JB Williams, NMJ.us

 

The Work of International Socialists Is All But Complete.

 

In a 1985 interview, former Russian KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov explained how America would be brought to a moment in history when useful idiots on the left would take control of the most powerful free nation on earth, after decades of indoctrination. Here's the interview... watch it, and learn what America is up against, because the mission will be complete with the election of Obama-Biden. We are at the crossroads...

 

In short, a demoralized nation no longer able to discern fact from fiction or fundamental right from wrong, more impressed by elitist intellectual “Messiahs” than basic common sense, become fit tools for the destruction of freedom from within. This is what McCain and Palin, as well as all other traditional Americans are up against in this election.

 

The lie that McCain and Palin are no different, no better than Obama-Biden in this regard, is maybe the greatest lie ever told to American voters. The differences are stark to anyone not yet fully indoctrinated by a sea of leftist intellectual lies.

 

Mr. McCain – You are the only man in America at this moment in history who can keep Barack Hussein Obama from stealing this election and putting a final nail in the coffin of American freedom and liberty. As both Obama and Biden have now stated, “federal redistribution of wealth is not communism or socialism, we call it fairness!” Well, Marx, Lenin and Stalin know what it is, even if Obama, Biden and their useful idiots don’t! Read article.

 

Salena Zito, PittsburghLive.com

 

In case you haven’t noticed, Senator, you are losing the argument to be the next president of the United States. And you are doing it all on your own.

 

Recent trends and polls show that Americans are shedding their discomfort with Barack Obama, and women and independents are breaking in his direction.

 

For your part, you are doing nothing to persuade people to do otherwise.

 

Time to shed the over-handling and carefulness and go at it. Read article.

Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com

 

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

 

Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.

 

Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.

 

The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

 

It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?

 

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. Read article.

John Kass, Chicago Tribune.com

 

Going into Tuesday's presidential debate, the campaign of Republican John McCain still suffers from the lousy economy and that Bush hanging ponderously from his neck.

 

With that going against him, he's running uphill, trying to remind Americans that he challenged his own party, and the Democrats, on corruption. Because of McCain's opposition to politicians who feed from the public trough, there is a road open to him Tuesday. It's the Chicago Way.

 

Obama definitely does not want to go there. It would be a forced march for him. Obama's gauzy references to Chicago involve baseball and where he met Michelle and those blissful hours he spent as a community organizer. What he doesn't want discussed is his evolution from independent Democrat to potential White House enabler of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

 

The Chicago Way is a road the Beltway media establishment dare not travel. It must frighten them. It conflicts with their fairy tale about Obama as reformer, and they're much too busy rummaging through garbage cans in Alaska to bother about Chicago's political alleys. Read article.

IBD Editorials.com

 

Voters coast-to-coast are receiving e-mails from the Obama campaign encouraging them to sign up to learn pre-election agitation tactics at "Camp Obama." Red kerchiefs, anyone?

 

When readers first alerted us to the camps, we thought it might be another hoax that migrated into inboxes. But it's for real.

 

The unsolicited pitch goes like this: "Camp Obama attendees will receive real world organizing experience that will have a direct impact on this election. Graduates of Camp Obama will go on to become Deputy Field Organizers who will lead this campaign to victory in crucial battleground states around the country."

 

The letter continues, "By participating in Camp Obama you'll get the kind of experience that Barack got as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, where he learned that real change happens from the bottom up."

 

While the letter neglects to identify the source of that "experience," a slide on a camp blog linked to the Obama Web site offers a clue. Underneath a "Welcome to Camp Obama" banner, a trainer at Obama headquarters in Chicago is seen speaking next to a wipe board with the words "Saul Alinsky" scrawled across it. Read article.

 

Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Live.com

 

Here is a novel idea coming to Southwestern Pennsylvania for Election Day: Sign up to become a “pollworker,” paid by a “non-partisan effort,” and then ensure that people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote actually will get to vote.

 

This from “Pollworkers for Democracy,” which uses fear tactics based on the recent mortgage crisis as a hook to snag people living on the edge of financial problems:

 

“Imagine being told you've lost the right to vote because the bank foreclosed on your home,” begins the e-mail. It goes on to say that if you lose your home and have to move out of your voting precinct, you may not be allowed to vote.

 

Well, of course you are ineligible to vote in that precinct – you moved. That is the law.

 

The e-mail plays the race card, with no subtleness whatsoever, by providing provocative photos of black women holding hands linked together from the 1960s.

 

The e-mail from CREDO Action, which sponsors the “Pollworkers for Democracy” project, says that “some operatives are saying that once you lose your home, you'll also lose your vote.” Read article.

 

Rich Lowry, NY Post.com

 

Barack Obama has already brought change: He's ended the "chilling effect."

 

Any restrictions on speech - real or imagined - were once inevitably deemed to have a "chilling effect" on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren't so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a "chilling effect" were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union's absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.

 

But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the right increasingly worry about overreaching rules against "hate speech" defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds.

 

Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country's imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech and banning speech on college campuses. The left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.

 

Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued "Obama Action Wire" alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No "chilling effect" here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama's detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp's tech-savvy mustering of its supporters. Read article.

 

WND.com

 

The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

 

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

 

Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the documents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

 

Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity. Read article.

 

WND.com

 

WND author and staff writer Jerome Corsi has arrived in the Kenyan capital to investigate Sen. Barack Obama's ties to the prime minister, Raila Odinga, who was appointed to the position to stop a wave of violence by Muslim supporters.

 

Corsi came at the invitation of Christian missionaries who contend the rise of Islam in the African nation has been spurred by an agreement Odinga signed with Muslim leaders in an effort to win the presidency last December. Odinga lost but now shares power with the Kenyan president to appease Islamic leaders.

 

Corsi's highly critical book examining Obama's career, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," remains on the New York Times best-seller list after its publication Aug. 1. The book was No. 1 on the list for four straight weeks after its launch.

 

Corsi plans to file daily dispatches from Kenya for the next week. Read article.

 

William Kristol, Weekly Standard.com

 

The odds are against John McCain and Sarah Palin winning this election. It's not easy to make up a 6-point deficit in the last four weeks. But it can be done.

 

Look at history. The Gore-Lieberman ticket gained about 6 points in the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign. Ford-Dole came back more than 20 points in less than two months in the fall of 1976. Both tickets were from the party holding the White House, and both were running against inexperienced, and arguably risky, opponents.

 

What's more, this year's race has already--twice--moved by more than 6 points over a span of only a few weeks. The race went from McCain up 2 (these are the Real Clear Politics averages) on September 14 to Obama plus 6 on October 2, less than three weeks later. In the four weeks before that, the race had moved from Obama plus 5 on August 12 to McCain plus 2 on September 12.

 

So while there's reason for McCain-Palin supporters to worry, there's no reason to despair.

 

Despair is what the Obama campaign is hoping and working for. If a campaign can convince supporters of the other candidate that the race is effectively over, the enthusiasm and volunteer efforts drop off--as does, ultimately, their turnout on Election Day. Just as important, undecided and loosely affiliated voters become persuaded there's no real contest and lose any incentive to look closely at the candidates. This explains the efforts of the Obama campaign--aided by a colluding media--to sell the notion that the race is over, that McCain supporters should give up, and undecided voters should tune out.

 

That's why the events at the end of last week were so important. Read article.

Larry Elder, Townhall.com

 

McCain loses -- the first debate, that is.

 

Blown opportunities? Let us count the ways:

 

Obama says, without rebuttal, that his plan lowers taxes on "95 percent of working families." This is flatly impossible because 32 percent of income tax returns filed (some 43 million Americans) pay absolutely nothing in federal income taxes. Obama makes his claim by offering a $500 "Making Work Pay" tax credit to everybody ($1,000 per family), by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and creating other credits. If your tax credit is more than your tax liability, you receive a check from the Treasury and you pay no taxes. That is not a "tax cut." McCain, too, offers a tax credit -- a $5,000 tax credit for health care. Yet neither the media nor McCain calls it a "tax cut."

 

Obama says, without rebuttal, that his tax hikes only affect those earning more than $250,000. Yet when you consider his spending plans, and the amount of money he expects to raise by "closing corporate loopholes" and taxing the rich, it simply does not add up. Moreover, he calls raising taxes a) good economic policy, and b) a matter of fairness. Obama, pointing to the sluggishness of the economy, recently said he might "defer" the tax hikes. Hold it, McCain should have said. If raising taxes on the so-called rich makes good economic policy, why "defer" it? Doesn't the economic sluggishness create even greater urgency in order to, as Obama claims, "jump-start" the economy? Read article.

 

Melanie Phillips, Spectator.co.uk

 

Once again Sarah Palin has made the sneerocracy look ridiculous. Before her debate last night against Joe Biden, the chatterati were salivating at the prospect of Palin’s knock-out humiliation. The Times quoted Mrs Thatcher’s former image adviser Tim Bell:

 

"I don't think any amount of preparation could help Palin; it's going to be bloody."

 

Au contraire; she danced round Biden like a matador sticking her knives into a clapped-out old bull -- who was clearly seriously constrained by the terror of making yet another of his jaw-dropping gaffes which appear to have passed the media by.

 

But it’s not enough. The main actor is McCain, and the great question is whether he has what it takes to prevail over Obama. And I am seriously alarmed that he does not. Read article.

 

Matt Mayer, Townhall.com

 

Liberals constantly declare that the “rich” should pay their “fair share” of federal taxes. When exactly does a taxpayer reach his fair share of taxes? Liberals won’t say. They make these claims against millions of nameless and faceless Americans who they presume to know can afford to pay more federal taxes.

 

In many cases, these Americans are the ones who live within their means, play by the rules, plan for the future, work the longest hours, have spent the most time and money earning advance degrees, and hope that the government will stop asking them to pay even more for programs they don’t use so they can save for the children’s college education or reinvest in their small businesses.

 

As Forbes reported, of the richest Americans on the Forbes 400 list, contrary to popular lore, 270 of them, or 68%, are entirely self-made. They didn’t inherit their wealth. They built companies, created jobs, and, through that effort, made millions of middle class investors richer. These Americans should be exalted, not ridiculed by pseudo-Marxists or accused of illegality because a handful of bad apples break the law. Read article.

 

Matt Cover, CNS News.com

 

Contrary to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) statement on the Senate floor that “every penny” of potential profit derived from the government’s purchase and resale of troubled mortgage-backed securities “will go directly back to the American people,” the law says the money will go to pay off federal debt – some of which is held by foreign entities.

 

In a speech in support of the financial bailout before the U.S. Senate Wednesday night, the Democratic presidential candidate claimed that American taxpayers would get their money back, raising the possibility they might even profit from the bailout.

 

The claim is false. According to the bill that passed, the government will get all of its money back – but none will be returned directly to taxpayers. Read article.

 

Ed Whelan, NRO.com

 

In the hope or illusion that America’s voters will soberly consider what is at stake in this presidential election, I continue my exploration of the sort of candidates that a President Obama can be expected to appoint to the Supreme Court.

 

Highlighting the emphasis on diversity over quality in judicial selection, Justice Scalia has joked that “the next nominee to the Court will be a female Protestant Hispanic”. Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor fits at least two-thirds of the description. Plus, she’s acquired a reputation as a very liberal judge. For these reasons, she’s widely mentioned as a leading Supreme Court candidate in an Obama administration.

 

A striking opinion this past June by highly regarded Second Circuit judge (and Clinton appointee) José Cabranes exposes some remarkable and disturbing shenanigans by Sotomayor. Read article.

 

John Fund, Online WSJ.com

 

When telling viewers that she had disagreements with Mr. McCain -- on oil drilling in Alaska, for example -- but would keep working to change his mind, she even allowed herself to wink at her audience. That's the mark of a self-confident pro.

 

As for her media critics, Mrs. Palin took them on by reminding moderator Gwen Ifill that she would answer the questions the way she wanted to, not the way other people wanted her to. As the debate wrapped up, she thanked its organizers for allowing her to speak directly to the American people without the "filter" of the mainstream media. That was a clever way of deflecting attention from her recent choppy and unfocused interview with CBS's Katie Couric and was a guaranteed crowd pleaser with the conservative base.

 

Speaking of that base, it's clear Mrs. Palin has a future in the Republican Party -- win or lose this November. Talk show host Michael Reagan said recently: "I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she."

 

Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. But like him, she showed the ability to confound her critics, pick herself up from mistakes and move forward. Like Reagan, too, she's able to lift the spirits of a demoralized Republican base. Political scientist John Pitney noted that she even adapted Reagan's famous 1980 debate line when she said: "Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again, pointing backwards."

 

Republicans clearly have something to look forward to as they watch Sarah Palin's future career. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: