About Palin's Hacker

The guy who broke into Palin's e-mail was the son of a Democratic state representative.
From "The Smoking Gun"

Kernell, pictured at right, allegedly changed its password to "popcorn" and made screenshots of the account's directory as well as certain messages, photos, and "other personal information." Those screenshots eventually were widely distributed online. If convicted of the felony charge, Kernell, an economics major at the University of Tennessee, faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

But it wasn't politically motivated.
Right.
Just a thought:
Watergate was about some low level thugs who broke into a Democratic headquarters office to steal their plans for the election.
This... was lower then that.
I've run into some pretty strange excuses over the past few days for Kernell's behavior. There are people who are suggesting its not a big deal, and that Palin shouldn't have used a Yahoo account.
This completely escapes the fact that the son of a Democratic state rep. broke into her e-mail account with the goal of changing the election. It doesn't matter what you think of Palin. This is like someone breaking into your home because they want to prove that you stole paperclips from your job. It blows on every moral level.

Obama belonged to socialist "New Party"

Sometimes I have a hard time writing a headline, because the issue is so important to me that I want to make sure I sum it up accurately and correctly.

The above title is completely true. I know with the slime found on the internet, its sometimes hard to figure out what is the truth. -And there is a lot of trash out there. So let me make the case, as it was originally presented in the "Politically drunk on power" blog.

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

This was fairly carefully researched stuff.
I love this part of the net; the ability to recall what someone said back in 1996, despite their efforts to cover it up.
This is what they found:

New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:

Specifically, they list off the following candidates for Illinois:

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

So if we're to believe the documents that were uncovered on the net, from 1996, the New Party (a socialist party) was proud to support New Party candidate Barack Obama.
I know that previously, there have been accusations that Barack is a socialist. Most people blow that kind of stuff off as political fluff. Its not real to them.
But in this case, its actually real.
Right voices has a good summary of everything that has been found so far.

What's interteresting to me about this is that the vast majority of the media is ignoring this.

There is proof that Obama belonged to a socialist organization. Which media outlet will be the first one to ask Obama about it? Will any media outlet ask him?

Or is Obama so Teflon, so loved, so adored, that even belonging to a socialist organization won't be cause for alarm?

-John

The guy who represents the average conservative

He's pissed. He's genuinely pissed.
I couldn't agree with this guy more.
From Hot Air:

I know how he feels... and my next post will expound on it.

Did Obama try to delay a deal for withdrawal?

This story has been around in various ways, but this one seems a lot more concrete. Particularly by the amount of people who won't comment.

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn't be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.

If true, it not only makes Obama the worst opportunist around, but a dangerous man to the US.

The bailout bill, and the bailout vote

I wanted to put this somewhere, so that I could keep tract of it easily. This is as good of a place as any.

The first vote on the bailout was September 29th, and the final tally is as follows:

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	140	95
Republican	65	133		1
Independent
TOTALS	205	228		1

The second vote on the bailout was October 3rd, and that tally is as follows:

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Democratic	172	63
Republican	91	108
Independent
TOTALS	263	171

My representative, Gutierrez, voted "yea" both times.

A stunningly accurate skit on the bailout

I have to give SNL complete kudos for this sketch.
Its not only really funny, but a very accurate version of what's going on.

Pain is sometimes funny.

At what point does hero worship get dangerous?

I think that I can say this with 100% honesty:

If Obama were a Republican - and if he agreed (in theory) with everything I believed in - and even if I thought he seemed humble...
...the hero worship would still creep me out.
It would creep me out to the point where I wouldn't vote for that candidate.

I don't understand this level of hero worship about anyone.
Its why I can't fathom the Jim Jones thing, or the Moonies, or anyone who hangs a big photo of their leader in their home.

With all of this in mind, I have to ask this question of any liberal and/or democrat who might run across my blog:
How far does it have to go?
How bizarre would it have to get before you would say

I can't vote for Obama. Not because I disagree with what he says, but this is too much faith to put into any one person. This is too much worship for one mortal being, especially one who is a politician.

Does that point exist?
Is there any point where you would say that the hero worship has gone too far?


Would it have to be Paris fashion show, where Obama's face is on dresses and clothes, with a model wearing some kind of wristlets that say "Yes, we can"?

Would it be a teachers union suggesting to their members that they should all wear blue on Tuesdays to show their support for Obama and as a way to influence the teens they teach?

Would it be a junior fraternity of black gentlemen marching, wearing camouflage, and stepping forward to tell you, one at a time, how Obama has changed their lives?

Or would it be a group of schoolchildren singing their praise for Obama, with their proud parents watching over them for praising their dear leader?

How far is too far for you?
I'd love it if someone would answer that for me.

Change. Creepy, creepy change.

When I was in 6th grade, I had a teacher who was an African American. I remember singing negro spirituals in that class, and feeling very awkward about it.
You see, there weren't any black kids in our class. So this wasn't about the teacher helping someone to find their identity. It was about what the teacher wanted us to do.

Even though I was in 6th grade, I understood that it was wrong for the teacher to have us sing from her point of view.
Similarly, I look at this video and I'm appalled.



When I watch it, I wonder how many of those kids know what they're singing about. I mean, the one girl is talking about how Obama will help bring freedom to the world. Despite the fact that he opposed the surge. Ahem.
The point being that no kid of that age should be used for politics.

If you read the text on the YouTube page, you find out how this video was created:

Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks.

Let's parse that sentence, shall we?
At an Obama fundraiser, they tried to figure out ways to spread the message. One of the party faithful was a woman named Kathy, who also happened to teach kids music. She co-authored the songs with the kids.
I hope it was the kids who wrote the lyrics. I'd hate to think that the teacher came up with this:

Now's the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

Ack. My teeth hurt.
Hey, if all of the nations joined as one sounds familiar, you'll probably like the ReMix of the song, which you can find here:

Its appropriately German.

Yeah, I know... tacky. But what do you call the original work? Artistic?
Let's face it.... its not just propaganda... but its creepy propaganda.
It reminded me of cults like this one:

That's from the cult of David Berg. He believed in free sex, free love, and freebies in general. Sound familiar?

Anyway, the good news is that we are about 30 days away from elections. If Obama is elected, all of these kids will be given electric blue "Hope" vests to march around in, and they will turn in anyone who doesn't want to affect change, not to mention those who don't want international unity.
That's how it always works.

It could be a landslide... for McCain!

Pollster Zogby has suggested that this upcoming election could end in a landslide... for McCain!
From the Democrat and Chronicle:

John Zogby, president of Zogby International, told a group of businesspeople today that it’s up to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to convince voters to go with him. If he’s not successful, the country will likely vote for “a comfortable old shoe”, that being Republican Sen. John McCain.

I was surprised as anyone to read that.
Keep in mind that I predicted this a year ago. But for the past two days, pundits have been telling me that McCain is down in the polls.
Apparently, Zogby doesn't think that the polls tell the whole story.

Priorities: McCain vs. Obama

A financial crisis hits.

I'm presuming that by now, everyone knows the details. But there's one detail that I really want to hit on:
What did each candidate do?

Obama was contacted by a Republican friend of his (Senator Tom Coburn) who suggested that he and McCain issue a joint statement.
Obama - to his credit - called up McCain.

McCain agrees, and says that it would be a good idea. Then McCain goes a little further, and suggests that they suspend the debate so that they can both go to Washington and solve the crisis.

Now I know I need to back up this point, because some people have argued that McCain didn't suggest this to Obama in that initial phone call.
Here is a transcript of Obama's press conference from the 24th of September. A reporter asks Obama if McCain mentioned suspending the debates in that call:

OBAMA: Well, he, you know, he mentioned that he was intending potentially, he was going to fly to Washington and that he thought that perhaps we should suspend the debates. I thought this was something that was, that he was mulling over. Apparently, this was something that, you know, he was more decisive about in his own mind.

Which is true. McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign to take care of the financial crisis.
What was Obama's answer?
Obama's priority is that he wants to debate.

I can't think of anything in recent history that makes the priorities of two candidates clearer.
On one hand, you have McCain. When the other candidate reaches out to him and suggests something that is good for the country, he agrees.

Then you have Obama. When the other candidate suggests something that would be good for the country, Obama suggests that he wants to go to the debates.
What is Obama's priority here?
Himself.
His quest for the presidency.
That's what he thinks is most imporant. That people get to see him and hear him.

My dad told me a long time ago that there is a great difference between what people say and what they do, and that I should note the difference.
The difference has been noted.

Naomi Wolf goes batshit crazy

When I was in college, I was assigned "The Beauty Myth" by a professor. He knew that I took fashion photos, and I presume that he wanted me to get some kind of feminist primer.

I wrote a fairly critical review of the book. I don't remember what I said, but I remember saying that Naomi's arguments were both incoherent and illogical.

Somehow, Naomi has gotten less coherent, while still selling books.

Recently, Naomi wrote a commentary for the Huffington Post. She writes about how Sarah "Evita Palin" [her slander, not mine] would mean the 'coming' of the 'police state'.

I'd love for everyone to think about that for just a second.
Do you logically believe that Sarah Palin sounds like the kind of person who is for a police state?
Keep in mind, the primary criticism of Palin up until this point has been that Sarah fired her police chief because he supported a ban on concealed weapons for ordinary people, and because the police chief wanted bars to close earlier.

That's the woman who is going to push a police state?

From there, Naomi starts to lose her shit. -And I mean, she seriously loses it. She argues that people - she doesn't say who - are after her. I'm going to quote her, unedited.

Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand.

Naomi goes on to argue that letters that she's sent to her daughter, at summer camp, have vanished. Apparently, the people who are harassing her really know how to get to a person. By stealing letters meant for summer camp. That's just... well... weird.

To Naomi's credit, I must have the same people after me. When I put money into my bank accounts, money vanishes. I have to keep putting more money in. Its really bizarre.

And e-mail? Don't get me started. I don't know who they are, but they keep putting a bunch of spam in my e-mail box. Obviously, I've been annoying those who would put us in a police state.
People like that old POW and the woman who fired her police chief because he wanted to restrict people from owning weapons.

Unfortunately, I missed Naomi's appearance tonight at the main library in my city. I realized she was going to be there too late. Which is too bad. Because I'd love to ask her a bunch of things in person. Like...

• Are you nuts? Do you actually believe that there is a secret cabal of Republicans who are harassing you?
• Why are you for Democrats, and against Republicans? Do you actually believe that the Republicans are trying to strip away your rights? Did you know that it was a Democrat who pushed labels on CDs with 'bad' lyrics? That it was a Democrat who pushed the V-chip in your TV? That it is Democrats who are pushing the 'Fairness Doctrine'?
• Are you nuts? No... really... like batshit crazy nuts? Do you believe that building 7 was bought down by the owner of the building on 9/11? Do you think that Katrina was caused by weather experiments? Do you think we faked going to the moon?

Naomi; I'm genuinely sad that I couldn't question you today. It would have been fun. Of course, you would have asked the security to take me away, because you'd worry that I'd put a new chip in your head. But it would still be fun.

A must-read story on a PR company and anti-Palin videos

Its really hard to sum up all of the fantastic reporting that The Jawa Report has done on this story. But I'll try.
Right after Palin was announced as the VP candidate, a video was produced attacking her. Links to that video were presented in various places, including a DailyKos diary, which was later deleted.

The Jawa Report followed the internet nuggets to the door of Winner & Associates; a PR firm that has donated to the Obama campaign and has significant ties to the same.

Again, read the report. I can't sum it up and do it justice. These guys really did their homework and connected the dots.

But if its all correct (and it seems to be), a PR company that has many connections to the Obama camp released a smear video on Palin, then tried to cover its tracks. A lot of tracks were deleted in the process, but the Jawa report kept them all.

Most recently, the Jawa Report published an update, where Ethan Winner (yes, Of Winner and Associates) claims that he made the video on his own, and that he planned on paying all of the expenses out of his own pocket.
If you read the rest of the report, you'll be saying 'bullshit' throughout his denial of impropriety, as I did.
Its important to note that the Jawa Report figured out that 'whoever' was posting those videos online was doing it during regular business hours... which would make it during the time when Ethan was supposedly working for Winner And Associates. Provided that he has regular business hours, of course.

I can't emphasize enough how good this report is. I took journalism classes. I know how much work it takes to follow all of the leads. If there was a Pulitzer for blogging, these guys should get it. Seriously.

What Republicans tried to do, to avoid this financial meltdown

I just wanted to remind everyone what Republicans tried to do in 2003, to avoid this financial meltdown.

According to this New York Times article, that I referenced earlier, the Bush White House proposed further regulation and oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Democrats almost reflexively went against it... suggesting additional oversight would make it harder for people with poor credit to get loans. (By the way; its just logical not to loan money to people with bad credit. I have horrible credit, and its that way for a reason.)

I did my homework, and I looked up the bills that were proposed at the time.
If you look here you'll find senate bill 1508. Read the first part. Its says:

TITLE I--REFORM OF REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC

That was a bill that Senator Hagel tried to get passed. If you look at the co-sponsors, you'll see McCain's name.

Apparently, the bill floundered in committee.

Here is bill HR 2575 which:

Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to transfer supervisory and regulatory authority over specified government sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to the Director of the Office of Housing Finance Supervision from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Requires the Director to ensure that the enterprises operate in a financially safe manner and remain adequately capitalized.

Sounds pretty smart. Doesn't it?

I lost tract of the third bill, but hopefully, you get the point. A bunch of Republicans tried to solve the problem, and they were blocked.

Anyway, I just wanted everyone to remember that as they read the financial news. Particularly when someone suggests that the Republicans don't care, or didn't try to do enough.

Cheney defines Bush Doctrine in 2001

There are about 5 different definitions of Bush Doctrine that I've found so far.
But this one is interesting to me, because it was said by VP Dick Cheney, shortly after September 11. Its from October 23rd of 2001.

Under the Bush doctrine, a regime that harbors or supports terrorists will be regarded as hostile to the United States of America.

The direct attack on our nation has put us on notice that the enemy is resourceful and ruthless. We have to assume there will be more attacks. That is the only safe way for to us proceed.

In this conflict, for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home than will our forces overseas. But in the face of these dangers, Americans can be assured that we are doing absolutely everything we know how to do.

Its strange to believe that September 11th happened 7 years ago. It feels like 2, maybe 3 years ago. Anyway, I thought that the next time that Charlie Gibson asks someone about the Bush doctrine, he might want to use Cheney's definition.

McCain critical of the NY Times

McCain is finally going after the real enemy in this election... the media.
The New York Times recently caught his ire. Spokesman Steve Schmidt said:

"This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is."

In response, the Obama camp tried to suggest that there was no bias on the part of the New York Times. (The Obamaniacs at the Times must be protected at all costs!)
To try to diffuse criticism of the Times, Obama spokespeople released a list of articles that they felt were critical of Obama.
I've chosen my favorite titles from that list, and post them below. Remember, these are supposed to be articles critical of Obama.

• In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
• Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
• After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
• A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
• An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
• In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
• Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
• Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
• Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
• The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
• Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
• Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
• Obama’s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
• As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]

That last one really hurts.
Ouch! How can his students be enthralled with him? That's clearly biased against him. -And the story of Obama, written by Obama? Now that's some hard-hitting journalism.
I thought I'd share that list of what the spokepeople of the Obama camp feel are articles that are critical of them.

In other criticism, Obama can't actually walk on water.

Having multiple cars? Wrong. A huge plane? Oh, that's okay.

Obama recently criticized McCain for his dozen cars. I guess that's excessive.

Apparently, he did so before boarding his campaign airplane.
You know the one. The one that has his name on his seat, with the word "President" on it?

Obama supporters try to suppress WGN. Again.

From this article on the Swamp:

Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author.

It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat.

At some point in time, Obama supporters are just going to have to actually start banning books critical of Obama.

UPDATE:

Here is a podcast of that show. I'm including it to piss people off who were trying to suppress the show.

What is Rangel's problem?

He didn't really call Palin disabled.
Did he?
From this CBS News story:

CBS 2 HD: "You got to be kind to the disabled?"

Rangel: "Yes."

CBS 2 HD: "She's disabled?"

Rangel: "There's no question about it politically. It's a nightmare to think that a person's foreign policy is based on their ability to look at Russia from where they live."

Stay classy, Rangel.

Absentee ballots

A bunch of people are complaining about absentee ballots.
I'm wary of them, but not against them. For this reason, I wanted to make sure that I bookmarked a good article that suggests that up to 1/3rd of the ballots this year might be cast via absentee ballot.

I note, with no happiness, that both parties are sending out a bunch of ballots. They are hoping that their people will fill them out and send them back. I'm not against people voting. But my feeling is that this is being done to make voter fraud easier.

John McCain wants to suppress POW info?

Of the nuttiest stories ever told during this campaign, the one that I hate the most is the idea that McCain has been trying to suppress knowledge about POWs that are still being held in captivity.

The guy behind this story is Sydney H. Schanberg, a Pulitzer winner who is an idiot. He previously wrote for the NY Times in 1975, and defended the rights of the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia:

In the news columns of The New York Times, the celebrated Sydney Schanberg wrote of Cambodians that ``it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.'' He dismissed predictions of mass executions in the wake of a Khmer Rouge victory: ``It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior as national policy under a Communist government once the war is over.'' On April 13, 1975, Schanberg's dispatch from Phnom Penh was headlined, ``Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life.''

This was stupid then, and Sydney is stupid now.
To suggest that McCain wants to hide any information about POWs from public consumption is not only reckless, but its not supported by facts. You don't have to believe me. Just go to the article, and look for meat. It doesn't exist.

It angers me to see someone who voluntarily stayed behind to support the morale of his POW cohorts being this badly maligned. Presumably, this is for political malice. If not, its journalistic malpractice.