Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Secret "Small Donors" Raise $200 Million, Obama Won't Disclose Names

http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_SECRETSLIESFOREIGN-MONEY-FLOODS-OBAMAS-CAMP/BLOG/110759/41158.html

SECRETS...LIES..FOREIGN MONEY FLOODS OBAMA'S CAMP!!!
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.


And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.


Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.



The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).



The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.



But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.



Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).



Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.



Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.



“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”



The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.



It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.



Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.



But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.



“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.



But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.



Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.



“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”



The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.



But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.



“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.



Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.



FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro



When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.



Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.



Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE BY KENNETH TIMMERMAN VISIT: WWW.NEWSMAX.COM

GOD BLESS,

Will Christianity be a Hate Crime if Same-Sex Marriage Proposition 8 Wins?

Gay Canada is Proposition 8's model of change for the USA.

Fred

Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
June 4th, 2008 by Pete Vere

“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”

The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of the process.

Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover, defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast, the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.

What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?

Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.

The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so boldly.

Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”

In other words, individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith’s traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the world’s oldest institutions — a redefinition that even the highly-secularist France rejects.

“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there is room for a settlement between parties,” van Dusen continued. The truth of the CHRC considering adherence to Catholicism or Islam a possible hate crime was made real by van Dusen’s implicit admission that the commission could dismiss the complaint against Fr. De Valk. Over six months have passed since the commission first notified Father of the complaint. There has been no hint of the commission dropping the complaint.

Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals.

Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV, Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to any homosexual act.

Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s human rights commissions. In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage ceremony.

Five years previous, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to proclaim a gay pride day.

Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn — not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal costs.

Thus Bishop Henry sympathizes with Father de Valk, who the bishop praises as a model of Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity to Christian teaching. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police,” His Excellency states.

Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.

While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.

Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.

Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.

The New Mexico commission ignored the fact that photography is a form of artistic expression. The state commission ignored the fact that the First Amendment protects individuals from compelled speech — that is, coercion from the state to give artistic expression that violates one’s most deeply held beliefs. The commission’s one-page ruling simply stated that Huguenin had “discriminated against [the lesbian complainant] because of sexual orientation.” As this New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruling shows, Americans are in grave danger of having their religious liberty ripped away from them by Canadian-style human rights commissions.

Pete Vere, JCL, is a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist. He writes from Sault Ste. Marie, a twin city in Northern Ontario and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. He is the co-author of Surprised by Canon Law, volumes one and two.

[http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/]

Rights complaints against Catholic Insight dismissed

Written by Deborah Gyapong, Canadian Catholic News,

OTTAWA - The Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed an anti-homosexual hate speech complaint against Catholic Insight magazine.

“We are of course very cautious,” said Catholic Insight editor Fr. Alphonse de Valk, CSB, whose small-circulation magazine already faces more than $20,000 in legal bills. “A judicial review is still possible. We’re not out of the woods yet.

“It is chilling to think that a publication can be hauled before a government tribunal simply for reporting to interested citizens developments in these areas of controversy,” said de Valk in a July 4 statement. “This matter underscores once again the necessity of urgent reform of the Canadian human rights system.”

Edmonton-based homosexual activist Rob Wells filed the nine-point complaint against Catholic Insight in early 2007. Catholic Insight is going to see whether it can take legal action to recoup its costs because of “harassing and financially burdening” nature of the complaints. Catholic Insight has maintained it has always adhered to Catholic teaching on human sexuality.

posted by Fred Martinez @ 9:36 PM

1 Comments:
At 11:48 AM, Blazing Cat Fur said...
Catholic Insight faces attack on yet another front. You will also be interested to know Catholic Insight has been put on a Heritage Canada watch list for communicating Church doctrine.

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2008/08/heritage-canada-letters-to-catholic.html

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Is Obama the Manchurian Candidate?

http://www.2sistersfromtheright.com/writings/Rich_Carroll/jihadcandidate.html

The Jihad Candidate

by Rich Carroll

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'Seven Days in May' are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader's imagination at best-seller level. 'What if' has always been the solid grist of fiction.

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years.

How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as 'chaplains'?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a 'freedom fighter' when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya's history.

Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.

Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of 'racism'.

Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies.

Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as 'bigoted racism'; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.

Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American 'free press' who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case?

Where are our nation's reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush's 'Skull and Bones' club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work?

Why haven't 'newsmen' pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries?

Where are the stories about this candidate's cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent?

Why haven't they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this 'out of nowhere' Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his 'close pastor friend and mentor' met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)?

Why isn't the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history.

Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama?

Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton's name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name?

Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth?

Why isn't our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on 'those bad American soldiers' while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe?

Why does our media refer to Darfur as 'ethnic cleansing' instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims!

There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood.

'The process of settlement' of Muslims in America, Akram explained, 'is a civilization jihad process.' This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in 'America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions.'

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide.

Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.

Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of 'racist' from the left-wing Democrat crowd.

Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for 'The Manchurian Candidate' or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation's White House?

Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States?

Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?

Change for America? What change? To become another 'nation of Islam'?

© Rich Carroll 2008
crossedrifles@hotmail.com

"Mad Bomber" Mastermind behind Barack Obama's Rise to Power

http://www.pr-inside.com/print797225.htm

William Ayers has been the mastermind behind Barack Obama's rise to power in Chicago.

Obama continues to deny the truth.

Barack Obama and William Ayers: Finally exposed

PART ONE

BY ANDY MARTIN

Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

'Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct'

AMERICA'S #1 POLITICAL
BLOG ON THE 2008 CAMPAIGN
--
We're not always first because we're #1;
We're #1 because we are always first.
--

WILLIAM AYERS HAS BEEN THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE RISE OF BARACK OBAMA

AYERS HAS DESIGNED AN OBAMA CAMPAIGN STRUCTURE WHICH IS BASED ON AYERS' THEORIES OF MAOIST REVOLUTION.

THE CHICAGO VERSION OF "FRIENDS"

OBAMA LIED TO ABC NEWS AND A NATIONAL TV AUDIENCE

(NEW YORK, NY)(September 9, 2008) Nailing down the relationship between "mad bomber" William Ayers and Barack Obama has been the greatest challenge of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The second biggest challenge of 2008 has been deciphering and understanding Barack Obama's campaign structure. His campaign is unlike any other presidential campaign in U. S. history. Obama's operation is authoritarian, disciplined and centralized in Chicago. Obama's reliance on a nationwide network of local "offices" and mailing lists points inexorably to a political latticework straight out of William Ayers' revolutionary playbook.

The bottom line: After an exhaustive investigation ContrarianCommentary.com can confirm that Barack Obama appears to be William Ayers' "front" for a national, ongoing Maoist-style revolutionary campaign structure which will endure past November 4th.

Ironically, as we searched for the Ayers-Obama relationship in the present, it was staring us in the face: Obama's campaign is structured precisely the way Ayers would want. That is why Obama has created "Camp Obamas" across the United States to indoctrinate workers, and adopted other similar Fidel Castro/Hugo Chavez tactics.

The puzzle pieces are finally starting to fall into place. Last week we asked why would Black Panther party revolutionary Khalid Al-Mansour start soliciting money for Obama's legal education? The answer: Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, were close associates of the Black Panther Party and even unleashed a terrorist attack on a New York judge who heard a Panther case.

In the 1980's, the Ayers/Dohrn revolutionary terror network was still working through individuals such as Al-Mansour, who had sufficiently laundered his radical past to assume respectability as a front for a Saudi Prince. The same way Ayers laundered his own past to become a professor of "education" at Illinois' taxpayer-subsidized university.

Ayers and Al-Mansour appear to have been in contact. Ayers vouched for Obama to Al-Mansour, who then began a law school fund-raising campaign among prominent African-Americans.

Obama's law degree thus appears to have been financed through the encouragement of persons who had been violent revolutionaries and remain unrepentant to this day, the same unconventional way the purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion was party financed by an Iraqi billionaire.

Why did Obama get hired as a "summer associate" in 1989 at the law firm which had hired Ayers' wife, and where Ayers' father was a prominent friend of the managing partner at Sidley & Austin? The answer is obvious. Ayers was grooming Obama as his future "front."

Where did Obama get his first and only legal job after Harvard? At a law firm where Tony Rezko was a prominent client and where name partner Judson Miner was a law school classmate of Bernadine Dohrn-Ayers. Yes, the pieces are starting to come together.

Was Obama telling ABC the truth when he said met the Ayers' at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995? Ayers had already been working with Obama for seven years; Ayers had appointed Obama to head a $50 million foundation. Did Ayers appoint a stranger? Or a front man? The answer is obvious.

Obama has relentlessly tried to conceal the Ayers/Obama time line, and the ongoing connections between the men. When bits and pieces of the Ayers/Obama relationship have popped up this year, Obama has sought to debunk and deflate each isolated piece of information. No one was able to grasp the big picture.

Until today, no one had actually connected all of the dots. ContrarianCommentary.com is the first to do so.

We always wondered why Obama had structured his campaign the way he did: small "offices" all across the United States. No other presidential campaign has ever done this. Bill Ayers is a proponent of locally based revolutionary tactics. Ayers' playbook is Mao Tse-Tung's handbook. And Obama's campaign structure follows Ayers' matrix. A nationwide network of "Camp Obamas" controlled from Chicago (i.e. Ayers)? You get the picture.

Obama is not stupid. He is a bright man, very talented, very personable and, until recently, a man without much of a personal history. But there is a shiftless, searching side to Obama's personality. Due to childhood neglect and abuse, he is a man without a conscience. He was and remains the perfect front for Ayers' ongoing revolutionary campaign to subvert and subdue the United States of America.

It can be said without fear of contradiction, a vote for Barack Obama is in reality a vote to put William Ayers in de facto control of the U. S government.

William Ayers is an admittedly unrepentant violent revolutionary who waged war against every American and who today is still scheming to wage war against the United States. This time he wants his headquarters to be in the Oval Office of the White House.

William Ayers is the mastermind behind the rise to power of Barack Obama. He has been since 1988.

ANDY MARTIN WILL EXPLORE THIS CLAIM IN A NEW YORK CITY NEWS CONFERENCE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH (TBA).

---------

THE AYERS/OBAMA TIMELINE: (Version 1.0; a work in progress; dates are approximate)

1987 William Ayers meets Barack Obama

1988 Ayers solicits Khalid Al-Mansour to raise money for Obama's Harvard law School education

1989 Tom Ayers and William Ayers get Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin (where he meets Michelle Obama); Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley at about the same time as Barack and Michelle.

1993 Ayers places Obama on Woods Foundation

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

1995 Ayers hosts a coffee klatch for Obama's political debut (Obama falsely claims this is when he met Ayers)

2007-2008 The structure of Obama's presidential campaign increasingly comes to resemble an Ayers-designed national "community organizer matrix" straight out of Maoist theory. This is not merely a presidential "campaign." Obama's organization is the first installment of an ongoing movement being paid for with tax-exempt contributions to his campaign, approaching half a billion dollars.

2008 Obama In response to ABC News, Obama tells a national TV audience he was "six years old" when Ayers bombed federal buildings, and they are only casual neighborhood acquaintances. A lie.

Even though we have finally started piecing the puzzle together, we continue to investigate. For example, where in Chicago did Barack Obama live in 1985-1988? Help if you have an address.

Because we are still assembling all of the pieces to the Ayers-Obama puzzle, feel free to submit suggestions, additions to the timeline or other information that you believe may be helpful. We will publish updated/corrected versions.



Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask confirms this book is the intelligent bestseller about Barack Obama, and the only practical handbook on his unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.

Buy now: Immediate shipment available from Amazon.com. Signed copies of the book from: www.OrangeStatePress.com. Also available from www.BarnesandNoble.com

----------

URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama is raising money to fight Barack Obama. CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. Please give generously up to the maximum of $100. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama is directly dependent on the generosity of every American."

The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama limits itself to $100 maximum contributions; there are no bundlers, fat cats or illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised more than a third of a BILLION dollars, his opponents have raised virtually nothing. We can't just sit back and expect John McCain to do the job all alone. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."

E-mail: contact@CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com

-------

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have decided to oppose Barack Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, StopObamaCoalition.com and CommitteeofOneMilliontoDefeatBarackObama.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. The views expressed are entirely independent of McCain. I am not a member of any political organization. I am acting as an American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are running a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. We know how. We are the recognized experts in the field. I will, however, continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com. /s/ Andy Martin E-mail: contact@StopObamaCoalition.com


Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He is currently based in New York selling his new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.

His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see www.OrangeStatePress.com.

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or cell (917) 664-9329
E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Obama's Economic Adviser Caused the Present Economic Calamity

Obama economic adviser Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, caused the present economic calamity by repealing the of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed during the Great Depression.

Fred Martinez



http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14732.cfm

"Near the end of his eight years in office, Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, one of the most far-reaching banking reforms since the Great Depression. It swept aside parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that had provided significant regulatory firewalls between commercial banks, insurance companies, securities firms, and investment banks. . .

Wall Street had been lobbying for years for an end to Glass-Steagall, but it had not received much support before Clinton. Among those with a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall was Robert Rubin, who had months earlier stepped down as treasury secretary to become chair of Citigroup, a financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to sell off its insurance underwriting subsidiary. . .

History should deal harshly with Bill Clinton. Throughout his terms, real wages stagnated, manufacturing and service jobs moved overseas in large numbers, and the middle class was squeezed. With the federal government asleep at the wheel, there was a significant rise in predatory lending practices by banks and mortgage companies. By Clinton's final years in office, all of these trends had contributed to an ominous rise in delinquencies and foreclosures on subprime mortgage loans."

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14732.cfm

Why the Democrats Haven't Been More Helpful in the Fiscal Crisis
UNDERNEWS, September 18, 2008
Straight to the Source


The Democrats seem slightly befuddled how to react to the current fiscal crisis. One reason is that they helped to cause it. Starting with the Clinton administration, there was a conscious effort by Democrats to cozy up to Wall Street and to this day Barack Obama is being advised by those with deep involvement in the policies and practices that led to the current disaster. You can't well complain about Bush's Treasury Secretary having been with Goldman Sachs, when Clinton's was as well and now the guy has Obama's ear. And during the period liberals have largely looked the other way as the economic principles of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society were steadily unraveled.

The Prowler, American Spectator - http://overthehilloracles.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/the-ob... When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.

That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign.

In fact, the McCain campaign had sought a similar briefing several days ago as word spread that a bailout plan was to be unveiled and had been turned down by Paulson's senior staff.

The next question is: Why was the Obama campaign so keen on getting advanced word about the bailout?

"They have a huge problem with the mortgage and housing market story, and everyone is missing it," says a Republican political media consultant with ties to the Obama campaign due to the bipartisan nature of the firm he does work with.

"You look at Obama's economic advisers, the guys he has counted on from day one and who have raised him a ton -- and I mean a ton -- of money: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of them are waist to neck deep in the mortgage debacle."

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

"How can Obama go out with a straight face and saw it was Republicans who made this mess, when it is his key advisers who ran the agencies that made the big mess what it is?" says a Democrat House member who supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "It's his people who are responsible for what may well be the single largest government bailout in history. And every single one of them made millions off the collapse that are lining Obama's campaign coffers. . .

It isn't just Fannie Mae where Obama has a problem. Another close political adviser, in fact the one man responsible for rallying support for Obama early on among Congressional Democrats, is Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who served on the Board of Directors for Freddie Mac after leaving the Clinton White House. . .

Emanuel claimed to be neutral in the primary race between the wife of his old boss and his longtime Chicago acquaintance, Obama. But the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who would be first in line for the vacated Senate seat of Obama should he win the presidency, quickly dumped Clinton when it was clear Obama had a head of steam for the nomination. . .

Both Raines and Johnson have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Both are key political and economic advisers to Obama.

Protein Wisdom http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12161 - [In a] May 6th speech, [Obama] said that we "need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators." What Obama failed to mention was that by the end of March 2008, he had taken $1,180,103 http://www.observer.com/2008/clinton-campaign-unimpressed... from people and groups associated with the top ten http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-su... issuers of subprime loans. . . Indeed, Swiss banking giant UBS http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/business/worldbusiness/... , which has written off more debt from the subprime crisis than any other bank, has contributed $363,257 not included in that total. . .

Obama failed to mention that his fundraising bundlers http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateI... include:
Louis Susman, Michael Froman and J. Michael Schell of Citigroup;
Steve Koch of Credit Suisse;
Bruce Hayman, David Heller, Eric Schwartz, and Todd Williams of Goldman Sachs;
Mark Gilbert, Christine Forester, John Rhea, Nadja Fidelia, and Theodore Janulis of Lehman; and
Robert Wolf of UBS Americas.
These folks raised an additional $1,800,000 for Obama. . .

One bundler who deserves special mention is Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker, who happens to be Obama's national Finance Chair. Pritzker was an owner and board member of Superior Bank of Chicago, which went bust in 2001 with over $1 billion in deposits. Timothy Anderson http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022708a.html - who obsessively pursued http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1996/11/hel... the late Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) over his role in the failure of Clyde Federal Savings & Loan - has been quoted as saying that "Superior's owners were to sub-prime lending what Michael Milken was to junk bonds."

In January, Max Fraser of The Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser compared the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to address the subprime lending issue, concluding that Obama had staked out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well. Fraser blamed Obama's economic advisers, primarily Austan Goolsbee. Since January, however, we have seen that Obama knows how to ignore http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11247 Goolsbee and even suggest he was never a senior adviser http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11375 .

Contributions to members of Congress from Lehman Brothers - http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/brothers-grim-is-... Top five recipients in the past 20 years: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Christopher Dodd, Joe Lieberman

Obama advisor Austin Goolsbee's defense of subprime mortgages http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html?e...
land&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Bob Feldman, Nation (letter) - http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20080211/fraser
One reason Barack Obama might not want to talk about the role of financially irresponsible bank board members in creating the subprime mortgage foreclosure financial disaster is that the national finance chair of Obama's campaign, Penny Pritzker, is a former board member of the failed Superior Bank S&L that engaged in irresponsible subprime mortgage lending during the 1990s.

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Obama campaign's national finance chair, Pritzker "served as chairman of the Superior Bank from 1989 to 1994, but the savings and loan institution collapsed" in July 2001. Created at the end of 1988 as the successor bank to the failed Lyons Savings Bank, the Oakbrook Terrace/Hinsdale, Illinois-based Superior Bank was 50 percent owned by Chicago's billionaire Pritzker family. . . In a December 2002 Chicago magazine article, Shane Tritsch noted that for investing $42.5 million in the failed Lyons Savings Bank before it was reopened as Superior Bank, the Pritzkers and their business partner received an estimated $645 million in federal tax credits and loan guarantees; and "by one estimate, it would have cost the government $200 million less simply to shut Lyons down.". . .

With a business loss estimate of between $350 million and $1 billion, the 2001 failure of the Pritzkers' Superior Bank represented the largest US-insured deposition institution to fall between 1992 and 2001. According to a February 7, 2002, report by FDIC Inspector General Gaston Gianni Jr., "the failure of Superior Bank was directly attributable to the Bank's Board of Directors and executives ignoring sound risk management principles."

To avoid being punished for the failure of Superior Bank, the Pritzker family agreed to pay the FDIC $460 million. Yet even with this settlement, the failure of the Superior Bank due its board's apparent mismanagement cost the federal thrift insurance agency (and US taxpayers) about $440 million. . .

The 1,400 Superior Bank depositors whose savings deposits in excess of $100,000 were uninsured, however, brought a federal civil racketeering suit against Penny Pritzker and other former Superior Bank officials. . .

Given the past involvement on the board of a failed savings bank that engaged in financially reckless subprime lending of the 2008 Obama presidential campaign's national finance chair, it's not surprising that Max Fraser reports that "only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze;" and that Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute said that "there's been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime mess."

Timothy A Canova, Dissent Magazine http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1229
- The conventional wisdom has held that economic policy was a great success under Bill Clinton in the 1990s and a failure ever since. Hillary Clinton has made the comparison often, promising to end "the seven year detour" and "attack poverty by making the economy work again." In January, in response to the president's State of the Union Address, Barack Obama stated that it was "George Bush's Washington that let the banks and financial institutions run amok and take our economy down this dangerous road." Perhaps this reading of history makes for good politics in an election year, and it is certainly better for the Clintons than for anyone else. The only problem is that the story line is flawed. One could even say that it's a bit of a fairy tale.

For six of eight years, Bill Clinton governed with Republican majorities in Congress. Not surprisingly, there was much continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Both embraced the so-called Washington Consensus, a policy agenda of fiscal austerity, central-bank autonomy, deregulated markets, liberalized capital flows, free trade, and privatization. . .

It is easy to forget that Clinton had other alternatives. In 1993, Democrats in Congress were attempting to rein in the Federal Reserve by making it more accountable and transparent. Those efforts were led by the chair of the House Banking Committee, the late Henry B. Gonzalez, who warned that the Fed was creating a giant casino economy, a house of cards, a "monstrous bubble." But such calls for regulation and transparency fell on deaf ears in the Clinton White House and Treasury.

The pattern was set early. The Federal Reserve became increasingly independent of elected branches and more captive of private financial interests. This was seen as "sound economics" and necessary to keep inflation low. Yet the Federal Reserve's autonomy left it a captive of a financial constituency it could no longer control or regulate. Instead, the Fed would rely on one very blunt policy instrument, its authority to set short-term interest rates. As a result of such an active monetary policy, the nation's fiscal policy was constrained, public investment declined, critical infrastructure needs were ignored. Moreover, the Fed's stop-and-go interest-rate policy encouraged the growth of a bubble economy in housing, credit, and currency markets. . .

The Washington Consensus has denied the need for regulation of the financial marketplace at every level. Jagdish Bhagwati, a prominent free-trade economist, has referred to the "Wall Street-Treasury-IMF complex" to suggest a policy agenda formulated and pushed by powerful financial interests. Joseph Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, has noted the agenda's many unscientific assumptions and refers to its promoters as "free market fundamentalists.". . .

For years the federal government had regulated [consumer credit and housing] lending standards to prevent inflation of asset prices in key sectors of the economy, particularly during wartime and boom times. For instance, Federal Reserve Regulation X required minimum down payments and maximum periods of repayment for housing loans. Federal Reserve Regulation W utilized the same devices for consumer credit for the purchase of automobiles, appliances, and other durable goods.

But starting with the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, and continuing under Clinton, such regulations were mostly repealed. Known as "selective credit controls," these policy instruments took a "command and control" approach to regulation. It was an approach that reduced systematic risk by discouraging the development of a subprime mortgage market for borrowers with bad credit. Without such controls, lenders started making a flood of loans without minimum down-payment requirements, and eventually without even requiring documentation of income on many loans. Adjustable interest rates and hidden balloon payments made these loans inherently more risky.

Predatory lending was not an invention of the Bush administration. High-interest payday loans and subprime mortgages took off under Clinton. . .

By 1995, the subprime loan market had reached $90 billion in loan volume, and it then doubled over the next three years. Rising loan volume led to a significant deterioration in loan quality. Meanwhile, by March 1998, the number of subprime lenders grew from a small handful to more than fifty. Ten of the twenty-five largest subprime lenders were affiliated with federally chartered bank holding companies, but federal bank regulators remained unconcerned. . .

Near the end of his eight years in office, Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, one of the most far-reaching banking reforms since the Great Depression. It swept aside parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that had provided significant regulatory firewalls between commercial banks, insurance companies, securities firms, and investment banks. . .

Wall Street had been lobbying for years for an end to Glass-Steagall, but it had not received much support before Clinton. Among those with a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall was Robert Rubin, who had months earlier stepped down as treasury secretary to become chair of Citigroup, a financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to sell off its insurance underwriting subsidiary. . .

History should deal harshly with Bill Clinton. Throughout his terms, real wages stagnated, manufacturing and service jobs moved overseas in large numbers, and the middle class was squeezed. With the federal government asleep at the wheel, there was a significant rise in predatory lending practices by banks and mortgage companies. By Clinton's final years in office, all of these trends had contributed to an ominous rise in delinquencies and foreclosures on subprime mortgage loans. This was particularly pronounced in urban America. In Chicago, for instance, foreclosures on subprime mortgages rose from 131 in 1993 to more than 5,000 in 1999. . .

The Washington Consensus preaches private competition, transparent markets, and less government regulation. Although many mortgage borrowers have been subject to ruthless, unfettered competition, investment banks and hedge funds are increasingly protected by hidden subsidies. Thanks to the combination of deregulation and Federal Reserve bailouts, profits were privatized while the losses are now socialized. . .

Financial deregulation and central-bank autonomy were supposed to make the U.S. financial sector stronger. Financial innovation was among the great American exports, along with the model of an independent central bank. The Federal Reserve, insulated from public politics, was supposed to be the guarantor of price stability. Instead, the Fed has presided over what has been one of history's greatest financial bubbles.

Moreover, while trillions of dollars were channeled into housing and stock market bubbles, the public sector remained woefully underfunded. This, too, has been the legacy of the Clinton-Bush bubble economy: fiscal austerity and budget cutbacks in physical and social infrastructure, from structurally deficient roads and bridges and inadequate water and sewage systems to the collapsing levees around New Orleans and declining public education everywhere. . .

Timothy A. Canova is the Betty Hutton Williams Professor of International Economic Law at the Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who has covered Washington under nine presidents and edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review is an online journal and archive of alternative news. It has been on the web since 1995

Monday, September 22, 2008

Bias "Factcheck.org is the Biggest Travesty"

http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=4595

MSM’s Corrupt Truth Squads
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, September 20th, 2008

Most every time you turn on MSNBC or CNN — or click on over to the likes of the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, Factcheck.org, and ABC’s Jake Tapper – they’re constantly proclaiming themselves the high and mighty arbiters of truth with their so-called “Truth Squads,” and I’m telling you this is the single most insidious thing going on in the campaign right now.

Obviously they are taking hammer and tong to McCain with much more frequency than Obama, the result of which effectively undercuts both McCain’s legitimate criticisms of Obama and McCain’s credibility.

This is a disgustingly bias practice with most McCain attacks being taken wildly out of context in order to be proven false and Obama given a pass on such things as the disgraceful Rush Limbaugh ad – which got scant, scant coverage compared to McCain’s “lipstick” ad — and of course the media can read Obama’s mind and proclaim that he was not referring to Sarah Palin as a pig.

The media has absolutely no business declaring what is and isn’t true like some holy referee. CNN and Jake Tapper are by far the worst at this and the conservative media — you know, the side of the media willing to admit their bias upfront — needs to call attention to these corrupt referees and loudly and unanimously cry foul.

If we lose this campaign, it will be on this ground. And we don’t have a lot of time to take the bite out of these biased attacks. As I said earlier, McCain might well kick the little messiah’s butt in the upcoming debates but these biased and morally corrupt truth squaders are all set and to jump in the tank marked “Obama” and use the next news cycle to turn a McCain debate victory into an attack on his credibility with more of this out-of-context truth squadding.

You were wrong when you thought the mainstream media hit bottom in 2004.

If there’s a Freeper in the house, please post this for me.


Filed in General |

31 Responses to “MSM’s Corrupt Truth Squads”

Mike Kriskey
on 20 Sep 2008 at 8:46 pm
1Tapper’s not the worst of them. He wrote about Obama’s disgusting Spanish ad which accused McCain teaming with Rush Limbaugh to deport “stupid Mexicans.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html

(Harry, your link for Tapper goes to Ghost Town on IMDB.)

Factcheck.org debunked a lot of Palin smears here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Howard Kurtz gets no defense from me.


Sharon Ferguson
on 20 Sep 2008 at 8:47 pm
2Im a FReeper - will check to see if it has been


Danila
on 20 Sep 2008 at 8:49 pm
3Harry, thank YOU for this post. No one is talking about this, and I agree with you, this could decide the election. John McCain, for all of his MANY faults, has always been a straight-shooting truth-teller. And in fact, until this past month, Obama wasn’t arguing otherwise. But now that the Obama campaign has decided to go with the “say they’re just lying about EVERYTHING” strategy, the media is fully on-board. Obama has come out saying the abortion survivor ad is just lies, when there’s nothing untrue in it. In fact, Obama is proud to have fought that legislation! He doesn’t even deny it, he just claims they’re telling vague “lies” and that’s enough.

The Bush administration has a reputation of dishonesty (not saying if they deserve it, just that they have it) and this has tarnished the Republican Party. It’s obvious to me that the blatant whoppers keep coming from the Democrats but McCain-Palin, the maverick candidates, are the only Republicans who were free from that taint. McCain was respected by a great many independents and moderates, and Palin is obviously very above-board, and even though some people hate everything she stands for, she doesn’t hide what she stands for. They’re trying to tear all of that down now and the media is fully on-board.

Factcheck.org is the biggest travesty in all this. I realized this a couple of weeks ago after the GOP convention, when I went over to factcheck to see what the spin was. For example, factcheck claims Palin lied when she said Obama never authored a single piece of legislation. Factcheck says he “pushed through” some legislation. But where is the lie? There’s no lie there! And that’s just a small example.

This started with the “sex ed for kindergartners” legislation that Obama supported. This was the “big lie” and all of the media got on board. But…the legislation did call for sex ed starting in kindergarten when it had previously begun in sixth grade. There was no lie or even deceptive spin on the McCain campaign’s part. And I’d bet money that like most liberals, Obama has no problem with sex ed for young children just like he is proud of fighting the “Born Alive” act. He just denies those things now just to be denying them.

He’s just willing to do anything to win right now. And the media is desperate for him to win, because they made him. They’re hammering McCain. A lot of this stuff is obvious and easily proven. It’s not requiring the media to be nuanced or go into too much detail, these are flat-out simple things. But they’ve decided that “McCain lies” is the story that will win it for them. So after the debates, they’ll just say he lied and that’ll be that.

The Biggest Loser: Press Credibility--along with FactCheck.org

http://femisex.com/content/the-biggest-loser-press-credibility-along-with-factcheckorg

The Biggest Loser: Press Credibility--along with FactCheck.org

Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 1:01 pm — admin
The following was posted today on CBS.com --an interview with Mark Penn, former Clinton campain Chief Strategist. (It is also a cover story on Real Clear Politics.)

As a journalist, i couldn't agree more with Mr. Penn....the Press has absolutley lost credibiity in this election...so much so that I, a member and long-time defender of the 4th Estate, am full of shame.

Here is an excerpt from Penn's CBS interview:
-----------------
Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates.

------
Femisex applaudes Mr. Penn for these incisive statements. But, we would up the ante--this year's press debacle is more than an unfortunate development, it is a real disaster. When the public dismisses press accounts as inaccurate because of bias, democracy suffers make no mistake.

A small example is watching network news declare yesterday that Obama, “IN FACT” did not call Palin a Pig…or for that matter McCain an OLD Fish. When so many found this to be the case How is it possible that only the media knows that Obama meant? All the media had to do was report the controversy and be done with it, but when they set out to exonerate Obama, especially when his meaning is SO SO open to interpretation, then this is another chink in Press credibility. Apply this to meatier issues, such as unethical politics, and the public understands the Press can no longer be counted on to give us the Truth about their preferred candidate. Obama may have mummified bodies in his basement but we Will LEARN about Palin’s latest pantyhose preference and every dime she spent on lunch expenses as Governor.

Sexism in the press is at such an all-time high, one wonders if this is Really??? 2008. MSM dismissing Palin as a Plucky Beauty Queen? Really? Biden and Obama crackn' wise over her good looks. Really?
The press says not sexist! ( Fact Check.org says this is not sexist, even when they looked at the remarks in context. The context: Biden/Obama declared the gigantic – difference btw them and Palin was her good looks. In context this IS significant… Biden/ Obama were purporting that they would help get American back on its feet, while in their next breath …that Palin would be putting on lipstick. This was not very subtle, or smart. But the press, including Fact Check.org! can be counted on to defend them against such attacks. )

NOW ladies imagine this scenario:
You are meeting a client who is hearing two proposals that morning. You want their business and you are pitching hard to win it. You enter the conference room and the clients are all seated at the table. The first thing the clients ask is what is the main difference btw your proposal and theirs (the men who went before you), and you say... well, I’m good looking. Sure everyone laughs but I guaran-damn-tee you've been lowered by that remark. If your salient best is superficial beauty, then expectations are lowered, and not in a good lookn' way!

FactCheck.org says: “.. Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment.”

Femisex to Factcheck.org: R U KIDDING? BackFisted compliments count right? Compliments that undermine are compliments? If someone asked Palin what the obvious “gigantic” difference was btw her and Obama and she cited his familiarity with Rapper Ludicrous {sic} would that be a compliment? In one fell swoop that would dismiss Obama’s seriousness as a candidate and take a swipe at his race as well. Shame of Fact Check for not giving the public better service on this!

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
This link also declares that an Obama ad that implies that Palin is a sock-puppet who doesn’t do her homework, is fine and dandy. Poleeze, credibility ?? FactCheck.org is turning out to be as biased as MSM! They even praise Camp Obama for calling Palin a “skilled politician”, something that in this election is the most backfisted compliment one can give, without actually knocking out teeth.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/politicalplayers/main...

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Why Reparation is Needed for America

Archbishop Sheen Today! -- Reparation

By Barbara Kralis

© Catholic Online 2004

“My sin is always before me,” Ps.50

In the face of spreading agnosticism and relativism, the term 'reparation' is most unusual. Moreover, not only is the term unusual but also is its theology.

We witness today the loss of the meaning of penance, prayer, fasting, confession, and reparation. The modernists call it change when its real name is decay.



Why Reparation is Needed for America


In a culture where sin is no longer considered sin, why should anyone make reparation?

How many today remove the body of Christ from the Crucifix and look only at the empty cross. If we Christians have a Crucifix before us, instead of an empty cross, we cannot forget about sin and reparation. "Paccatum meum contra me est semper." [1]

To understand 'reparation,' we first have to understand what St. Paul was teaching the Colossians about our cooperation in Christ's sufferings. The following is part of what the Church calls the 'paschal mystery.'

Christ's perfect Sacrifice was accomplished when He said, "It is finished." [2] The objective redemption is a 'fait accompli.' However, St. Paul said that there is more to it.

Therefore, here comes the difficult part.

St. Paul explained, "Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church...." [3]

What in heaven's sake is St. Paul saying?

St. Alphonsus [4] summarizes this statement as follows:

"Can it be that Christ's passion alone was insufficient to save us? No. It left nothing more to be done; it was more than sufficient to save all men. However, for the merits of the Passion to be applied to us, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, [5] we need to cooperate (subjective redemption) by patiently bearing the trials God sends us, so as to become like our head, Christ."

This is called 'reparation.' It is a theological doctrine of the Catholic Church. Reparation is the foundation of many confraternities and pious associations [6] — to make reparation for our sins and for the sins of mankind.

That infinite merit of Christ's Passion and Sacrifice on Calvary enables us to add our daily prayers, labors, trials, and sufferings to those of our Lord. Thus, we become actually co-redeemers with Christ, sharing in His suffering.

Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the force of the Redemption. [7]

Why should we make reparation to God? For two reasons: 1) to repair for our own offences against Him, 2) by virtue of the Communion of the Saints, we can also make satisfaction or reparation for the sins of others.

However, we first need to see ourselves as we really are so we can properly intercede for the souls of others. We do this through frequent Confession. [8]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.2412, n.2487, n.2454, n. 2509 teaches that every offense committed entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven.

The greatest offering of reparation is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

So that we might join with Christ, He commanded his disciples at the Last Supper "Do this in memory of me."

Since Holy Mass is the representation of Christ's infinitely perfect Sacrifice of Calvary, it is one of the best means of offering satisfaction or reparation of God's wrath.

In fact, St. Therese of Lisieux said the best reparations she could ever make for sin was attending Holy Mass and worthily receiving Holy Communion.

Here, below, is a popular Bishop Sheen vignette on this subject.









By Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

J.M.J.

The past stays with us in our habits, in our consciousness of remembered guilt, in our proclivity to repeat the same sin. Our past experiences are in our blood, our brains, and even in the very expression that we wear.

The future judgment is also with us; it haunts us, causing our anxieties and fears, our dreads and preoccupations, giving us insecurity and uncertainty.

A cow or a horse lives for the present moment, without remorse or anxiety; but man not only drags his past with him, but he is also burdened with worries about his eternal future.

Because the past is with him in the form of remorse or guilt, because the future is with him in his anxiety, it follows that the only way man can escape either burden is by reparation — the making up for the wrong done in the past — and by a firm resolution to avoid such sin in the future.

How do we make reparation? Disposing of the past is the first step to take, and in taking it, the important distinction between forgiveness and reparation for sin should be remembered.

Some who have done wrong mistakenly think that they should only forget it, now that it is past and 'done with.' Others believe, falsely, that once a wrong deed has been forgiven, nothing further needs to be done. However, both of these attitudes are incomplete, as they lack in love.

We all will have to unite our cross with our Lord on the Cross in order to use it to purchase our eternal salvation. About a year ago (circa l970), I was talking to Pope Paul VI and I said to him, "You are well named." He was named Paul.

Paul went from city to city, was stoned from Lystra to Derby to Antioch to Pisidia, and so I said, "You were stoned by your own."

"Yes," he said. "I open my mail at midnight and in almost every letter is a thorn and when I put my head on my pillow an hour or two later, I really lay it down upon a crown of thorns.

"But," he said, "I cannot tell you what ineffable joy I have to suffer."

Then Pope Paul VI quoted to me the twenty-fourth verse of St. Paul's letter to the Colossians:

"Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church...." [9]

"I suffer all of this for the sake of the Church," said the Pope.

That is how we use suffering. I think the great tragedy of the world is the suffering that goes to waste. People suffer and they have no one whom they can love to suffer for. Love does not kill the pain but it diminishes it.

Our Lord, in instituting the Sacrament of Penance, made it clear that there is a difference between forgiveness and the undoing of the past. That is why confession is followed by absolution, or forgiveness, and why, when absolution has been given, the confessor says: "For your penance say...."

Then he tells the penitent what payers to say or which good actions to perform to make atonement for his sins.

The high reasonableness of this is apparent if we translate the offence against God into purely human terms.

Suppose that I have stolen your watch. When my conscience finally pricks me, I admit it all to you and say: "Will you forgive me?"

No doubt, you will, but I am sure that you will also say: "Give me back the watch."

Returning the watch is the best proof of the sincerity of my regret. Even children know there must be a restoration of the balance or equilibrium disturbed by sin.

For instance, a boy who breaks a window playing ball often volunteers, "I'll pay for it." Forgiveness alone does not wipe out the offence. It is as if a man, after every sin, was told to drive a nail into a board and, every time he was forgiven, a nail was pulled out. He would soon discover that the board was full of holes, which had not been there in the beginning.

Similarly, we cannot go back to the innocence that our sins have destroyed. When we turned our backs upon God by sinning against Him, we burned our bridges behind us; now they have to be rebuilt with patient labour.

A businessman who has contracted heavy debts will find his credit cut off. Until he has begun to settle the old obligations, he cannot carry on his business. Our old sins must be paid for before we can continue with the business of living.

Reparation is the act of paying for our sins. When that is done, God's pardon is available to us. His pardon means a restoration of the relationship of love, just as if we offended a friend, we do not consider that we are forgiven until the friend loves us again.

God's mercy is always present. His forgiveness is forever ready, but it does not become operative until we show Him that we really value it.

The father of the prodigal son had forgiveness always waiting in his heart; but the prodigal son could not avail himself of it until he had such a change of disposition that he asked to be forgiven and offered to do penance as a servant in his father's house.

So long as we continue our attachment to evil, forgiveness is impossible; it is as simple as the law, which says that living in the deep recesses of a cave makes sunlight unavailable to us. Pardon is not automatic — to receive it, we have to make ourselves pardonable.

The proof of our sorrow over having offended is our readiness to root out the vice that caused the offence. The man who holds a violent grudge against his neighbour and who confesses it in the Sacrament of Penance cannot be forgiven unless he forgives his enemy.

"If you do not forgive, your Father Who is in Heaven will not forgive your transgressions either." (Mk.11:26). [10]

NOTES:


Paccatum meum contra me est semper" in English means "my sin is always before me," from Psalm 50, the 'Miserere.'


Cf. Jn 19:30.


Cf. Col. 1:24; 2 Cor 1:5f; Eph 3:1, 13.


Cf. St. Alphonsus, 'Thoughts on the Passion," n.10.


Cf. Summa theologiae, III, q. 49, ans. 3.


Cf. The Archconfraternity of Reparation for blasphemy and the neglect of the Holy Day of Sunday (founded 1847); excellent prayers available at the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face, of Tours, France (1851); the Archconfraternity of the Mass of Reparation, Parish (1886); Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is another pious association.


Cf. 'Salvifici doloris,' n.27, John Paul II.


It is well known that the Pope John Paul II receives the Sacrament of Penance on a weekly basis.


Cf. Col 1: 24


Source: "Christian life is struggle," by Fulton J. Sheen, from the book "Go to Heaven," published 1949 by Catholic Book Club, 121 Charing Cross Road, London W.C.2.


© Barbara Kralis

Election Novena 2008

http://www.electionnovena.org/

Election Novena 2008


A 54 Day Rosary Novena


Novena Intention

"For an outcome of the November election which is pleasing to Almighty God, and which best serves the eternal and temporal interests of all of His children."

Please Help Spread the Word !!!
1. Tell everyone you know, especially those without internet access about this prayer campaign and help them in whatever way you can to participate themselves, as well as to enlist the participation of everyone they know.

2. E-mail everyone on every e-mail list you have. Tell them about the novena, and be sure to include the URL of this web site.

3. Inform your bishop about the novena and ask that he support its promotion throughout the diocese.

4. Approach your diocesan superintendent of education and request that the novena be promoted in the Catholic schools.

5. Approach your diocesan newspaper and ask the editor to promote the campaign in any way possible.

6. Approach your Catholic broadcast media outlets and ask them to promote the campaign in every way possible.

7. Ask your pastor to encourage participation.

8. Don't disregard secular media outlets of all kinds. Approach them and ask for their help. Let the Holy Spirit move as He wills within their hearts.

9. If you can think of anything I've missed, please tell me about it in an E-mail to electionnovena@earthlink.net and I'll get it up here.



2008 Election Novena Flyer


All-Night Eucharistic Adoration
commencing on the eve of the election led by the Bishops of every See in the nation in their Cathedrals is a objective worthy of our efforts.

The All-Night Eucharistic Adoration Template just below is in "Microsoft Word" format. You can download and alter it to suit the details of All-night Eucharistic Adoration at your Diocesan Cathedral.

Please approach your Bishop politely and respectfully.
If he is unable to lead for whatever reason, perhaps he would be willing to assign leadership to an Auxiliary or other Clergyman who would represent him.

Please don't assume someone else in your diocese will take care of this. Frequently the number of request made will impact the decision of a Bishop.
God bless Margaret Marino. OCDS for both the idea and the template.

All Night Eucharistic Adoration Template


Please Help Spread the Word !!!
1. Tell everyone you know, especially those without internet access about this prayer campaign and help them in whatever way you can to participate themselves, as well as to enlist the participation of everyone they know.

2. E-mail everyone on every e-mail list you have. Tell them about the novena, and be sure to include the URL of this web site.

3. Inform your bishop about the novena and ask that he support its promotion throughout the diocese.

4. Approach your diocesan superintendent of education and request that the novena be promoted in the Catholic schools.

5. Approach your diocesan newspaper and ask the editor to promote the campaign in any way possible.

6. Approach your Catholic broadcast media outlets and ask them to promote the campaign in every way possible.

7. Ask your pastor to encourage participation.

8. Don't disregard secular media outlets of all kinds. Approach them and ask for their help. Let the Holy Spirit move as He wills within their hearts.

9. If you can think of anything I've missed, please tell me about it in an E-mail to electionnovena@earthlink.net and I'll get it up here.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Why is Obama's AP not Condemning his Supporters Goon-Squad Tactics?

Why is Obama not condemning his supporters goon-squad tactics?

Is it possible he is behind them.

Why is AP not condemning Obama supporters goon-squad tactics?

"The Associated Press obtained all the emails and ran stories about their contents, but when the Secret Service contacted AP on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked emails, AP hesitated to cooperate."
[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_email_theft/2008/09/18/132251.html?s=al&promo_code=6ACC-1]

Is AP Obama's Pavada?

Fred

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/09/19/obama_releases_his_in-your-face_hounds

September 19, 2008

Obama Releases His "In-Your-Face" Hounds

by Michelle Malkin

Warning: If your neighbor's got an "Obama '08" bumper sticker or lawn sign, you might want to double-check your door locks at night. The One has commanded his Purveyors of Change to go forth and proselytize to the unbelievers. And they're not going to be knocking gently like Avon Ladies.

Barack Obama, you see, is done fixing souls. It's time to crack heads. Prodded by panicked Democrats to take off his white gloves, he issued a Call to Strong Arm to his legions of angry followers on Wednesday. Hope is out. Hellfire is in. Now, the same analysts who tut-tutted Sarah Palin's mild use of sarcasm at the GOP convention are heralding -- in the words of the Obama water-carriers at the Associated Press -- Obama's "feistier, more sarcastic tone" and his push for Democrat activists "to sharpen their elbows, too."

When Republicans get aggressive, it's "dirty." When Obama gets aggressive, it's "feisty."

Exorteth the One: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

Team Obama is so committed to this "face-to-face" shock troop campaign that it is now busing activists from state to state ("Drive for Change!") to target undecided voters -- and offering subsidies to volunteers. In advance of Obama's rally in Nevada, California field director Mary Jane Stevenson organized a pilgrimage to boost the crowd numbers with housing incentives:
"Face-to-face contact with undecided voters is the single most effective way to grow this movement. No experience is required, and we'll help you make the trip as easily as possible with either housing in Nevada or discounted group rates at an area hotel."

Yep, a bunch of angry Obama cultists and left-wing ACORN drifters are coming to your neighborhoods to accuse you of racism, call you unpatriotic for not bowing down and forking over more taxes to keep the Mother Ship afloat, and check your tire pressure and thermostats while they're at it. Feel the power of positive change.

The in-your-face directive comes as Team Obama Chicago-fies its tactics by:
-- Stepping up sleazy ads. Tthe latest one twisted the words of radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh in a laughable attempt to paint John McCain as an immigration hardliner and stir fear among Hispanic voters;

-- Doubling down on the race card. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius shamelessly baited supporters with this line: "Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American? (Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness;"

-- And suppressing dissent. Rebuffed by the Justice Department in their efforts to prosecute conservatives for running ads critical of Obama's ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, the campaign is using an army of supporters to mob radio and television stations daring to air investigations of the relationship. The foot soldiers receive their marching orders through "Obama Action Wires" and bombard critics with disruptive phone calls.

Meanwhile, the Left's Sarah Palin hatred has been encouraged by the in-your-face comments of Michelle Obama, who derided the Alaska governor's intellect ("What you learn about Barack from his choice is that he's not afraid of smart people") and looks (don't cast a vote because "she's cute") on the campaign trail. And Team Obama's goons on the Internet -- led by Gawker Media and the Huffington Post -- are reveling in the hacking of Palin's private e-mail account, the publication of private, family photos of her children stolen from her account, and the abuse of daughter Bristol's cell phone number stolen from the account. For countless friends of Obama, "in your face" is code for "anything goes."

In words and actions that would have made his mentor Saul Alinsky proud, Barack Obama is rubbing raw the sores of discontent -- and summoning his unhinged flock to do the same. All hail the community-agitator-in-chief. And remember: Lock your doors.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Hillary Refuses to be Obama's Anti-Palin “Attack Dog”

"Clinton has said she’ll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin 'attack dog.' Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/politico/main4433771.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4433771

Could Clinton Have Palin-Proofed Dems?
Politico: As McCain Gains Female Support After Palin Pick, 'What If' Question Hangs Over Obama Camp
Comments 1505

Sep 10, 2008

E-Mail Story


Print Story


Sphere


Share


Text Size: A A A
Videos
Photos

Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared at a Women For Obama finance breakfast in New York, New York, on Thursday, July 10, 2008. (Sipa via AP Images)





Women Inspired By Clinton
Although Hillary Clinton has ended her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and young girls throughout the nation have been inspired by her campaign. Nancy Cordes reports. | Share/Embed

» More Videos

Related

Timeline
Palin's Path

A look at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's life and career




Photo Essay
United Front

Rivals turned allies Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton make show of unity ... in Unity.




Stories
Who's Swaying Female Undecided Voters?
Palin's Female Connection


Campaign Blog:

New McCain Spot Argues Economy In Crisis
Starting Gate: Back To The Issues?
Trippi’s Take: It’s Not Just Palin – It’s The Message



(The Politico) This story was written by Glenn Thrush and Martin Kady II.
Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller says Barack Obama had only one shot at Palin-proofing the Democratic ticket - and he missed it when he passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.

“Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, ‘There’s no way I’m doing that,’” said Miller. “If Hillary was on the ticket, he’d be in a much better position to win women voters.”

Sarah Palin’s presence - coupled with Clinton’s absence - may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week showed white women swinging hard against the Democratic ticket. Obama left Denver with an 8-point lead among white women; by the time John McCain pulled out of St. Paul, Minn., with Palin at his side, he had taken a 12-point lead.

Former Clinton strategist and pollster Mark Penn on Tuesday said that it’s too soon to know where women will wind up in November, and he declined to engage in any “woulda, coulda, shoulda” speculation about how things might be different if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket.

But another former Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the “Obama people have got to be kicking themselves” for not putting/choosing Clinton as his No. 2.

Julia Piscitelli of the American University’s Women and Politics Institute agreed.

“I don’t think Palin would be seeing these kind of gains if Hillary was on the ticket,” she said. “When Obama picked Biden, it gave Republicans an opening, and they are taking full advantage of it. ... The question is: How long will it last?”

The answer, some Democrats say, is not long.

“I don’t think this is a real swing [in the polls] until it’s been a week, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s busiest female surrogates. “We’ll need to see whether Sarah Palin is willing to answer questions. ... No one will be a stronger advocate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden than Hillary Clinton.”

Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) also sounded the Palin-will-wilt-in-the-spotlight theme.

“Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven’t heard anything else about what she’s going to do,” Lincoln said. “American women are smart, they’re bright and this election isn’t just about Sarah Palin. This is about what they want to do for the country.”

The Obama campaign has denied that it has a serious problem with female voters.

On Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, “Your poll is wrong,” adding, “We certainly are not seeing any movement like that. Polls, time to time, particularly on the demographic stuff, can have some pretty wild swings.”

That view won support from two unlikely sources Tuesday: Penn and a Republican senator who backs the McCain-Palin ticket.

Penn said that women are going to be “the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it’s not clear which direction they are going to go in.

“I don’t think it’s a Hillary backlash we’re seeing,” he added. “With Palin on the ticket, we’re going to be seeing this thing swing back and forth.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has had a strained relationship with her state’s governor, downplayed Palin’s power. “I find it difficult to believe that many of the Hillary supporters are going to come over just because of Sarah Palin,” Murkowski said. “It should be about strength of positions” and policy.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is locked in a tough race of her own, says several women - former Clinton supporters - have come up to her in Maine to say Palin gives them a reason to back McCain.

“I have never seen such excitement in the Republican Party as we’re seeing in response to Sarah Palin,” Collins said. “I’ve had a lot of Democrats and independent women in Maine who say they’re happy to see a woman on the ticket. Many of them saw an Obama-Clinton ticket as unbeatable. ... That is significant and remarkable.”

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said the Obama campaign is fooling itself if it discounts the importance of the problem. “This isn’t about Hillary; it’s about Obama’s problem with white women voters,” he said. “Hillary won about 10 million votes from women voters in the Democratic primaries - there are 52 million women voting in the general election.”

Clinton has said she’ll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin “attack dog.” Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.



By Glenn Thrush and Martin Kady II
Copyright 2008 POLITICO

Hillary Fundraiser to Fight Media Sexism Against Palin

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/politico/main4433771.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4433771

Could Clinton Have Palin-Proofed Dems?
Politico: As McCain Gains Female Support After Palin Pick, 'What If' Question Hangs Over Obama Camp


Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared at a Women For Obama finance breakfast in New York, New York, on Thursday, July 10, 2008. (Sipa via AP Images)


Women Inspired By Clinton
Although Hillary Clinton has ended her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and young girls throughout the nation have been inspired by her campaign. Nancy Cordes reports. | Share/Embed

» More Videos

Related

Timeline
Palin's Path

A look at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's life and career




Photo Essay
United Front

Rivals turned allies Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton make show of unity ... in Unity.




Stories
Who's Swaying Female Undecided Voters?
Palin's Female Connection


Campaign Blog:

New McCain Spot Argues Economy In Crisis
Starting Gate: Back To The Issues?
Trippi’s Take: It’s Not Just Palin – It’s The Message



(The Politico) This story was written by Glenn Thrush and Martin Kady II.
Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller says Barack Obama had only one shot at Palin-proofing the Democratic ticket - and he missed it when he passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate.

“Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, ‘There’s no way I’m doing that,’” said Miller. “If Hillary was on the ticket, he’d be in a much better position to win women voters.”

Sarah Palin’s presence - coupled with Clinton’s absence - may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week showed white women swinging hard against the Democratic ticket. Obama left Denver with an 8-point lead among white women; by the time John McCain pulled out of St. Paul, Minn., with Palin at his side, he had taken a 12-point lead.

Former Clinton strategist and pollster Mark Penn on Tuesday said that it’s too soon to know where women will wind up in November, and he declined to engage in any “woulda, coulda, shoulda” speculation about how things might be different if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket.

But another former Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the “Obama people have got to be kicking themselves” for not putting/choosing Clinton as his No. 2.

Julia Piscitelli of the American University’s Women and Politics Institute agreed.

“I don’t think Palin would be seeing these kind of gains if Hillary was on the ticket,” she said. “When Obama picked Biden, it gave Republicans an opening, and they are taking full advantage of it. ... The question is: How long will it last?”

The answer, some Democrats say, is not long.

“I don’t think this is a real swing [in the polls] until it’s been a week, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s busiest female surrogates. “We’ll need to see whether Sarah Palin is willing to answer questions. ... No one will be a stronger advocate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden than Hillary Clinton.”

Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) also sounded the Palin-will-wilt-in-the-spotlight theme.

“Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven’t heard anything else about what she’s going to do,” Lincoln said. “American women are smart, they’re bright and this election isn’t just about Sarah Palin. This is about what they want to do for the country.”

The Obama campaign has denied that it has a serious problem with female voters.

On Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, “Your poll is wrong,” adding, “We certainly are not seeing any movement like that. Polls, time to time, particularly on the demographic stuff, can have some pretty wild swings.”

That view won support from two unlikely sources Tuesday: Penn and a Republican senator who backs the McCain-Palin ticket.

Penn said that women are going to be “the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it’s not clear which direction they are going to go in.

“I don’t think it’s a Hillary backlash we’re seeing,” he added. “With Palin on the ticket, we’re going to be seeing this thing swing back and forth.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has had a strained relationship with her state’s governor, downplayed Palin’s power. “I find it difficult to believe that many of the Hillary supporters are going to come over just because of Sarah Palin,” Murkowski said. “It should be about strength of positions” and policy.

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is locked in a tough race of her own, says several women - former Clinton supporters - have come up to her in Maine to say Palin gives them a reason to back McCain.

“I have never seen such excitement in the Republican Party as we’re seeing in response to Sarah Palin,” Collins said. “I’ve had a lot of Democrats and independent women in Maine who say they’re happy to see a woman on the ticket. Many of them saw an Obama-Clinton ticket as unbeatable. ... That is significant and remarkable.”

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said the Obama campaign is fooling itself if it discounts the importance of the problem. “This isn’t about Hillary; it’s about Obama’s problem with white women voters,” he said. “Hillary won about 10 million votes from women voters in the Democratic primaries - there are 52 million women voting in the general election.”

Clinton has said she’ll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin “attack dog.” Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.