Although Palin might be basing this belief on Obama's repeated claim that he would happily meet with any world leaders (despotic or not), I believe that she sees the broader picture, just as Hillary Clinton did.
TONY REZKO
Back when Hillary was in play, she once referred to Obama's unholy alliance with Tony Rezko.
Because there have been so many reliable news sources that have reported on Obama's connection with Rezko, I won't detail the proofs of their coziness here. Suffice to say that Obama couldn't have bought his home without Rezko's financial help. When he did purchase it, he became Rezko's neighbor. But in addition to that, Rezko was one of his top campaign contributors and a major client of the law firm that Obama worked in for many years.
Now with a name like "Tony Rezko", I'd always assumed that Rezko was Italian. However, Rezko is Syrian (a country with state-sponsored terrorism). He came to the USA after highschool and has been here ever since.
Rezko is corrupt. You have probably heard the various charges and indictments. But there's one interesting fact that the press hasn't been reporting as widely: Rezko's money ties go back to an Islamic money mogul who was one of Saddam Hussein's right hand men.
Rezko is also allied with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, whose father (Elijah Muhammad) founded the Nation of Islam. And Rezko was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association.
RAILA ODINGA
Because of Obama's self-admitted longing for his African roots, he has repeatedly visited there and even inserted himself in local politics. One of the people he's supported and encouraged is Raila Odinga.
Odinga is currently Prime Minister of Kenya, in part thanks to Obama, who happily went with him to events and supported him in photo ops whenever possible in 2006 in order to give Odinga the credibility he so desperately desired as he was running against the incumbent President.
So who is Raila Odinga?
Odinga's the product of his father Odinga Odinga, a radical communist. Odinga himself is seen in Kenya as being part of the extreme left and is a member of ODM (a party which is just short of being openly communist).
On December 27, 2007, Odinga lost the Presidential election but claimed fraud. He pressed for a power-sharing arrangement with the current President and encouraged nationwide rebellion. He got it. His minions caused widespread fighting that killed multiple people and caused other atrocities such as the raping of women and children (even boys as young as 5 years old).
After Odinga won the concession, he made certain promises to the radical Muslim community there, including the promise that within 6 months he would "re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shari'a as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions."
If Odinga's not a terrorist, he's certainly despotic. But he's a successful despot, as his current title shows us.
Why haven't we heard much of Odinga until now? Well, we're Americans, aren't we? News beyond our borders is of little interest to us unless we're in a direct war with that nation or if a famous Hollywood celebrity is visiting there.
BILL AYERS & BERNARDINE DOHRN
Bill Ayers is a well-known self-admitted American terrorist who is not serving time (despite irrefutable evidence) because he got off on a technicality.
Ayers was a member of a radical terrorist organization in the 60s. He helped bomb the U.S. Capitol in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972.
His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was equally nasty. Following the murder of Sharon Tate and others on that day, Dohrn praised the Mansons for the slaughter. She has been quoted as saying "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"
Dohrn and Ayers met during their terrorist activities in the 60s. Ironically, they are both now college professors.
So how does Obama tie in with this Disturbing Duo?
Dohrn and Ayers have been documented as introducing Obama to the radical Chicago elite in the mid-1990s, declaring him to be "the best thing since sliced bread." Obviously Ayers brought Obama into his political realm, as Obama and Ayers served together on the Woods Fund board beginning in 1999 and served together until 2002, when Obama left the board to pursue other opportunities.
It is likely that Obama initially met Ayers through Dohrn, who worked at the same law firm as Obama's wife, Michelle.
Dohrn and Ayers have not changed much since their initial terrorist activities. They have never openly repented for their actions. In fact, in 2007, Ayers gave a speech at the reunion of their terrorist organization. An audio clip features him saying that the U.S. government is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world," and that living in America is living in "the belly of the beast" and "the heart of the monster."
THE ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK
While Obama and Ayers were serving on the Woods Fund board together, their foundation made a grant of $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) in 2001, and another grant of $35,000 in 2002. The co-founder of the AAAN is Rashid Khalidi, who avowedly hates Israel and is working to secure Palestinian rights.
The L.A. Times has said that Obama is a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Khalidi.
Ali Abunimah, the Vice President of the AAAN, is favorably impressed with Obama. He says that Obama convinced him that Obama "was very aware of the issues and critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."
Because it is not politically smart to continue to openly encourage these ties, Obama has distanced himself from AAAN now. Abunimah says he understands. "If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising," wrote Abunimuh. "He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power."
HAMAS
Ahmed Yousef, the chief political advisor to the prime minister of Hamas said in an interview on ABC radio that "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections."
OBAMA WILL TALK TO TERRORISTS
Obama met with Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and other leaders in Ramallah on July 23, 2008. According to the New York Times, this was because there was "some fence-mending to do with Mr. Abbas, who reacted angrily to comments on the status of Jerusalem that Mr. Obama made last month at a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby."
Additionally, Obama has stated repeatedly that he will meet with any world leaders, without preconditions or expectations. This includes terrorists and despots, of course. Obviously since Obama's standards are already so low, why would we believe that they will change once he takes office? I think we can take him at his word.
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
The only thing that astonishes me is that Obama would take offense at Palin's statement. He is obviously proud of who is is, what he's done, and how he's arrived on the national scene. Since he's already chosen to pal around with terrorists, I fail to see how he finds Palin's declaration to be distasteful.
52 comments:
I did a post on this last Tuesday.
Here in Asunción, we had an election debate patronized by the Embassy for the ex pat community. Moses Mercado, an Obama aid, and Danny Vargas of the Republican Hispanics did a great job.
However, Mercado mentioned Obama's willingness to meet and speak with Chavez. Having lived 20 years in Venezuela and having been expelled by Chavez, I find this offensive.
Many people in the US do not realize that these types of high level meetings are flaunted before the people by the dictators and it is very demoralizing for them to see their 'leader' legitimized in this way.
Anyway, my question to Mercado was that I would like for him to give a message to Obama for me, in the likelihood that Obama wins, if he did meet with Chavez, could he ask permission for me to at least go back and get my belongings I had to leave behind for the Cubans!
I have a friend who is Iranian, I have a couple from Pakistan and other places in the Middle East. I have been friends with a guy who was a thief and stole bicycles and radar detectors fairly frequently. I have known many cheats and other unsavory types. But I would say that I am someone of good moral character. I'm guessing if we all looked in our pasts, we have met, talked with or known unsavory individuals who we probably wouldn't want to be associated with now. You could do a similar writeup on people of McCain's past. I think such past aquaintenances have no bearing on them now and shouldn't even be considered when it comes November.
I think that the statements that you have made in this blog are just an indication of what is so wrong with the Right at the moment.
The entire Bush family and their entire entourage have been involved with all kinds of unsavoury characters.
I guess the point is that what Palin is suggesting by her statement is that Obama would be friends with terrorists and support their anti american views. That very notion is ridiculous.
And the fact that he is willing to meet with people without precondition is at least a sign that the old way has not been working, and perhaps someone actually recognizing that US foreign policy needs a radical change is a good thing. I mean, what is wrong with wanting to support the Palestinians who are in essence living in Apartheid conditions??
Wow, Saur! You put some work into this. Thank you! Just...wow!
UL, Thanks! I was getting fed up with the misinformation out there. I don't want EITHER side to get away with it.
Jungle Mom, excellent contribution and observations. I didn't know that you are an ex-Cuban!
Ed, You don't know that you are the company you keep? That doesn't sound like you.
Even so, you aren't running for President. The President of the USA should be held to high standards, and certainly the time we spend with others is indicative that we are in agreement with them.
Scott, I dare you to find any instance of my defending Bush or saying that HE is a good character. I believe he's not Presidential material either.
And the notion certainly is NOT ridiculous - Obama would assuredly support their views, as he has done so already. In addition, read Jungle Mom's comment.
How does his wanting to meet dictators and despots any sign that the old way wasn't working? He may THINK the old way wasn't working, but deciding to to something different is no way to prove it. Let me give you an analogy:
George runs Cheesesters, a family business that makes only cheese. Lately profits are down, and cheese simply isn't selling like it used to, even though it's still cheese - it's not like they suddenly started selling peanut butter on George's recommendation.
George hasn't done the best job running the business. For one thing, he's made loans to people without authorization. Whenever a poor family in town needs some help, George writes out a check to them, even though there are no returns and his business is suffering due to his misplaced generosity.
George's brother, John, decides that George needs to be replaced. He holds a family meeting and announces that he is going to take over if they agree to it. He tells them that he will immediately use a new formula for cheese that uses cat urine, grass, and curry powder.
The family objects and says that John is delusional. "Why in the world would you change the recipe?" demands their mother. "There are OTHER problems which need to be addressed first. The cheese formula is the least of our problems!"
Their little sister, Michelle, interjects "How dare you question him, Mom? This new recipe he's suggesting is a sign that the old way isn't working! Let's change the recipe immediately!"
Now - does Michelle's argument sound logical to you? Would you replace George with John or would you keep looking?
So basically my spontaneous comment based on my first impression...that Obama is a trojan horse? I pretty much nailed him like a split hog.
He's about as "black" as my container of cottage cheese I bought today.
Hey, lets look on the bright side? maybe with his connections over in the middle east we might be able to get our gas prices lowered?
Doozie, You were most definately correct (and I agreed with you). He is a trojan horse filled with weapons of mass destruction.
Of course that's not to say that McCain is much better. But almost anything would be better than Obama.
That is one heck of an analogy. Here is my point though. There is a very large and real threat of terror to the United States. Perhaps sitting down and talking with people, instead of bombing the shit out of them is a better strategy. I am pretty sure that Obama did not sit down anywhere and say that he will sit with Bin Laden and have high tea.
I believe that he is interested in showing the World that he understands that the US is viewed in a negative light by much of the World and that perhaps by addressing some of the reasons that this is occuring he will be able to make the US safer. Just my perspective on things.
Do I think that Obama is perfect? Not at all, but when compared to McCain and Palin, my God I can't think of anything scarier. At least Obama is a smart man who will listen to advisors before making decisions.
The connection that most bothers me is the Bill Ayers one.
It's something that I've been mulling over for several weeks ever since I saw the photo of Ayers standing on an American flag. If the US were really such an oppressive place, why would Ayers be not in prison, actually a tenured professor, and and allowed to stand on an American flag?
I'm particularly annoyed that he's a tenured professor, but that's partly personal.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I have friends from many places and don't know if vetting their backgrounds would be pure and good either. I guess, it's a slippery slope.
Scott, Since you're Canadian, you may not know all the details of USA history.
The problem is that traditionally the USA has never believed that negotiation with terrorists is an option. And discussions with terrorists is an indicator that we are willing to either negotiate or appear that we will.
Additionally, if a group is so unreasonably violent as the Muslim extremists are, no amount of talk will change their basic belief system. Their belief system is that Muhammad has declared open season on anyone who doesn't agree with their beliefs - pure and simple.
You can't negotiate or reason with fire ants and wasps, and you can't do it with terrorists, either.
There is no doubt that the USA hasn't worked well with the rest of the world for a very long time. That is both good and bad. But sitting down with terrorists to chat isn't the solution.
I DO think we need to have more discussions with our allies, and we need to take them more seriously.
Incidentally, our allies include Israel. For now, that is... until Obama takes the helm. Then it's up for grabs, I suppose.
Jeffery, Ah, you know about Ayers standing on the flag? You are well read up on the matter, then. It's true - he did, and he's very anti-America.
Annoying that he's a tenured prof, huh? But you know as well as anyone that there are so many liberal universities that would happily take him on. :P
Deb, I think most of this depends on the degree of friendship that is involved. Obama has shown that he values these people greatly.
Yes the company that we KEEP. In all these cases, they are KEPT. I think that is a big difference.
You and I may have unsavory friends or acquaintances. That is quite different than having a PRESIDENT meet in that capacity with a terrorist!
"The President of the USA should be held to high standards, and certainly the time we spend with others is indicative that we are in agreement with them."
Saur, I know you dont like either candidate, neither do I, particularly. Still, need I remind you that McCain "spends time" with members of the Republican party? The Republican party has never been above supporting terrorists, including (or especially) the sainted Ronnie. Know anything about McCain in central America? The Republican party helped make life miserable in Central America, and McCain supported that (still does) Let us not forget pre-war Saddam.
Politics is quite often a game of expediency, where the enemy of your enemy is often your friend. Look at what a politician does, not who he hangs out with or what he claims. It is the only way to guess future actions.
Thank you for this enlightening post. My mom always taught me a certain level of "guilt by association". I think we may have to apply this to Obama.
I want a president who uses terms like "pal around" or "joe sixpack dontcha know". I want the dumbest sounding president possible. That way the world wont take advantage of us.
Misinformation?
Not all bad dudes are terrorist and the "Nation of Islam" may not like white folks, but are certainly not terrorist. You are probably not even aware of the black Islamist that have done terroristic acts in this country or you were to small to remember.
Just mention an Islamic name and guest what; they are terrorist. I also should say an African name, which may be the same regardless if one is Muslim or not.
Wow Weeeeeee! Gosh darn ya...you just stuck a fork in the belly of the beast!
Well done!
I feel I should point out a recent study by Jennifer Whitson at the McComb School of Business at the University of Texas. In it, she finds that people who feel a loss of control can desperately seek patterns in which to regain that control, often seeing them where they are not.
"According to Whitson and Galinsky, that psychological need is for control, and the ability to minimize uncertainty and predict beneficial courses of action. In situations where one has little control, the researchers proposed that an individual may believe that mysterious, unseen mechanisms are secretly at work."
In a nation where war and the economy are out of control, where the electorate seems farther away from those in power than in ever in the lifetimes of most, if not all, of us, doesnt this seem a more likely explaination? The idea that Barack Obama is a sleeper agent for the forces of Islam (somehow surviving the crucible of Chicago Politics?) seems a little unlikely doesnt it? Same for the idea that the U.S. government destroyed the WTC with remote controlled jet planes, same for the idea that Sarah Palin will become President, then set off a nukular war to help ensure Jesus' return (and notion I'll admit to having entertained myself).
Seriously, Obama and McCain are just regular politicians. Religion, party, "ideals", voters; all of these things will, in the end, be less important to them than providing for their true constituency - the big money interests which have paved their way to office with their dollars.
Obama might (and I'm not terribly hopeful) feel a bit more beholden to the "little people" because so much of his fundraising has come from the internet and small donations. The Republican party, with its war-chest 10X larger than the Dems, and the maximum to-party donation level somewhere above $60,000, will be less likely to care (a position borne out well by recent history, though, admittedly, the Dems arent much better).
I'm not really following your analogy with the cheese, Saur. Are you equating Obama with brother "John"? If so, I'm not sure that I can go along with the analogy. Seems to me that if anybody is for cat urine, grass, and curry powder in our cheese, it would be "George" in the first place.
Important question: What kind of "grass"? Could be interesting (and popular).
Cheese is cheese. It will always be cheese. If you're not selling a lot of cheese, maybe you don't understand how to appeal to the Americans. People get leary of Cholesterol etc. Different diet fads take place and sales of cheese can drop. The important thing is to get back to basics. Convince consumers that Cheese is not bad for them. That good old fashioned cheese can cure what ails them. You have to be a salesman with a slick tongue. If you stutter around, say stupid shit and continually put your foot in your mouth? People will have no confidence in what you are saying...sad but true
Dave, The Cheesesters analogy was to argue against Scott's premise that if a solution is suggested it must be the right solution and it must indicate that there's a problem with that particular item.
My argument is that you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (a great old saying). You want to get rid of what's REALLY wrong, but you don't want to mess with what works.
Here's another great old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
John would be Obama. As for the grass, I was thinking of good ole fashioned lawn clippings. But if you threw some of the illegal stuff in there, I guess they'd corner the teenage market!
As for your statement about Obama where you quote Jennifer Whitson, I'm not sure what your point is here? I'm not discussing Obama's religious convictions here, I'm discussing how he's proven that he pals around with terrorists and bad elements because, obviously, he likes them. We don't hang out with people we hate.
In your other post, you say Look at what a politician does, not who he hangs out with or what he claims. Why? What is the logic in that?
If you knew that McCain's best friend was Dick Cheney, would you ever listen to me if I said the same thing? I would surely hope not!
----------------
Doozie, 'zactly.
----------------
Kathleen, ;o)
----------------
Hathor, What was misinformation? I assure you that I am known for really researching what I write. I don't go into hysterical diatribes, or follow the crowd. I look into everything for myself.
You're right: Not all bad dudes are terrorist . But Obama has chosen both bad dudes and terrorists, so I'm not sure what your point is. And, if he only chose to hang out with serial killers, would that make it OK as long as they weren't terrorists?
...and the "Nation of Islam" may not like white folks, but are certainly not terrorist. Hathor, do you not know what a terrorist is? The word itself is part of that definition. A terrorist causes terror to win a political stance. The Nation of Islam certainly has had members that have done so.
BUT: Even if none of them performed terrorist acts, you admit that they don't like white people.
How would you feel if McCain was a member of the KKK? Do you think for one second I'd be defending that? That he'd even be running for President? What makes it OK for black people to be prejudiced, and have their own organization which celebrates it?
You said You are probably not even aware of the black Islamist that have done terroristic acts in this country or you were to small to remember. Because you haven't dropped by before, you obviously don't know anything about me. But I'll tell you briefly that I read roughly a book a day, and they're not fluff pieces. I am fascinated by history, and am a freelance journalist.
You wrote Just mention an Islamic name and guest what; they are terrorist. I also should say an African name, which may be the same regardless if one is Muslim or not. But... Hathor is an Egyptian name, and not a modern one. So you choose to identify with an ancient Egyptian culture, instead. But that's your handle, therefore it's your choice and you're trying to project a certain image. I don't know what your true name is but I doubt it's indicative of who you are.
A 'name' has no impact on me or most people. For instance, Barack Hussein Obama isn't a scary name for us, or he wouldn't have made it this far in the electoral process. What's scary is what they DO. If you read the article, you'll see I'm not running about in terror, merely spouting names.
-----------
R2K, speaking of which, did you read my post on the VP debate?
-----------
Becca, Exactly, hon. Thanks for joining the group!
-----------
Jungle Mom & Ed, Right! So I think we're in agreement after all.
Hathor, Let me add to what I wrote you above (please do read what I wrote, and mull it over):
I looked over your blog once I had a moment of leisure, and it's obvious that you are a big fan of Obama. I understand that and respect it. We all have our heros, and it's tough to have a hero fall or look more tarnished that he did at first. After all, our heros in some ways become our self identities.
So please understand that I am not like the people who gleefully attack at will, or cast about for objects to throw because I never liked Barack in the first place.
On the contrary, when I first heard of him, I was very hopeful that he could be another Joe Liebermann. I am pained to say he is not, because I do not like the alternative.
saur,
No, I am not Cuban. I was referring to our things which we had to leave behind in the jungles of Venezuela when expelled by 'decree' by Chavez. He then tried to replace the missionaries with Cubans, moving them into the mission bases and homes.
Jungle Mom, Ahhh. Now I understand. I remember your mentioning that before. Thank you for the clarification. It's amazing how much hatred is directed against true Christians, isn't it?! Hostility toward missionaries is always a given, because people are so scared of the message. Missionaries are walking mirrors.
The Whitson study indicated pattern-seeking manifesting not only as religious nuttiness, but also as seeing conspiracies. For Obama to be a Manchurian Candidate, he would have had to survive one of the nastier political arenas in the country without that bit of information being ferretted out. This seems unlikely to me.
Obama may be connected with these "terrorists", but I think the phrase "palling around" is a bit over the top. I also have no doubt that John McCain could also be linked with people who might be described as unrepentant terrorists. For instance, what's his relationship with Erik Prince? Does he have ties to pro-U.S. Central American leaders from the period of "freedom fighting" during the 80's? You can bet there are people with whom McCain has affilliated himself with over the years that he would not like to have it said that he agrees with, yet he has associated with.
You want to research Obama, fine. But unless you intend to give equal scrutiny to McCain dont try to paint your findings as unbiased.
I suspect you'll find much more disturbing connections there than you will with Obama (or perhaps not, at least for you, since there's often a partisan difference in who's called a Terrorist and who's called a Freedom Fighter).
"A terrorist causes terror to win a political stance." Really? I dont disagree, but how would you classify the Bush Administration's (and, guilty by both association and actual practice, the Republican Party's) use of fear-mongering to manipulate the American public? Are their tactics that much less reprehensible just because they use someone else's bombs to strike fear into their target?
me: "Look at what a politician does, not who he hangs out with or what he claims."
you: Why? What is the logic in that?"
Perhaps I should rephrase that: It is far more important what a politician does, than what he claims he'll do or who he takes support from. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least as far as voting and financial support goes. Politicians will take support from people they secretly despise because they need it, and people will throw in with a politician that they despise because that politician is the lesser of two evils.
How many people support McCain not because they like him, but because they dislike or fear Obama? How many people does McCain cosy up to not because he agrees with them, but because he needs the votes they can bring (McCain's about-face on the Religious Right comes to mind)?
George Bush talked a lot about religious values, had a lot of religious associates, and took money and votes from the Religious Right. How'd that work out for them?
I'm not going to say that a candidates friends arent important, but I find the scores of lobbyists surrounding McCain far more disturbing than I do Obama's neighborhood Anarchist. After all, between Obama's "pals" and McCain's "advisors", guess who's been far more influential, has caused a lot more damage, can have just as many deaths lain at their door, and is equally unrepentant (and will still be causing trouble tomorrow)?
The important point is not who the candidates associate with, but who the candidates have acted in favor of. Both candidates have a history of legislative work - so who for? That's the thing to pay attention to.
Dave, So let me get this straight: Are you saying that these facts (and I'll be happy to give you sources if they aren't there) are all one big rightwing nutty conspiracy that all these different news sources (many are avowedly liberal) have agreed together to manufacture?
I don't think you are.
So: We are dealing with factual occurrences.
And lots of them.
In my world, 1+1=2.
You said basically that if this were all true, Obama wouldn't have a prayer at running for the Presidency. I assure you that these are not merely allegations - they are factual.
So why haven't they been reported more widely?
Good question.
I don't believe in conspiracies necessarily, but I do think that no one has been particularly motivated to connect all the dots until recently. And many of the sources that have reported on Obama's ties with these people have done so from a favorable point of view. In other words, they see his behavior as progressive and acceptable. For instance, the LA Times thought it was nice that he was friends with the AAAN.
If you agree, then you join them in this belief.
I do not.
But because they see this as acceptable, they certainly aren't going to run around yelling about it.
As for McCain: I don't like him. And although I haven't seen any evidence about it, I'm sure he could choose better friends because (let's face it) politics = dirty deals. Some politicians are dirtier than others, but all of them need a bath.
BUT, McCain's friends and acquaintances aren't tied to terrorists, they're not anti-American, and they're not prejudiced against any race or people.
Although I don't like McCain, I don't have to worry about him 'palling around with terrorists.' I don't have to worry about him selling out American interests as quickly. I don't have to worry about him sympathizing with terrorists. I don't have to worry about national security issues the way I'd have to worry if/when Obama takes the helm.
All that being said, it's still quite possible that Obama will become President. If he does, we will have (at best) another Jimmy Carter.
The choice of McCain isn't much better, because that means the war will be ongoing. But at least we'll have a military. Do you remember how hard it was to ramp up after the Clintons were in office? Bill had whittled the military down to a skeleton crew. We need a military in reserve, but they'd be better off patroling our borders rather than looking for trouble elsewhere.
Saur and Dave:
Lampooning factual statements as a claim for conspiracies is an old rhetorical trick. But, it works in our environment because we have a willing media. Journalism, TRUE journalism, has been replaced by a utopian ideal that journalism is now needed to somehow shape and modify society into a liberal ideal. Americans are by and large misinformed and "need" information to make informed decisions. I heard Katie Courik spouting this pablum on one of CBS's News advertizements. There is evangelical fervor to report Obama favorably and McCain/Palin, especially Palin, as negative, since this fits their almost unanimous liberal world view.
So, in keeping with this dominant world view, it is not beyond the imagination for there to be cooperation among news organizations, moguls, and broadcasting companies, to implement this liberal utopianism. It is not a conspiracy of sorts, but there is rampant cooperation.
This is not a farfetched idea and certainly shows in how liberal talking points tend to be in unison no matter what media news outlet you choose.
Actually, there is a new article out in the NYT today discussing our situation in Venezuela.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/americas/07venez.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Jungle Mom, What a powerful, sad article. It's pretty obvious to anyone who knows the missionary groups involved, though. I KNOW that New Tribes and other missionary boards would NEVER act as spies, just as no journalist would. It's too dangerous, and it isn't their primary focus.
People with sin nature and a lack of religious conviction (or at least without conviction they will acknowlege) will always attempt to give missionaries or true Christians bad motives. They feel better about themselves if they can do so. It's as elemenentary as a school yard bully.
I'll write more when I can...
saur, I hope you don't mind but I copied and pasted some of this in a comment on my blog. I did link it to you and posted your site here. I just don't have time to write it all out myself right now.
Here is my take on whoever gets elected.
My views come from being an INFJ.
I take information in by intuition.
The McCain/Palin ticket represents the change we need.
McCain has finally realized the errors of the past. Yes, Republican errors.Washington errors. It's hard to look past his inaction in so many areas but look past it we must.
Obama=Weapons of Mass Seduction.
Uncle Joe, I so hope you're right.
Jungle Mom, Great! I'm glad it could be of use to you! Good post over there, btw.
UL, Thanks for the weigh-in. I am sorry to say I think you are right. I know the media now attempts to appear more neutral, but even their best attempts often leave something to be desired.
It would not surrise me one bit if Obama was in leauge with the terrorists and some how ushered in the end of the U.S.
Knot
I had more thoughts. 2012 ... end of the Myan calendar. The U.S. is not mentioned anywhere in Revelation ... maybe because it's a non-entity.
I think there is more here than we are bargaining for.
Knot
Weaving about through all of the fancy words, research and theories, how have we gotten away from the fact that one of these candidates has very little experience as a person in power?
I don't like either one of them, but when the rubber hits the road, which one can handle this country. And it would appear this country is pretty messed up right now, we don't need some rookie running things.
Saur,
My name is explained in my profile.
Reading a book a day does not necessarily mean that you have any understanding of black folk and how they negotiate their lives. Blacks voted for George Wallace before he repented and for many other racist. A love fest isn't required in politics.
The Nation of Islam has a place in the black community, it has given many black people the means to have self respect. It has preached self determinism, responsibility and independence; oddly enough what white folks always said we should do. When you want to get things done in the black community where there is a large Muslim presence, you can not ignore their leaders.
It is not required that we like white people to get along in this country, what is required is RESPECT. Unconditional love of white folks ended with slavery, get over it. I also think you are mistaking thuggish behavior with terrorism, which is not the majority in the Nation of Islam. Using your logic I should say all white folks are terrorist because of Timothy McVeigh.
This is a free country an invariably there are many types of people you will work with and may have close associations with and not be influence by their beliefs.
This whole thing smacks of McCarthyism and also the kind of stuff started during the beginning of the Nazi era.
We know mostly who the real terrorist are, but our government has had no will to confront them and has fostered a culture war, supported fear mongering and scapegoating.
I really never thought of myself as a big fan of Obama. I don't like Sarah Palin. Have at times been impressed by John McCain, but I don't see that person running for president.
I don't understand why you would think he would be my hero. Apparently you didn't read Free Will.
I grew up in the Civil Rights movement, there are many heroes of that era. Besides Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, John Lewis, C.T. Vivian, and James Meredith, come to mind.
Wow, Saur. Thanks for stopping by PostedNote and reminding me that your site is one that I should be visitng daily. This post and all the comments were very educational and I loved dialogue. Brilliant.
No, I dont think your facts are incorrect, I just dont give them the weight which you do.
One of the points of that study was not that people made up facts, but that when faced when faced with a world which was ceasing to make sense, they ordered the facts into arrangements that seemed plausable, but which didnt actually exist. If you look at the information which a 9-11 Conspiracy nut has, almost all of it is technically true, but that doesnt mean that an unholy Bush/Saudi alliance destroyed the WTC.
But, you said...
"I'm sure he could choose better friends because (let's face it) politics = dirty deals. Some politicians are dirtier than others, but all of them need a bath.
BUT, McCain's friends and acquaintances aren't tied to terrorists, they're not anti-American, and they're not prejudiced against any race or people."
The prejudice of McCain's friends could certainly be argued, as could the prejudices of McCain himself. And, again, anybody involved in Latin American politics during the 80's (except perhaps the Church and the Press) was involved in terrorism, and that doesnt change regardless of whether it was pro- or anti-American.
Both have questionable ties, both can have a plausable case created that they will lead the nation to ruin. In truth, they might, but if they do it wont be through a Muslim plot or a fascist coup - it'll be through old-fashioned corruption and incompetence.
Make your choice based on that criteria, not conspiracy theories.
They're fun, but they muddy up the reality of the race.
And yes, Obama may well be another Jimmy Carter. Better that than another George Bush.
"But at least we'll have a military. Do you remember how hard it was to ramp up after the Clintons were in office? Bill had whittled the military down to a skeleton crew. "
Oh my god, you dug deep in the discarded talking points pile to bring this one out! Bill's military seemed to do pretty well in Boznia, where we got out, and without a single combat casualty. The invasion plans for Afghanistan were leftovers from the Clinton era, also. And considering the damage that Bush has done to the military, Clinton's "errors" are relatively miniscule, and far easier repaired (or would have been but for the subsequent damage).
@ UL: "Americans are by and large misinformed and "need" information to make informed decisions."
What exactly about this statement is "liberal"? We are quite often misinformed. We do need information to make informed decisions. The problem with the media is all the opinion in which this information comes steeped in, and this ought to be an agreed on idea regardless of whether you think the media is a Liberal Elite or a Tool of Big Business.
Too many people get their "news" from Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. But where else are we to get it? Too much of all the major news outlets is analysis which one must slog through to get at the cold hard facts, and this is hard to do unless you're already well-informed enough to separate fact from speculation. And the News Corpse (mis-spelling deliberate) arent interested in facts, because facts are "boring", and people change channels.
Listen: I had an arguement once with a friend about music on the radio station. I was complaining that they played the same damn songs over and over again. He said that this was what listeners wanted. I felt that there was a lot of good music out there and that DJs ought to play more than just the popular stuff. He disagreed, because, again, that wasnt what the listeners wanted, and if they didnt get what they wanted, they went elsewhere.
What's the answer to that dilemna?
It's the same answer to the news question. England has a pretty good solution in the BBC, but here in the U.S. the Republican Party has been trying to strangle public broadcasting for years.
So we're stuck with the privatized version, and like any business, they dont care about making a living, they care about making a killing. So we get stuck with Pop News, homogenized and reduced to it's simplest terms and concepts, and we make our "informed" decisions accordingly.
Guilt by association...
Question: What Do Obama and Osama bin Laden Have in Common?
Answer: They both know people who have bombed The Pentagon!
Guilt by association...
Question: What do John McCain and Osama bin Laden have in common?
Answer: They've both supported terrorist organizations.
I knew that information was out there somewhere.
Dave, You forgot to add Barack Obama, who (as shown here) has most definately supported terrorists.
So McCain's prejudices could be argued? Great! Give me some stats, some references, and show me proof that prejudice is as documented as Obama and his friends' prejudice is.
If Bill's military did well in Bosnia, it certainly didn't do well in Somalia: Lack of troops, lack of training, lack of sense in military strategey - and a great cost of American life for a silly little project.
Eddo, I'm delighted to see you here!
Hathor, Yes, I saw your name explanation after I wrote what I did. So, apparently I was right.
Well, being as some of my best friends are black, I guess I can pull that card out too. You really want me to trot out my pedigree and credentials or can we just stick with the uncomfortable facts instead of questioning the person delivering them? Do you question the ink in the newspaper, the L.E.D.s in your screen? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm much more rounded than you'd like.
Just as the Nation of Islam has a place in the black community, does the KKK have a place in the white one? I don't think so. Double standards aren't allowed by me. Everyone in and out of politics can choose their 'bedfellows', regardless of how many whites or blacks belong to each group.
You wrote Unconditional love of white folks ended with slavery, get over it. Well, at least you admit your terrible prejudice. Please never complain about a white person's prejudice again. You know, it's odd - most white people that I know are far less prejudiced than most blacks. But then again, perhaps it's the company I choose to keep.
My black friends are the exception (happily). None of us see a color difference, or expect any special favors due to it.
I'm sorry that you're so unnecessarily bitter - it doesn't affect ME, but it certainly has and will continue to scar you.
You do realize you're the embodiment of the angry, prejudiced black person who wants Barack Obama because she feels he's representative of her? Do you think this will actually help his cause?
I hope this is merely show on your part. Perhaps your feelings are running away with you, which is understandable.
You wrote: This whole thing smacks of McCarthyism and also the kind of stuff started during the beginning of the Nazi era.
Um...what whole thing are you referring to? Facts? Yeah, they're inconvenient, but the last time I looked, the right to a free press had still been allowed. So if in your world documented facts equate to McCarthyism, there is little common ground here.
You wrote: I also think you are mistaking thuggish behavior with terrorism, which is not the majority in the Nation of Islam.
Ah, but thuggish behavior is OK?
Using your logic I should say all white folks are terrorist because of Timothy McVeigh.
Huh? Explain your correlation. Have *I* said all black people are terrorist or all black people are thugs? One of my best friends is black, and the worst thing she's done is forget to pay a bill. So please explain why my stating the facts about Obama's ties to terrorists and thugs is somehow saying all black people are thugs(?)
I have this horrible, sneaky suspicion that you're throwing out baseless accusations with the hope that I am your preconceived notion of what a white person is.
You wrote We know mostly who the real terrorist are, but our government has had no will to confront them and has fostered a culture war, supported fear mongering and scapegoating.
Good. Give examples. Please let us know the terrorist activities that go on in the USA which the government sanctions or ignores. I seem to have missed them.
LOOK: There are no hard feelings here. I am not attempting to attack you (Please see my last post to you). But we cannot dialogue if you cannot be factual. Spewing things to cause an emotional effect won't work with me - I am a very logical person.
Doozie, Excellent comments. Thank you. Experience IS a major issue, too.
Knot, I certainly think these are all possibilities. But I hesitate to say anything for sure. Just remember, there is nothing new under the sun:
"Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts..." Isaiah 1:23
So it may not indicate anything more than the fact that America is in her decline.
Saur:
You're one totally awesome babe!!!
UL, I thank you very much, my friend!
Saur,
I would ask you to spell out your credentials, if it would make me understand how you missed the whole point of my comment.
Now I know you want unconditional love, when you say the KKK is equivalent to the Nation of Islam.
Perhaps if you had compared the Black Hanafi Muslims who attack and held hostages at the DC B'nai Brith in 1977, to the KKK ...
Does credentials strengthen one side of an argument?
Hathor, you wrote
Saur,
I would ask you to spell out your credentials, if it would make me understand how you missed the whole point of my comment.
Um...that's what I did. I stop at posting my resume.
Now I know you want unconditional love,
Huh? That makes no sense at all, Hathor. You're really disappointing me here. If this is the best of Obama's groupies, I'm saddened.
when you say the KKK is equivalent to the Nation of Islam.
Uh, yeah. And it is.
Perhaps if you had compared the Black Hanafi Muslims who attack and held hostages at the DC B'nai Brith in 1977, to the KKK ...
Hathor, Hathor, Hathor. Do you really want to trot out tiresome comparisons for all eternity? I mean, if YOU have time to do it, I certainly don't. And I fail to see what your point is by this last statement:
Are you saying white people can be bad? Sure they can!
Are you saying black people can be good? Sure they can!
But otherwise, your point is, frankly, inane. I repeat: Inane. Not insane (although perhaps that's arguable).
Emil, Not when facts are on your side. The dumbest idiot can wave a newspaper about, so I believe that my credentials are inconsequential (as you're implying).
I AM tempted to rattle them off, but that's pretty silly at this point, as Hathor's arguments aren't holding any of their own weight. And I'm not demanding HER credentials - just her facts and sources (both of which seem to be rather barren).
Facts? How come Obama is leading the poles, then? Excuse my ignorance - I am South African, fraught with our own challenges ... and for years guided by USA policy. Yes, we might have vested interest in seeing Obama win, but that aside, do you really believe that the world still need a conservative, militaristic approach to the challenges of intolerance and bigotry?
I'm not American, so I may be missing something. Those who mistake the politics of resentment for the politics of justice equate high culture with culture of the politically and economically dominant class, race or sex, and therefore take it that attacks on the former are attacks on the latter.
One disastrous consequence is that it allows the political Right to present itself as the defender of art, literature and free intellectual speculation, whereas historically it has been the Right - from Plato onwards - which has sought to repress the best human endeavors in these respects, on the grounds that art, literature and the unrestricted play of reason threaten to set people free and to make them equal.
Is dialogue really such a miserable alternative?
I am intrigued to read your response in order to progress my own point of view.
Emil, I appreciate your candor and interest. In some ways, your questions are too broad to answer easily and I simply don't have a great deal of time right now.
If you read through this post and my other posts within the last couple of weeks, you will see my point of view.
Americans see their country as their own, and believe that (in general) we are answerable to no one. We also pride ourselves on our tolerance (our Constitution guarantees equality and fair treatment of our citizens).
Obama is leading in the polls right now, it's true. And he may win the Presidency. But America is funny that way - polls mean very little, and there's still an excellent chance that McCain will win.
Anyway, *I* don't want a militaristic approach to our international problems and most people here agree with me. Remember that Bush and Congress both have abysmally low approval ratings, and with good reason.
However, for some reason we're stuck between "the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea" as one of our sayings goes. We have to choose between two substandard Presidential candidates, and we're not happy with either choice. The question is: Which one will do us the least harm? I believe that person is McCain.
I don't like the fact that McCain wants to continue the war. But I don't like Obama's willingness to have tea and crumpets with terrorists and dictators, either. There is room for compromise, and neither Obama or McCain is seemingly able to do so. But at least with McCain we know that he hasn't collected terrorists and thugs as his friends and bedfellows.
Post a Comment