyes of the rest of the world, which envies what we have and who we were, if not who we have become.
He would like to see the world's playing field leveled – even if that means the ascendancy of a great totalitarian power and sworn enemy of liberty.
He would like to see Americans forced to hand over more of their hard-earned dollars to corrupt governments around the world.
That's what Obama wants. And, as president, he has made it clear he will do whatever is necessary to see his agenda fulfilled – including the disarming of America and Americans.
Barack Obama wants to institute a Civilian National Security Force, a vast militia not unlike Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, a personal army. He knows he would need such a force to protect him and to enforce his will on Americans.
Americans will have not seen such arbitrary power used against them since the days of the Civil War when Lincoln put the Constitution in the bottom drawer of his desk and set about arresting anyone who opposed his policies to enforce the Union on southern States seeking secession. The moral issue was slavery. The Constitutional issue was states rights.
If you want to see another civil war, just wait for this new security force to come into being. Obama would need it because the concept of posse comitatus forbids the use of the U.S. military to enforce laws within the nation. An army of domestic followers of “the One” would fill that need, assuming that all other law enforcement agencies failed to resist such a horrendous plan.
In fact, as we detailed when WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah was peddling this same lie, Obama has never made such a claim. Obama specifically described the "civilian national security force" he proposed as "teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."
If Caruba had any sense of shame, he would retract this column.
Sheppard Won't Accept Obama as President Topic: NewsBusters
NewsBusters links to a Nov. 3 commentary by NewsBusters associate editor Noel Sheppard at the right-wing American Thinker. Sheppard begins his commentary by noting "the disgusting campaign" that is about to "mercifully come to an end," adding: "Whoever the losers, they will believe they were cheated, and will point fingers at those they believe responsible. Almost half the nation will view the winner as illegitimate, and will do everything in their power to undermine his authority as long as he's in the White House."
Sheppard. then explodes into a full-blown case of Obama Derangement Syndrome, making it clear that if Obama wins, he will be following that exact template:
[L]et's be perfectly frank: Obama should never have been a presidential candidate in the first place, and, at the very least, should have been quickly discarded by Hillary in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
With the nation involved in two wars, and the economy in trouble, there's no way a freshman senator with so little experience and no significant pieces of legislation under his belt would ever have raised enough money to mount a presidential campaign, and certainly not a successful one.
However, the media gave Obama Messiah-like status the moment he threw his hat into the ring -- thereby making it easy for him to find benefactors! -- and pushed him past the once-inevitable Hillary. Even worse, they aided and abetted Obama and his minions to dismiss any attacks by the Clinton campaign as racist while diminishing her with sexist and misogynistic barbs disingenuously ignored by a normally feminist press corps.
Once Hillary was tossed aside like so much garbage, media ignored each and every issue that could possibly undermine Obama's ascendancy while savagely attacking Sarah Palin as well as an Ohio plumber that had the unmitigated audacity to actually ask the Messiah a decent question.
Isn't it un-American to respect the office of the president, no matter who it is?
The funny thing is, this is a piece ostensibly lamenting how politically divided the country has become and the resulting "new level of hatred between those of differing political persuasions like nothing our country has experienced in the modern era."
Sheppard has clearly decided to wallow in his hate. Is this someone so filled with bile the kind of person the Media Research Center really wants on its payroll?
MRC Thinks The Truth About Palin Is Too 'Negative' Topic: Media Research Center
A MRC Culture & Media Institute report by Colleen Raezler and Brian Fitzpatrick purports to document how Americans "turned against" Sarah Palin because of "a blizzard of bad reports" about her, "running 18 negative stories for every positive one." But the tone of the report is more about complaining that anything negative was reported about Palin at all, that what was reported didn't reflect the McCain campaign's talking points -- and that (channeling Stephen Colbert) facts and reality have a well-known liberal bias.
The report carefully limits it scope to only the broadcast news networks and to coverage in "the two weeks beginning September 29 and ending October 12," thus avoiding having to discuss period after Palin's nomination and Republican National Convention speech, when news coverage of her was largely -- and perhaps disproportionately -- positive.
The report complained: "Most observers agree that Palin did not perform well in the [Katie] Couric interview, but the network coverage dwelled on the worst moments, making Palin look as unprepared and inexperienced as possible." After noting the focus on Palin's refusal to give a straight answer to Couric's questionabout what magazines and newspapers she read, the report stated:
The network coverage of this exchange left the impression that Palin was unable to identify any news sources because she isn’t interested in current events – an implausible supposition to make about an accomplished politician.
The networks would have provided a more accurate portrayal of Palin had they highlighted the Alaska governor’s thoughtful responses to other questions from Couric.
The report doesn't mention the fact that Palin could have simply answered the question and avoided such a focus.
The report also complained that Tina Fey's dead-on "Saturday Night Live" impression of Palin got news play, calling the impression "demeaning" and adding: "Funny stuff, but is it news?" The report also baselessly asserted that "Palin’s strong performance during the October 2 vice-presidential debate sucked the oxygen out of the attacks on her qualifications and intellect," failing to note that polls taken immediatedly after the debate found that a majority of viewers thought that Joe Biden won the debate.
After lamenting that the networks reported "criticism of Palin from a handful of conservative writers," the report added, "The networks failed to mention that Palin enjoyed the enthusiastic support of far more influential conservative pundits, including premier talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin." So a guy who says, ""It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women," is a "premier" conservative radio host in the eyes of Raezler and Fitzpatrick?
The report also expressed annoyance that the networks were "depicting Palin as nothing more than GOP presidential nominee John McCain’s attack dog. ... Rather than investigate the substance of Palin’s accusations against Obama, the media suggested the criticism was somehow improper." In fact, Palin was the McCain campaign's attack dog, substantive allegations or no.
Finally, Raezler and Fitzpatrick get to their key bit of annoyance: "The networks failed to acknowledge adequately that Palin was doing more during her speeches than attacking Obama. She was also talking about issues, McCain’s plans for the nation, and her own qualifications." In other words, the networks weren't spewing campaign talking points to Raezler and Fitzpatrick's satisfaction. Since when is it the news media's job to by a campaign PR service?
Raezler and Fitzpatrick further confuse negative coverage with bias, scoring stories by "negative," "positive" and "neutral," then deciding on that basis which network was the "most biased." Despite suggesting that the "negative" stories were not factual, no evidence is offered to support it.
In other words, this is a study that should not be taken seriously and must be seen through the CMI's pro-Palin, anti-media agenda.
Earlier this year, Raezler penned a CMI report bashing the Dear Abby advice column, asserting that its a"dvice on sexual matters cannot be trusted" because of its alleged "unwillingness to support traditional, common-sense moral values that steer people away from destructive behavior and protect them from harmful situations." The report appears to be a retaliation for Dear Abby author Jeanne Phillips' expressed support for same-sex marriage.
WND, Newsmax Desperately Cling to Obama Birth Myth Topic: WorldNetDaily
Old smears never die, even after they've been proven definitively wrong. And so, the ConWeb clings to the myth that Barack Obama isn't an American.
Despite running a Nov. 1 AP article stating that "State officials say there's no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii," Newsmax still felt compelled to follow up with a Nov. 2 article attempting to cast doubt on the definitive finding:
If the polls are to be believed, America is on the verge of electing a man whose past is scarcely known.
For example, as of today, the public still has no idea as to the place where Barack Obama was actually born.
He may turn out to be the only current or former president in history that does not have a historic marker or reported location that identifies the exact site of his birth.
On Friday, an Associated Press story revealed that Hawaii’s Health Department director and the state’s registrar of vital statistics did indeed look at Obama’s birth certificate and verified that he was born in that state.
Still, these officials gave no details as to where the possible next president was actually born. The state cannot release a birth certificate without a person’s permission, but Obama has yet to allow his certificate to be released.
If Newsmax won't condede the truth of the AP's report, why did it run the artile in the first place?
Even though Hawaii officials now claim to have verified the authenticity of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate – in hopes of ending widespread speculation and even multiple lawsuits challenging the Democrat candidate's constitutional qualification to be president – it turns out there is still reason for serious questioning.
In fact, there is considerable evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the candidate and his campaign have maintained.
Corsi's so-called "considerable evidence"? An interview he did with "Sayid Obama, brother of Barack Obama senior and the uncle of Sen. Barack Obama," who said he didn't know "whether Barack Obama junior was born in Kenya or in Hawaii."
New Article: Aaron Klein's Blinders Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's largest attacker (on a volume basis) of Barack Obama has an aversion to reporting that John McCain has done some of the things he bashed Obama for. Read more >>
AIM's Favorite Domestic Terrorist Topic: Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid's final Obama smear before the election, in a Nov. 2 Accuracy in Media column, is a lame one, ranting about William Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Kincaid makes the false claim that "Barack Obama’s initial political campaign in Chicago was launched from the home of Dohrn and her husband, another member of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers."
Kincaid repeats a quote by a former FBI informant trying to make a case against Dohrn: "If you had McCain hanging out with the high Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, you’d have the media all over him like flies on manure." But McCain does have an associated with an unrepentant domestic terrorist: G. Gordon Liddy.
But Kincaid will never discuss that relationship because AIM has one with Liddy as well.
Kincaid himself hasappeared on Liddy's radio show, and to our knowledge he has not broached the subject with Liddy. Further, Kincaid has taken Liddy's side in a dispute between Liddy and fellow Watergate figure John Dean over the alleged purpose of the Watergate break-in, as summarized in a June 2005 press release:
Kincaid noted that the book, Silent Coup, demolishes the Woodward-Bernstein explanation of who was behind the Watergate break-in. But former Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy, now a popular radio host, has been virtually alone in promoting the alternative theory of why the Watergate break-in occurred. Kincaid said there is no question that Nixon was forced out of office for corrupt practices which also occurred under other administrations: “Victor Lasky’s classic book, It Didn’t Start With Watergate, set the record straight on that score.” Kincaid cited other scandals that received far less attention, including
· FDR’s Pearl Harbor cover-up, blaming Admiral Kimmel for the disaster
· The stolen presidential election of 1960 that put John F. Kennedy in the White House · Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s bugging of the phones of Martin Luther King, Jr.
· Clinton administration abuse of the IRS and FBI to go after “enemies.”
Timmerman's Claim of Obama-Farrakhan Link Lacks Substance Topic: Newsmax
In a last-ditch effort to smear Barack Obama, a Nov. 1 Newsmax article by Kenneth Timmerman asserts that "Barack Obama’s ties to the black nationalist movement in Chicago run deep, and that Obama and Louis Farrakhan "for many years ... have had 'an open line between them' to discuss policy and strategy." But Timmerman's source for the claim is someone who does not have firsthand knowledge of such an alleged relationship.
Timmerman cited "Dr. Vibert White Jr., who spent most of his adult life as a member and ultimately top officer of the Nation of Islam," as the source of his claims. But Timmerman also goes on to note that "White broke with the group in 1995 and is now a professor of African-American history at the University of Central Florida in Orlando." Since White hasn't been involved in the Nation of Islam in 13 years, he can only speculate as to the relationship between Obama and Farrahkan.
Indeed, Timmerman's quoting of White offers no evidence of a current, "deep" relationship, contradicting what Timmerman wrote in his lead paragraph. In fact, no evidence at all of a direct relationship between Obama and Farrakhan is offered, other than White noting that because Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is a political force in Chicago's black community, "wouldn’t be uncommon for [Obama and Farrakhan] to show up at events together, or at least be there and communicate with each other." But neither White nor Timmerman offered any actual evidence that even that happened.
Timmerman goes on to cite White claiming that Obama's speaking style has "a religious tenor to it that is very much Nation of Islam-like. I don’t know if anyone has ever touched on it, but Obama’s speaking style is very Malcolm-like, very Farrakhan-like," adding that "Obama’s remarkable speaking style, even his manner of standing at a podium to appear larger than life, is directly copied from Farrakhan." Timmerman chimes in with specious evidence to purportedly support the claim:
Any American who has listened to early radio or television interviews of Obama can hear how dramatically Obama’s speaking style has changed since he became a United States senator.
In clips dating from 2001 and even early 2004, Obama speaks haltingly and in long, rambling sentences packed with legalese and dense pseudo-academic rhetoric. But not today.
But if neither Timmerman nor White can provide evidence that there's a current, ongoing relationship between Obama and Farrakhan, how can improvements in Obama's post-2004 speaking style be attributed to Farrakhan?
Timmerman's story is hollow and shouldn't be treated as anything other than the desperate, last-minute smear that it is.
Newsmax: Telling Truth About Bossie = Personal Attack Topic: Newsmax
An Oct. 31 Newsmax article by David Patten promotes the anti-Obama video, "Hype: The Obama Effect," released by David Bossie's Citizens United. Patten sycophantically calls the film "a controversial, no-holds-barred film that debunks the quasi-messianic candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama" and benignly describes Citizens United as "a nonprofit advocacy organization that promotes traditional American values." The words "conservative" or "right-wing" appear nowhere in Patten's article, let alone as an accurate descriptor of Citizens United.
Patten makes a minor stab at telling the other side of the Bossie story, if only to set up a straw man for Bossie to slap down:
The liberal Media Matters stated that the DVD “contains numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations of Obama’s record,” then proceeded to attack Bossie personally.
“To be honest,” Bossie told Newsmax, “it is right in the Media Matters way of doing business, which is really unremarkable in their sad, twisted, and demented way of trying to affect people. It doesn’t affect us.”
In fact, the Media Matters (disclosure: our employer) item on Bossie and his film does not "attack Bossie personally"; rather, it accurately describes Bossie's employment history, which includes being fired from his position on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1998 for his alleged role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of Webb Hubbell's prison conversations.
Neither Patten nor Bossie challenge or contradict any claims made in the Media Matters item about Bossie or his film.
WorldNetDaily (but not Aaron Klein) finally reported al Qaeda's endorsement of John McCain -- but buried in an article claiming al Qaeda endorses Barack Obama even more.
A Nov. 1 WND article by Ryan Mauro ("founder and chief editor of WorldThreats.com") claimed there has been more than one "tacit endorsement of Democrat Barack Obama by the terrorist network," citing "Joseph Shahda, an Arabic translator who monitors radical Islamic websites." But Mauro fails to offer any more information about Shahda.
A 2006 BlogCritics profile of Shahda describes him as a "denizen of the conservative web site Free Republic" -- which should raise red flags about his partisan motivations. Shahda did some translation of several documents posted on the Internet by the federal government seized in Iraq -- an idea pushed by Republican congressmen and right-wing radio hosts -- which he then posted at Free Republic.
Indeed, on Free Republic, Shahda, writing under the name "jveritas," is very much rooting for McCain and against Obama. As he writes in one post, "When you vote, you beat these insanely biased polls. Go and vote, ask you family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues to vote for McCain/Palin."
It is time. Please mass e-mail the McCain campaign http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/ and/or call them at (703) 418-2008 to urge them to use the political nuclear weapon that will assure the destruction of Obama and his candidacy. Urge them to use Jeremiah Wright. The issue is very legitimate and John McCain should not hesitate for one more second to use it.
Show no mercy, use Jeremiah Wright, defeat Obama.
Another Shahda post simply recites McCain talking points:
We are going to win because at the end a defeatist, a socialist, and a left wing liberal like Barack Obama will not be elected President.
We are going to win because at the end Barack Obama who voted to cut the funding for our brave troops in the battlefield, who voted against the surge, who voted against victory, and who voted for defeat will not be elected President.
We are going to win because Barack Obama who believes in socialism, who wants to raise our taxes and who wants to spend heavily on welfare programs will not be elected President.
We are going to win because Barack Obama who spent 20 years in a church of hate, racism, and anti-Americanism under his friend and mentor Jeremiah Wright and who launched his political carrier in the living room of terrorist William Ayres will not be elected President.
We are going to win because our candidate John McCain is an American hero who believes in strong defense, in crushing our terrorist enemies, in lowering our taxes, in cutting welfare and wasteful spending, in the right to life for the unborn, in constructionist judges, and believes in the greatness of and the uniqueness of our beloved America.
We are going to win and McCain will be elected President.
Back to Mauro: It's not until the 11th paragraph of his article that Mauro gets around to addressing the McCain endorsement -- done so, of course, only to dismiss it:
The title of a Washington Post story Oct. 22 suggested the forums indicated significant al-Qaida support for John McCain.
But the story, "On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain," cited only one posting declaring a Republican victory would benefit the terrorist network.
"Al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming election," the Post quoted from the website posting, which also stated an attack around the time of the election could help McCain win.
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida will then succeed in exhausting America," it said.
But Shahda said many postings on the Al-Hesbah website mocked the Washington Post article.
Why should anyone trust Shahda when he clearly has a right-wing, anti-Obama bias?
Cashill Complains That Everyone's Ignoring His Conspiracy Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill whines in a Nov. 1 WorldNetDaily column:
When historians tell the story of the 2008 election a century hence, they will tell how the ABETTO factor – A Blind Eye To The Obvious – finally undid America's once proud journalism establishment.
The following passage, one of the very few in the major media to condescend to the question of Barack Obama's altogether likely literary fraud, nicely captures the blindness.
"The bizarre accusation Jack Cashill made ... that Obama didn't write 'Dreams From My Father' (and that Bill Ayers did) has caught fire in the blogosphere and on talk radio."
So writes the proudly clueless Kirsten Powers in the only half-blind New York Post. The New York Times, at least, did not attack me. Nor did they see fit to cover the story.
What is truly "bizarre" – no, disgraceful – is that the major media are not all over this story.
Actually, no. In fact, the media seems to be acting quite responsibly in ignoring kooky conspiracy theories by a man who has a history of being proven consistently wrong -- who falsely insisted that James Kopp was innocent of killing Barnett Slepian and that Eric Rudolph was being framed for bombings at abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympics.
Your conspiracy theory about Bill Ayers writing Obama's books is indeed "bizarre," Jack -- and you are rightly being ignored.
UPDATE: Remember when Cashill was crowing that "a British scholar of international repute" was looking into his conspiracy theory? That actually turned out to be correct. From a Nov. 2 London Times article:
Dr Peter Millican, a philosophy don at Hertford College, Oxford, has devised a computer software program that can detect when works are by the same author by comparing favourite words and phrases.
He was contacted last weekend and offered $10,000 (£6,200) to assess alleged similarities between Obama’s bestseller, Dreams from My Father, and Fugitive Days, a memoir by William Ayers.
The offer to Millican to prove that Ayers wrote Obama’s book was made by Robert Fox, a California businessman and brother-in-law of Chris Cannon, a Republican congressman from Utah. He hoped to corroborate a theory advanced by Jack Cashill, an American writer.
But that's not working out the way Cashill would like:
Millican took a preliminary look and found the charges “very implausible”. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned.
Millican said: “I thought it was extremely unlikely that we would get a positive result. It is the sort of thing where people make claims after seeing a few crude similarities and go overboard on them.” He said Fox gave him the impression that Cannon had got “cold feet about it being seen to be funded by the Republicans”.
UPDATE 2: Oxford's Millican writes in the London Times of his experience in getting drawn into all of this, and he takes apart Cashill's reasoning:
The trouble with these sorts of claims is that they are far too easy to make: take any two substantial memoirs from the same era and you are likely to be able to pick out a fair number of passages that have some similarities. Unless the similarities are really close (and they weren’t), just listing them makes no case at all, even if it might be enough to persuade some readers.
Cashill and friends – who were convinced but aware that more evidence would be needed to convince others – enlisted teams of analysts to try to give the theory a solid statistical basis. All of these analyses supposedly delivered positive results, but they seem badly flawed.
Oxford University Consulting, on my behalf, insisted quite properly that any such arrangement would have to be agreed before the results were known: there could be no question of carrying out an analysis that would be paid for only if the results came out in their favour. And I insisted that the analysis, once produced, would have to be in the public domain and thus made available to the Democrats also.
Having got to this stage, with texts and controls carefully prepared and special facilities added to Signature for the purpose, my little adventure into US politics ended. I was left with the impression that payment for propaganda was fine; but payment for objective research was quite a different matter.
Maybe one day I’ll go back and do the analysis in detail, but I doubt it. I would rather spend my time on serious research questions than on improbable theories proposed with negligible support.
Waters Distorts, Omits Facts on Obama Fundraising Topic: Media Research Center
In an Oct. 31 MRC TimesWatch item (and NewsBusters post), Clay Waters referenced "Barack Obama's sleazy online fundraising, where thanks to purposely lax security measures his site is able to receive untraceable donations from obviously fake names." Waters offers no evidence to back up his claim that the Obama campaign's "security measures" for donations are "purposely lax," beyond citing a Washington Post article claiming that the campaign has "chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts." By calling the campaign's action "purposely lax," Waters is mind-reading; he has no basis upon which to ascribe the malicious intent those words suggest.
Waters also fails to mention that Obama is not required under federal law to release the names of donors who give less than $250 to the campaign.
New Article: Mass Misinterpretation Topic: The ConWeb
The ConWeb collectively misleads and lies about what Barack Obama said about the Supreme Court and the Constitution in a 2001 radio interview. Read more >>
The time for liberals to save their own political skins is now, before Nov. 4. They have an honorable, patriotic duty to stand up and say to America, “Stop right here! We want off this bus before it goes over the cliff. We were wrong about this Obama fellow. The evidence is now pouring in that he is not what he led us to believe. He is no liberal. He is a far-left radical and a mortal danger to this republic. Don’t give him your vote. He’s not getting mine.”
Will any of the leadership liberals do that? Do pigs fly? Do bears go in the middle of Times Square?
They’ve never tried.
If liberal Democrats fail to put country above party on Nov. 4 and if Obama wins, they can kiss their Democratic Party goodbye. They will deserve the political hell-fires they have stoked for themselves.