Wednesday, 12 November 2008

HAMAS AND OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

This one speaks for itself.  It comes to us from John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com:

We and others were alarmed when Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for President, even though the endorsement was later withdrawn. We were also concerned about Obama's feckless promise to meet with the leaders of hostile states--not for any particular reason, but just because talk is good. But Obama did say Hamas was one group he wouldn't be meeting with; not until they renounce terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist.

Apparently, though, that assurance was inoperative even when Obama gave it. Yesterday, in an interview in the London-based Al-Hayat, Ahmad Yousef, political adviser to Hamas's Prime Minister, said that Obama's aides have already been meeting with senior Hamas officials:

In an interview published Tuesday in the London-based Al-Hayat, Dr. Ahmad Yousef, political adviser to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, said senior Hamas figures had held a secret meeting with advisers to Barack Obama in Gaza before the U.S. elections.

Throughout his campaign Obama's official line was that he would "only talk with Hamas if it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and agrees to abide by past agreements."

...

According to Yousef in the Al-Hayat interview, the Obama-Hamas talks were already ongoing during the U.S. election campaign: "We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to reveal this information as it may influence the elections or become manipulated by McCain's campaign."

Yousef also claimed he personally had friendly relations with some of Obama's advisers and that "Haniyeh will draft a congratulatory letter to Obama for his victory."

It's hard to disagree with this assessment by David Hornik of Pajamas Media:

A clash between Obama's public, anodyne, mainstream statements and behind-the-scenes activities of a different nature would confirm the fears of those concerned about Obama's history of association with radical people and ideologies.

It would have been nice to know about the cordial relationship between Obama's advisers and Hamas during the campaign. But, of course, it was an article of faith in the mainstream media that Obama's many unsavory and radical associations were somehow irrelevant to any expectation as to how he would govern as President.

According to the exit polls, 78% of all Jews voted for this man.  Presumably, most of them support Israel. 

Speaking as one of the other 22%, let me say to them that this is what you wanted, and this is what you got.  I hope you're happy about it.  


AGENDA SIMILIARITIES

Ken Berwitz

This is posted, without any additional commentary, from www.sweetness-light.com.

Please read the entire piece.  But even if you're just skimming you have to promise to read the very end.  You'll see why when you do.

Ok, you're on your honor:

Reposting Obamas Disappeared Agenda

November 12th, 2008

As we have previously reported, Mr. Obama chose to expunge his agenda items from his Office Of The President Elect Change.Gov site, once we began to discuss them.

So we thought it would be a public service to republish them from an earlier source:

Turn Our Country Around

A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Across the land, people are coming together to reshape our nations priorities to make government of, by and for the people a reality.

From the Midwest to the South, from coast to coast, in big cities and rural communities voters have turned out in record numbers for change.

There is a crisis in every critical area of national life. Profits at the top are record high, but families cant make ends meet. Trillions are squandered in Iraq, but 45 million are without health care. Billions are spent on tax breaks to the super rich, but working families are losing their homes and young people cant afford higher education.

Working people want bold new policies to end war restore democratic traditions and create green living wage jobs, affordable housing, healthcare and quality education for everyone.

Voters are demanding a new kind of politics to rebuild our country for the common good. A democratic spirit of unity and hope is inspiring millions to get involved.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, unemployed workers and their allies marched and organized until public works jobs, Social Security and New Deal programs were won. In the 1960s the great civil rights movement won the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

EMERGENCY PROGRAM TO REPAIR, RENEW AND REBUILD

We offer these proposals as a contribution toward the bold policy changes necessary to meet the immediate needs of working people, eliminate poverty and move our country forward with a new President and Congress. Funding to come from monies now being spent on the Iraq war, military budget and tax breaks to the super rich.

1. Immediate Relief

A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Reset mortgages so payments are affordable. No bail outs for banks.

Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility. Increase food stamps, WIC, childrens health insurance, and low income energy assistance.

Assist deficit-ridden state and local governments so they can preserve services and jobs. Fund ready-to-go infrastructure projects.

2. A Peacetime, Green Jobs Economy for All

Enact massive public works job creation to make existing buildings energy efficient, construct new schools, hospitals, affordable housing, mass transit and bridges. Priority to areas hurt by loss of manufacturing, loss of family farms and highest unemployment areas including the Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast.

Major clean, affordable energy development project for solar, wind and biomass electricity generation. Immediate program to cut greenhouse gas emissions and for environmental cleanup. Restore Federal energy regulation and encourage public ownership of utilities.

Enact the Employee Free Choice Act to enable workers to form unions without intimidation and win higher wages and benefits, dignity and respect.

Enact HR 676 the US National Health Insurance Act to provide universal health insurance with single-payer financing. Fully fund public education from pre-school through higher education and technical training. No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Expand and improve benefits.

3. Restore Civil Rights, the Bill of Rights and Separation of Powers

Restore Civil Rights Act enforcement, affirmative action in employment, education, and housing. End the school to prison pipeline. Outlaw hate crimes. Preserve Roe v. Wade.

Pass immigration reform with legalization, a path to citizenship, due process, no militarization of the borders, and no exploitative guest worker programs. No human being is illegal.

Repeal Patriot Act. Restore Habeas Corpus rights. No more torture. Investigate and prosecute Bush administration violations of the Constitution.

Expand voting rights. Enact publicly financed elections, same day registration, voting rights for ex-felons, verifiable voting equipment, and instant runoff voting. Restore Fairness Doctrine in media.

4. Strength through Peace

Withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq with no bases or U.S. corporations left behind. Full care for returning veterans. No war on Iran or expansion of troops in Afghanistan. Assistance to Iraqi people to rebuild their country.

Adopt a new foreign policy of diplomacy and respect for all nations, instead of preemptive war for corporate interests. Renew commitment to UN peace role.

End trade policies that enrich corporations while destroying jobs. Ratify Kyoto Treaty and other climate change agreements.

Enforce nuclear non-proliferation, work to abolish nuclear weapons. Cut Pentagon spending in half, close down US bases around the world.

Ooops.

Sorry. This is actually not from Mr. Obamas campaign site.

  

(Click on images to enlarge)

It is from the Election 2008′ brochure from the Communist Party Of The United States (a pdf file), which we have posted previously here.

But its an honest mistake, is it not?


CAMILLE PAGLIA ON SARAH PALIN

Ken Berwitz

Camille Paglia is a leftward liberal feminist, one with a brain in her head (which not all leftward liberal feminists always use - as you will see at the end of this blog).

Here, within a larger article written for www.salon.com, is her take on how Sarah Palin was treated by media during the presidential campaign:

In the closing weeks of the election....I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don't need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don't like feeling gamed or played.

Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.

Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed.

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought.

I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop!

As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama's pick and who was on everyone's short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin's.

The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

How refreshing to read that.  But now contrast it with this snippet from maureen dowd's column in today's New York Times, and see what happens when brains are turned off and replaced with whiney hissy-fits:

Sarah Palin represents a huge historic leap forward for women.

When Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton ran, their fates were inextricably linked with their gender. If they failed, many women felt, there was an X through the whole X chromosome. A blot on the female copybook.

If not this woman now, Hillarys supporters would ardently ask me, what woman ever?

But Sarah Palin can come across as utterly unready to lead the world or even find the world on a map and that doesnt reflect poorly on the rest of us.

It only means that she doesnt have enough mind grapes or thoughtsicles, as Tracy Morgan refers to brain droppings on 30 Rock, to be president soon.

What a sweet sentiment.  Sarah Palin is an idiot with a "mind grapes" and "thoughtsicles" deficiency.  Thank, you maureen dowd.  Is this not what Ms. Paglia was talking about?

Call me a voyeuristic sadist, but I would love to be at a party where these two meet up after each has had a couple of drinks.  My money is on Paglia standing tall and dowd running to hide in the ladies' room.


GAY MARRIAGE AND RACE

Ken Berwitz

Jeff Jacoby, the always-worth-reading columnist for the Boston Globe, has written an extremely interesting and provocative column about the racial implications of gay marriage.  Here it is:

PLAYING THE RACE CARD ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

By Jeff Jacoby

The Boston Globe

 

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

 

     It has been widely noted that black voters put California's Proposition 8 over the top last week, with nearly 7 out of 10 voting in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the magnitude of black opposition to same-sex marriage became clear on Election Day, blogger Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay-marriage champion, reacted bitterly:

 

     "Every ethnic group supported marriage equality," he wrote, "except African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly against extending to gay people the civil rights once denied them."

 

     Well, let's see. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included the right to register as a voter, the right to cast a ballot, the right to use numerous public facilities, the right to get a fair hearing in court, the right to send their children to an integrated public school, and the right to equal opportunity in housing and employment. Have gay people been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

 

     Plainly, declining to change the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of "the civil rights once denied" to blacks, and it is an absurdity to claim otherwise. It is also a poisonous slur: For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

 

     Which is, of course, exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage contend.

 

     It has become routine for the defenders of traditional wedlock to be cast as the worst sort of hateful bigots, "gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era," to quote The New York Times's Frank Rich. Anyone who insists that marriage can only mean the union of male and female -- and "anyone" now includes a majority of voters in 30 of the 30 states where marriage amendments have been on the ballot -- can expect to be told that they are no better than racists, modern-day segregationists motivated by malevolence and an evil heart.

 

     Thus, supporters of same-sex marriage regularly referred to the California ballot measure as "Proposition Hate," while a group calling itself "Californians Against Hate" launched a website to publicize the names and addresses of donors to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Yet it was the foes of Proposition 8 whose hatred and intolerance were most vividly on display. Signs promoting the amendment were stolen or defaced, churches were vandalized, and at least one supporter of the amendment ended up in the hospital after being beaten by an assailant screaming: "What do you have against gays?"

 

     For sheer hatefulness and bigotry, however, nothing surpassed the anti-Proposition 8 television ad that depicted two Mormon missionaries forcing their way into the home of a married lesbian couple.

 

     "Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," one of the Mormons says. "We're here to take away your rights," says the other.

 

     The missionaries pull the wedding rings from the women's fingers, then proceed to ransack the house, looking for their marriage license. When they find it, they triumphantly tear it up.

 

     "Hey, we have rights," one of the women protests.

 

     "Not if we can help it," one of the missionaries smugly replies.

 

     As the commercial ends, a message appears on the screen: Say NO to a church taking over your government.

 

     If black voters overwhelmingly reject the claim that marriage amendments like Proposition 8 are nothing more than bigotry-fueled assaults on civil rights, perhaps it is because they know only too well what real bigotry looks like. Perhaps it is because they resent the assertion that adhering to the ageless meaning of marriage is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. Perhaps it is because they are not impressed by strident condemnations of "intolerance" and "hate" by people who traffic in rank anti-Mormon hatemongering.

 

     Or perhaps it is because they understand that a fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for same-sex marriage. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That isn't civil rights -- and playing the race card doesn't change that fact.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Personally I find myself somewhere in-between on this issue.  I fully support same-sex unions.  But I understand that the word "marriage" has always meant one man/one woman.

It is clear that the key reason many people fight expanding the word's meaning is intolerance - i.e. they do not consider same-sex unions worthy of "marriage" status.  I don't share their intolerance at all, and wish the dispute related exclusively to semantics.  But obviously it does not.

And now, as an extra-added attraction, we find that Black people, as a group, are appreciably less tolerant regarding same-sex marriages than Whites.  

Are Blacks who feel that way acting the way racists act?  Are they hypocrites?  As Jeff's article demonstrates, some people say yes to both questions.

It certainly gives you something to think about, doesn't it?


THE STEALING OF NORM COLEMAN'S SENATE SEAT (cont.)

Ken Berwitz

The stealing of Norm Coleman's senate seat continues.  Right in front of our eyes.

Here is the latest summation of this theft in progress, brought to us by the Wall Street Journal:

Mischief in Minnesota?

Al Franken's recount isn't funny.

You'd think Democrats would be content with last week's electoral rout.  But judging from the odd doings in Minnesota, some in their party wouldn't mind adding to their jackpot by stealing a Senate seat for left-wing joker Al Franken.

When Minnesotans woke up last Wednesday, Republican Senator Norm Coleman led Mr. Franken by 725 votes.  By that evening, he was ahead by only 477.  As of yesterday, Mr. Coleman's margin stood at 206.  This lopsided bleeding of Republican votes is passing strange considering that the official recount hasn't even begun.

The vanishing Coleman vote came during a week in which election officials are obliged to double-check their initial results. Minnesota is required to do these audits, and it isn't unusual for officials to report that they transposed a number here or there. In a normal audit, these mistakes could be expected to cut both ways. Instead, nearly every "fix" has gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.

For example, there was Friday night's announcement by Minneapolis's director of elections that she'd forgotten to count 32 absentee ballots in her car. The Coleman campaign scrambled to get a county judge to halt the counting of these absentees, since it was impossible to prove their integrity 72 hours after the polls closed. The judge refused on grounds that she lacked jurisdiction.

Up in Two Harbors, another liberal outpost, Mr. Franken picked up an additional 246 votes. In Partridge Township, he racked up another 100. Election officials in both places claim they initially miscommunicated the numbers. Odd, because in the Two Harbors precinct, none of the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals.

According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who isn't exactly a nonpartisan observer. One of Mr. Ritchie's financial supporters during his 2006 run for office was a 527 group called the Secretary of State Project, which was co-founded by James Rucker, who came from MoveOn.org. The group says it is devoted to putting Democrats in jobs where they can "protect elections."

Mr. Ritchie is also an ally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, of fraudulent voter-registration fame. That relationship might explain why prior to the election Mr. Ritchie waved off evidence of thousands of irregularities on Minnesota voter rolls, claiming that accusations of fraud were nothing more than "desperateness" from Republicans.

Mr. Franken and fellow Democrats are already waging a full-scale public pressure campaign to help turn the recount their way. That includes a push to turn what should be a straightforward count of existing legal ballots into a complete do-over -- mau-mauing election officials into accepting tossed ballots. The Franken campaign recently showed up before the Hennepin County canvassing board, demanding that its liberal members count 461 previously rejected ballots. To the board's credit, they unanimously voted no.

The Franken campaign has also been wrapping itself around Barack Obama's popularity to increase its recount potential. Minnesota has a voter intent law, which means that election officials can take a second look at ambiguous ballots. Mr. Franken's people are already arguing that a vote for Mr. Obama certainly indicated a vote for Mr. Franken. This can't possibly be true, however, because nearly every campaign poll showed Mr. Franken lagging Mr. Obama by five to 15 percentage points -- and on Election Day he trailed by 12.2%. Mr. Franken ran a nasty, polarizing campaign, and in any case he was part of a three-man contest.

The Coleman team is demanding the tapes from the voting machines on election night, and that's the least Mr. Ritchie can do. The Secretary of State should also investigate miraculous discoveries like the "forgotten" 32 car ballots. He needs to show voters, the press and the Coleman team that he's running a transparent process that focuses on previously counted votes, rather than changing the rules after the election is over.

With their party only three Senate seats from the 60 needed to break a filibuster (and two still not decided), Democrats have a political incentive to cut corners to steal a seat if they can get away with it. Mr. Franken and his left-wing allies also know that if Mr. Franken couldn't win election in this fabulous Democratic year, then the not-so-funnyman never will. If Minnesota wants to retain its reputation as a state with clean elections, it needs to run an honest recount

There it is.  Right in front of your eyes.  Right in the middle of the square. 

And who is going to stop it?  MEDIA?  Not a chance.  This is what happens when you have a corrupt process and a complicit media looking the other way. 

Enjoy the show.  And live with the consequences.


OBAMA AND CAMPAIGN FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY

Ken Berwitz

Remember all that wonderment over how Barack Obama was getting the oceans of money to run his campaign - enough so that he could overwhelm his opponent?  

Well keep wondering.  Because you're not going to find out where it came from.

Here are the particulars, which I have excerpted from an article by Kenneth Vogel, writing for www.politico.com

The scandal is Obama's.  The bold print is mine:

Obama likely to escape campaign audit

 

The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaigns record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCains campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.

McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.

Through the end of September, McCain had socked away $9.4 million in a special fund to pay for the audit.

 Obama the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FECs E Street offices.

Obamas
campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an $832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community organizing group that became a top target for Republicans alleging voter fraud.

And FEC analysts over the course of the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didnt supply
adequate information or from whom he accepted donations exceeding the $4,600 limit

Spokesman LaBolt said the campaign has corrected errors as it was made aware of them. It's  not at all unusual for the FEC to send many such letters requests for additional information in agency parlance to big-money campaigns. McCains campaign received at least a dozen, for instance.

But the media first
conservative outlets then mainstream publications seized on the FEC letters to Obama, singling out donations from apparently fictitious donors as well as from foreign addresses - which are permitted as long as the donors are U.S. citizens. Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.

Seizing on Obamas reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaigns refusal to
voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September the RNC asked the FEC to immediately conduct a full audit of all of Obamas contributions.

Even if Obamas campaign reached the audit recommendation trigger point, itd be tough to muster the majority commission vote necessary to initiate the audit. Thats because the FEC is comprised of three Democratic commissioners and three Republicans and, as such, is prone to deadlock on partisan issues.

Nice. 

Obama lies about how he will finance his campaign while McCain sticks by his word.  The result is that Obama not only is able to wildly outspend McCain (which no doubt helped him to win the White House), but he now can avoid having the public find out whether untold millions of that money was illegal.

Media must be seething about this, right?  There must be a small army of investigative reporters working on making the source of those millions known to us all, right?

Yeah sure.  And Jack really climbed up a beanstalk.

A dose of reality is in order here:  A media that weren't interested in finding out what Mr. Obama did as a community organizer, or in grilling him on his votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - even after language was added that fully protected abortion rights - won't be interested in how dirty his campaign funding was.  

But, then again, you knew that already.  Didn't you?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!