Oct 04 2008

Obama, friend of terrorists… really, no kidding

Category: election 2008,McCain,media,Obama,politics,racism,terrorismharmonicminer @ 7:16 pm

Continuing to demonstrate the inability to just give the news without editorializing, Yahoo news leads with this.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin accused Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday of “palling around with terrorists,” in the latest sign the campaign is turning increasingly nasty.

Just a question: if Obama has actually “paled around with terrorists”, is it a sign the campaign is “turning increasingly nasty” to point that out?

Not until the sixth paragraph do we get anything about the nature of Obama’s relationship to the terrorist Bill Ayers: (the earlier ones are all devoted to he said/she said type reporting)

Palin cited a New York Times story on Saturday that examined Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam-era militant Weather Underground organization who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Times concluded they were not close.

Ah, the NYTimes, that bastion of Olympian fairness, has decided Obama is not “close” to Ayers, a self-admitted terrorist and bomber. Apparently, the NYTimes thinks you aren’t “close” to someone unless you share a toothbrush or something.

Just a question, for the reader: do YOU even know someone who knows someone who knows a terrorist?

I didn’t think so.  Here’s paragraph NINE of the story:

Obama served with Ayers on the board of a foundation in Chicago, and has said he was only eight-years-old when the Weather Underground committed its best-known bombing. He has also noted that former President Bill Clinton pardoned two members of the group during the last days of his presidency.

Clinton also pardoned some Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich. This is a recommendation?

This is not simple “guilt by association”. It isn’t like they both went to Denny’s at the same time and happened to be placed at adjacent tables. Obama and Ayers served on boards together, were associates who worked together for “education initiatives” in Chicago, etc. Obama chose to continue his association with Ayers, and the first campaign kickoff for Obama was at Ayers’ house.

In the following video, Obama wants us to believe that Clinton is worse for having pardoned Weather Underground terrorists than Obama is for having associated with Ayers, one of the terrorists who WASN’T pardoned, but got off on a technicality because the FBI botched the investigation.  Ayers: “Guilty as sin and free as a bird.”

Try to understand this.  Even Obama admits knowing Ayers was a terrorist, an unrepentant one, and tries to pass off his relationship as “being on a board together”, and minimizes Ayers’ evil behavior as “something that happened 40 years ago”, as if evil done 40 years ago and not repented for is less evil, and his association with the perpetrator less suspect.  In fact, they worked closely on that board, and in other organizations, and Ayers was a prime supporter launching his political career.

The “40 years ago” approach is masking something that is revealed by changing a couple of details, in a sort of thought experiment.  What if Ayers had been a virulent racist, enthusiastic member of the KKK, burning crosses on lawns of black people, beating them when possible, encouraging lynchings, and the like?  What if he was now unrepentant about it, and said, “We didn’t do enough.”?  Would Obama pass it off as “something that happened 40 years ago” and essentially ignore it?

You know the answer, and so do I.  The only reason the “40 year ago” excuse works in his mind is because he doesn’t think having been a terrorist bomber and killer of police is all that bad.  So since it happened way back there somewhere, we can just sort of ignore it.

Except that we can’t.  And if you can….  well, I have some words for your judgment that I can’t really commit to print right now.

As for the quality of reporting in the article referenced above, it’s just more evidence that the media is morally blind, dumb and deaf, and totally in the tank for Obama.  Imagine if McCain had that racist friend just suggested in the “thought experiment” above.  Would the NYTimes conclude “they weren’t that close”?


UPDATE:  To no one’s particular surprise, Stanley Kurz has done an excellent job covering this entire matter, and gives his analysis of the NYTimes “reporting” here.

UPDATE:  In the meantime, Tom Brokaw wants us to believe that unrepentant terrorist Ayers, who recently said, “We didn’t do enough,” is really just a “school reformer”.   Maybe Brokaw means that Ayers should be in “reform school for terrorists”, but somehow I doubt it.

Tags: , ,

Oct 04 2008

Our most dangerous Vice President

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 9:26 am

Power Line, quoting the New York Post

Some [of the Biden Blunders], of course, were just Biden being Biden. He smeared Dick Cheney as “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.”

To which we must take specific offense: After all, the founder of this newspaper, Alexander Hamilton, was killed in a duel by then-Vice President Aaron Burr. (Certainly Burr was a better shot than Cheney.)

Oct 04 2008

Biden’s experienced, all right, at getting it wrong…. WAY wrong

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 9:24 am

Investor’s Business Daily on some of the Biden Blunders in the debate. See if you find anything about this in the NYTimes, and if you do, what page it’s on.

as InstaPundit’s Michael Totten instantly noted after the debate, Biden, the great, seasoned foreign policy expert who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, falsely claimed France and the U.S. “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.”

Of course, the debate’s moderator, Gwen Ifill of PBS’ “Washington Week,” didn’t call Biden on the gaffe; that might not be good for sales of her upcoming book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” (especially if there turns out not to be an Age of Obama).

There was also Biden’s accusation that John McCain is soft on regulation, when in fact he tried to beef up regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an explanation for why he got so little campaign money from Fannie and Freddie over the years, under $22,000, as opposed to the more than $126,000 Obama received in his short time in the Senate.

Sen. Biden falsely claimed that Obama didn’t pledge to meet with Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he falsely claimed Gov. Sarah Palin supported a windfall profits tax on oil companies; he said he’s always been for clean coal in spite of his record of voting against it in the Senate.

Biden said we have to drill for more of our own oil, easily leading viewers to conclude he and Obama are in favor of more domestic drilling, but as the American Thinker blog’s Rick Moran noted in a list of “Biden’s Big Lies,” “Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to ‘raping’ the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Gov. Palin called Biden on his claim that Gen. David McKiernan in Afghanistan said that the surge could not be applied in Afghanistan; in fact, McKiernan has said that some aspects of Gen. David Petraeus’ Iraq strategy could be part of our war efforts in Afghanistan.

And Biden was wrong when he claimed that both McCain and Obama opposed troop funding; McCain simply opposed legislation with a withdrawal deadline.

The Delaware Democrat falsely claimed that McCain’s health care plan raises taxes, failing to mention his proposal’s offsetting tax credit. And he was untruthful in claiming that under an Obama Administration the middle class will “pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan.” Obama, in fact, says he will return income tax rates to the Clinton levels, which were significantly higher than those in effect after tax reform during the Reagan Administration.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty noted Biden’s claim that “we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country” and concluded Biden was “off by 2,000%.”

Geraghty also found that “Katie’s Restaurant” in Wilmington, Del., where good old Joe invited anyone to have a beer with him, apparently hasn’t been around for decades. Maybe the senator was too busy conferring with imaginary French liberators of Lebanon to visit his constituency.

But when tall tales are told with a straight face and mock conviction they are, unfortunately, believed by all too many, especially when the media helps peddle the disinformation.

Oct 04 2008

John Mark Reynolds on Roe and abortion

Category: abortionharmonicminer @ 8:25 am

Advance Liberty, Overturn Roe! | The Scriptorium Daily: Middlebrow

Every aborted baby looks alike, but every child allowed to live becomes absolutely unique. Abortion crushes liberty for the sake of a single choice—it ends possibility with the cruel actuality of murder.

Roe should be overturned because by judicial fiat it hallows killing the innocent as part of our Constitution. In a just society there can be no right to do evil. Not every evil should be illegal, but no evil action should be hallowed as a constitutional right.

It took years and much horror to remove slavery, another soul crushing immorality, from the Constitution, but at least the Founders authored this bad law. The court imposed a “culture of death,” to borrow a phrase from John Paul the Great, on our nation, contrary to our oldest traditions, our best moral impulses, and the gradual expansion of liberty and justice to all Americans.

Yes. Read it all.  And consider how Jesus of Nazareth would vote in the matter.

It seems likely that the next president will be appointing judges who will decide if Roe v. Wade is to be overturned.  If it is, abortion will not end, or suddenly be illegal, it will simply be returned to the states, where, presumbably, normal legislative processes will occur that actually represent the will of the people.    It does seem certain that abortion will be significantly reduced, if Roe is overturned.  That means that those who claim to “dislike abortion” but say “we can’t criminalize it” or “prolife is a seamless garment” are putting up a smokescreen to obscure the fact that they don’t want a legal change that is guaranteed to save many, many, many lives.