![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
The Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Obama's ties to Ayers.
[...]
Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
[...]
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
[...]
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article
[...]
Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.
[...]
Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Website and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.
[...]
Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article
On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.
And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
On Tuesday, the Obama campaign sent another letter to the Justice Department demanding investigation and prosecution of American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who funded it.
And on Wednesday, Obama exhorted his followers to sabotage the WGN radio show of veteran Chicago host and University of Chicago Professor Milt Rosenberg. Why? Because he invited National Review writer Stanley Kurtz to discuss his investigative findings about Obama's ties to Ayers and the underwhelming results of their collaboration on a left-wing educational project sponsored by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article
On Wednesday the 1st of October I received a call on my cell while in the car with my husband. It was a woman who identified herself as calling from the Obama Campaign. The phone # she called from lists as "Obama Volunteers of Texarkana" ( Texas ).
She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied: "No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." I hung up.
Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:
"I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."
My husband laughed and told them "No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying." I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently "Oh? Well why would she make that up?"
I replied that I supposed she wasn't happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said "That's right, you were rude!" The last time I checked being rude wasn't a crime in America .
Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, "So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?"
She asked if I was an Obama supporter to which I replied: "No, I don't support him, your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." I hung up.
Thursday, October 2, I answered the front door to find the Secret Service. Immediately I thought of the call and was furious that apparently you are not allowed to call Obama a Socialist without the Secret Service coming to investigate. Instead, they asked me about the following comment, relayed by the Obama Volunteer of Texarkana who called me, unsolicited on my cell phone:
"I will never support Obama and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."
My husband laughed and told them "No, she called him a socialist but she never said a word about him dying." I gave them my actual quote. The woman asked insolently "Oh? Well why would she make that up?"
I replied that I supposed she wasn't happy about what I said about her candidate and the Agent said "That's right, you were rude!" The last time I checked being rude wasn't a crime in America .
Luckily the big file they had gathered on me didn't indicate mental instability or a past life of stalking/crime, however they did want to know how I felt about Obama. That was my limit. I told the Agent in no uncertain terms that my thoughts were not pertinent to their investigation, that this was America and the last time I checked I was allowed to think whatever I wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. In fact, even if I had said what she claimed, that isn't a threat. I told them (again) and my husband verified that the statement reported by Obama's volunteer was a lie. I asked them if there was a tape of the call and they said no. I said, "So on the word of a ticked off Obama supporter you are on my porch with no other evidence and you want to question me about my THOUGHTS!?"
"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."
On Oct. 17, BMV information on Wurzelbacher was obtained through an account used by the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency in Cleveland, records show.
Mary Denihan, spokeswoman for the county agency, said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services contacted the agency today and requested an investigation of the access to Wurzelbacher's information. Cuyahoga County court records do not show any child-support cases involving Wurzelbacher.
The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.
In response to an add by the NRA, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/wp-content/u
St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. This is so one sided I can't even begin to describe how wrong this agenda is. It's one thing if they want to keep the campaign fair for both sides, but they clearly only want to enforce the issue for the Obama Camp. St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/0
Seen the pattern yet? So not only is the candidate going to bankrupt the nation with absurdly huge new spending, and raise taxes, and socialize medicine and nationalize your 401K accounts and cut military spending (during wartime!) by a fourth to pay for it all, and disarm, and negotiate with terrorist states, and spread the wealth, and not only is the whole free market economy, your economic freedom, going to be flushed down the crapper, but also any criticism or questioning about the Leader's programs will be met with stern, jackbooted retaliation
Here is another article reflecting my thoughts on the matter.
Boromir, you’ll recall, is the Judas of the Fellowship of the Ring. Sworn to protect Frodo the Ring-bearer with his life if need be, Boromir betrays his trust and tries to take the Ring by force, thereby sundering the Fellowship. Tellingly, all of this is done for the best of motives in Boromir’s eyes. He means to accomplish nothing but good with the Ring, to save his beloved kingdom of Minas Tirith from Sauron’s conquering armies.
In one of their own satires on power, The Giant Rat of Sumatra, the audio comedy troupe the Firesign Theatre speaks of “a power so great, it can only be used for good or evil.” This is Boromir’s tragically mistaken view of the One Ring. Though masking an unchecked power, the Ring is, for Boromir, only a tool–something no better or worse than the person who uses it. He seems almost unaware of the Ring’s dark side. Insofar as he is aware, he dismisses it out of hand, swearing, “True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted.” Like any politician lobbying for his favorite cause–himself–he supplies a noble motive: “We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause.” He also supplies a noble champion. Guess who? He muses, “What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader?” Nor should Frodo have any fear that Boromir will succumb to the Ring’s blandishments because, as he vows, “I give you my word that I do not desire to keep it.”
Yet keeping or not keeping such power is not the main issue. Merely to desire it is to show oneself unworthy of it even for a moment. It is no accident that the Ring comes to a humble bearer who in no way has sought it and who wants no part of it. In the end it proves too much even for Frodo.
Was Frodo less resistant to the temptations of power than America’s greatest president? No, not Reagan, or FDR, or Lincoln, or even Jefferson. Washington: the only President who was ever offered a lifelong throne and turned it down for a temporary desk in a bureaucrat’s office. Almost to a man, his successors have been offered that same desk and have mistaken it for a throne.
[...]
Whatever it does achieve comes at a terrible cost. If you include all forms of taxation, government confiscates about 40 to 50 percent of our income every year. What we receive for this robbery in goods and services is a pretty poor trade by any measure. Our schools turn out ill-mannered ignoramuses by the millions, many of them not fit for anything but Congress. Our health care system is a shell game where Peter is robbed and Paul doesn’t even get paid. Our social security system is a transparent Ponzi scheme that, if perpetrated by an individual, would earn him life in prison. The U.S. Treasury is the world’s greatest counterfeiter, inflicting on us an invisible form of taxation called inflation
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1
In one of their own satires on power, The Giant Rat of Sumatra, the audio comedy troupe the Firesign Theatre speaks of “a power so great, it can only be used for good or evil.” This is Boromir’s tragically mistaken view of the One Ring. Though masking an unchecked power, the Ring is, for Boromir, only a tool–something no better or worse than the person who uses it. He seems almost unaware of the Ring’s dark side. Insofar as he is aware, he dismisses it out of hand, swearing, “True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted.” Like any politician lobbying for his favorite cause–himself–he supplies a noble motive: “We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause.” He also supplies a noble champion. Guess who? He muses, “What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader?” Nor should Frodo have any fear that Boromir will succumb to the Ring’s blandishments because, as he vows, “I give you my word that I do not desire to keep it.”
Yet keeping or not keeping such power is not the main issue. Merely to desire it is to show oneself unworthy of it even for a moment. It is no accident that the Ring comes to a humble bearer who in no way has sought it and who wants no part of it. In the end it proves too much even for Frodo.
Was Frodo less resistant to the temptations of power than America’s greatest president? No, not Reagan, or FDR, or Lincoln, or even Jefferson. Washington: the only President who was ever offered a lifelong throne and turned it down for a temporary desk in a bureaucrat’s office. Almost to a man, his successors have been offered that same desk and have mistaken it for a throne.
[...]
Whatever it does achieve comes at a terrible cost. If you include all forms of taxation, government confiscates about 40 to 50 percent of our income every year. What we receive for this robbery in goods and services is a pretty poor trade by any measure. Our schools turn out ill-mannered ignoramuses by the millions, many of them not fit for anything but Congress. Our health care system is a shell game where Peter is robbed and Paul doesn’t even get paid. Our social security system is a transparent Ponzi scheme that, if perpetrated by an individual, would earn him life in prison. The U.S. Treasury is the world’s greatest counterfeiter, inflicting on us an invisible form of taxation called inflation
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1
And, of course, the anti-freedom, pro-infanticide empty-headed candidate reminds me strongly of a toon from a beloved comic. This is from the pen of Jack 'King' Kirby, FOREVER PEOPLE #3. Some people say Kirby apparently meant it as a slam against Billy Graham, and modern reinterpretations intend Godfrey as a slam against G. Gordon Liddy, but since the scene opens with a quote from Hitler, and since Kirby was a Jew, and since Godfrey's followers engage in book burning and concentration camp round-ups, I think the character can also be interpreted to represent the kind of secular messiahs produced in abundance in the Twentieth Century by the socialist Left (including the leader of National Socialism referenced above).
</div>
October 27 2008, 16:14:48 UTC 3 years ago
Do you need a paper bag?
This is such an over exaggeration of the situation that it’s comical; stop and listen to yourself for a minute. My god, a Democrat in office, the world may end. What is it, 36% going to 39% for the top rate? socialism! Wasn’t that the rate under Regan and Bush 1 by the way? I missed the part about nationalizing 401’s. I’m enjoying watching the Right hyperventilate.I’ll tell you what, when Obama (assuming he wins) starts arguing that he can hold American citizens in prison without habeus, I’ll start worrying. That’s the new standard Bush set.
You guys had control of everything for 6 years and it has been a complete disaster. You then convince yourselves that everything is someone else’s fault. When the general public get’s completely sick of lame excuses they’re gonna vote you out. Surprise!
Next time, put someone competent in charge; next time, keep the Tom Delay’s and Denny Hasterts away from the trough. Stop arguing for torture, secret rendition, and warrantless wiretaps. Govern with a measured and reasonable hand. People might come to trust you again. Or not, keep arguing to kill Medicare and social security and spend even more on war; that’s the ticket. Palin in 2012!
The Democrats will probably screw themselves up after a few years and the reasonable middle will throw them out, just like their throwing the Right out now.
October 27 2008, 16:26:27 UTC 3 years ago
Do you need a reading lesson?
"My god, a Democrat in office, the world may end."Please quote back to me where I said this.
"What is it, 36% going to 39% for the top rate? socialism!"
Please quote back to me where I said this? What I said what that Obama plans to do is raise taxes and socialize the medical profession.
"I missed the part about nationalizing 401’s."
It was on the news this weekend. It was on CNN, hardly a bastion of rightwing hyperventilation.
"You guys had control of everything for 6 years and it has been a complete disaster."
No argument there. The domestic and economic policies of the Republic party during this administration were indistinguishable from those of the Clinton administration.
"Stop arguing for torture, secret rendition, and warrantless wiretaps."
Please quote back to me where I argued for any of these things?
The Left has only one tactic in debate: change the subject and make a personal attack. It is pathetic to see the one-trick pony doing the same trick again and again. It is the one habituated, thoughtless conditioned response, and it crops up no matter what the stimulus is.
October 27 2008, 20:47:22 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a reading lesson?
Though I must say you (and many conservatives and liberals) tend to pain their opponents with the brush of self-righteousness dipped into the paint of evil. I am fairly conservative, and Christian, with some more libertarian leanings, and I find it exceedingly frightening that we, as a nation, tend to see vile machinations in every action of the other side. Personally, I think that Obama is probably a well meaning, highly idealistic and misguided fellow, but of course have no guarantees that this is so. That said, we conservatives tend to think that this country will implode on itself should we elect him, and while I think we will certainly be worse off, it is by no means the end of the world.I think that when we convince ourselves that the other side is a bunch of loonies or evil, that we are pushing ourselves further on the path toward fanaticism. The fanatical position then becomes further entrenched, and by observing the opponents' fanatics we convince ourselves how very correct we are in our beliefs. This cycle has been going on for some time, and is perhaps a natural extension of both a reduced self-restraint in communication and a two-party political system.
Of course these are all reasons I feel I should be voting for McCain as opposed to simply voting against his very liberal opponent; he has sometimes shown that he will oppose his party when he thinks that they are wrong. This is an extraordinary habit! (In fact, I think that is largely the reason he did not with the republican nomination back in 2000) It seems to me that only one who firmly believed the party line was wrong and had the character to deny his compatriots would be engaged in such a habit. On the other hand, Obama's trend of forcibly defending himself and his campaign shows just how much he expects conservatives to be fanatics, and thus acts fanatically himself.
Another interesting piece to this puzzle is that the military is VERY strongly conservative, and for an interesting take on how this opposing fanaticism might turn out, read O.S. Card's Empire (was a fun book regardless of what you view on this issue). Disclaimer: I was already dissatisfied with the situation regarding political opponents views of other people prior to reading this book, but it did help me perceive the potential perils of this behavior.
To sum up: while we do see our opponents engage in fanatical behavior, reacting in a similarly fanatical fashion only serves to convince them of their righteousness. We should all be careful to avoid fanaticism in politics. Additionally, calling fanatics out on their behavior may also not be helpful, but may be necessary, particularly when combined with blatantly non-fanatical behavior on individual's from both sides part. Also, this by no means that we should cease to argue (I love to debate! sometimes I take a side I oppose in order to flesh out my own arguments against it), but that we should merely be civil debaters, and try to avoid showing just how stupid we think our opponents are, and merely point out the stupidity of their arguments in a civil fashion.
Hopefully my rambling arguments were reasonably coherent and does not strongly offend, unless, of course, someone needs offending. Hopefully my pro-McCain plugs do not simply block up Obama-supporters' ears (or eyes I suppose in this case) from hearing what I have to say.
And finally, big fan of both the blog and your books Mr. Wright, thanks for putting effort into both!
October 27 2008, 21:12:05 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a reading lesson?
"Obama's trend of forcibly defending himself and his campaign shows just how much he expects conservatives to be fanatics, and thus acts fanatically himself."Or it shows that he read the same books I did when I was college, learning how students shut down universities and how one could apply the same strong-arm tactics in politics.
I'm a firm believer that people don't respond in the same way as their political or social enemies unless they PERSONALLY think it's all right to use such tactics. Plus, I teach children who routinely excuse their own horrible behavior by citing another's actions. I prefer my representatives, for good or ill, to be adults.
October 27 2008, 23:34:53 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a paper bag?
Keep in mind that being against Democrats does not mean that one is a Republican.Most Conservatives, of which John is one, object to what the Republicans have been doing of late as much as anyone else. They are just more afraid of the Dems.
October 27 2008, 23:57:47 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a paper bag?
Always the reasonable one. Actually, I'm not a democrat either. I vote republican 8 of 10. I don't know whether I should be offended or not that he always casts me as "The Left".Actually, my post was a bit sloppy, it started addressing him and veered of into addressing the Right and Republicans as a group. I suspect he knew that but who knows.
I don't see Obama as the threat he does, just a typical democrat like other we've had.
October 28 2008, 03:43:15 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a paper bag?
Ah... I should explain I once lived in Chicago. The politics there are machine politics. Intimidation and gangsterism is the order of the day. Obama looks to me like a typical machine pol from Chi town. That is why I credit stories saying his campaign sent mobs to intimidate a station interviewing Stanley Kurtz. That is why I credit a story that an Obama phonebank operator put in a phoney call to the secret service.I also used to be a newspaperman in a one-party one-horse town in Southern Maryland. My paper was on the receiving end of Dem intimidation tactics, including intimidation of advertisers, changing the rules at the county seat to rob us of ads and income, and death threats aginst my editor, who wore a bullet proof vest to work.
So, I don't know what he Democrats are like where you are from. I know what they are like where I am from, and I mean I really know first hand.
Now then, keeping my past experience in mind, do you think I am being overly emotional or overly paranoid if I credit tales that say Obama acts like the Dem Machine politicians I know?
Idealists of the secular type believe the ends justify the means. You cannot understand the Twentieth Century unless you understand that main point.
3 years ago
October 27 2008, 17:53:59 UTC 3 years ago
the corruption of the 4th estate
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a journalist with all the idealism that implies. My career took some turns, and while I do write for a living, what a journalist is today is not what I wanted to be 30 yrs ago.This excellent article just appeared which lays things out rather well as to how the press corps holds the center for the Obama rallies:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Stor
October 27 2008, 18:17:23 UTC 3 years ago
Re: the corruption of the 4th estate
Ironically enough, this is why I actually think it would be a good idea for the media - be it radio, television or print - to have to present all sides. It's too easy for all of us to have our biases creep in, and even easier for us to make sure we aren't as well-informed as we should be as a result. If the media had to have the opposing view on and give it equal time, everyone on all sides would be much better informed, and that's a good thing, no matter what side of the fence you happen to be standing on.October 27 2008, 18:46:04 UTC 3 years ago
Re: the corruption of the 4th estate
That would have to be 250 million+ sides the press had to cover. Using the term "bias" is a very easy way to ignore someone' thoughts. And, of course, "equal time" doesn't give you anymore time in the day. We would all be better informed about the issues the "gatekeepers" thought important.No, the media doesn't need to be forced to do anything. We are working through a mess because the cost of presses and the FCC worked together to form a government backed(is there any other kind?) monopoly, controlled by the Left(because they were in power when this happened). Streaming media and blogs are breaking up the logjam, breaking a bunch of bowls in the process. A thousand flowers are blooming, now is not the time to get out the "fairness" doctrine and level the field.
October 27 2008, 20:06:08 UTC 3 years ago
Re: the corruption of the 4th estate
Sorry, that wouldn't work.Whatever the editor/publisher's bias, that would be the strongest argument given. Likewise the opposition would be given the weakest argument. Technically both sides would be presented, but not fairly. And who is to arbitrate fairness?
In the olden days most towns, even smallish ones, had at least 2 newspapers which might carry the full measure of one major party's views ON THEIR EDITORIAL PAGES. That system seemed to work. That was freedom of the press, libel and slander laws notwithstanding.
Dictating how news should be presented in any one format, even if the motives seem to be reasonable, is really just another way to muzzle the press.
I recently heard a lecture from a salon.com um reporter whose closing point was that we should all be FORCED to listen to each other. That way no one could be misled--by AM radio, just for her example.
There are a hundred ways to write the same political piece, with gradations either damning or sanctifying the subject. Is it okay to have a skew of 40 percent to the left of center for one piece if one has another piece side by side that is 10 percent to the right of center which happens to be poorly written? That is how the mandate would be satisfied.
It is up to the reader/listener to become well-informed in matters editorial. Putting it on the editorial staff to be blindly judicious is like asking a Labrador Retriever to guard your Thanksgiving turkey.
It would require government regulation to pull it off to at least the ruling government's satisfaction, and that would be trading a Labrador for a pit bull, with all due apologies to Mrs. Palin.
October 27 2008, 20:49:21 UTC 3 years ago
Re: the corruption of the 4th estate
I disagree that it wouldn't work. It certainly wouldn't work perfectly - perfection meaning that 100% objectivity would be achieved. But I think it would be better than nothing, which is what we have now.3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
October 28 2008, 00:54:59 UTC 3 years ago
Re: the corruption of the 4th estate
All sides in whose opinion?October 27 2008, 21:23:15 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a reading lesson?
excellent article. I particularly like how he is unbashedly a reporter at heart, yet still finds this bias to be frightening. An interesting theory as to why this bias is happening as well, though I am not sure I buy it as a complete solution.October 27 2008, 22:08:33 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Do you need a reading lesson?
No, but it's an interesting opener.I want to see a new series featuring Kolchak the Nightstalker up against the political machines.
October 27 2008, 19:41:20 UTC 3 years ago
Secret Service behavior
For the last 8 years the Secret Service has been manhandling generally trampling on the rights of anyone accused of holding anti-Bush sentiments. I don't recall anyone on the Right complaining then about Executive over-reach.If and when President Obama sends in the Stormtroopers you may thank the preceding Administration for paving the way in gold and silver.
Don't come complaining about your "rights" being trod upon if you are the ones who acquiesced to removing recognition of those rights in the first place.
October 27 2008, 19:45:50 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
Perhaps you could give some examples of the Right generally "trampling". As it is, the only example you give is yourself, and I note you are are still here posting on the internet, for anyone to see, anti-Bush sentiments. Rather a poor showing on the part of the Bush-Hitler stormtroopers, yes?October 27 2008, 21:02:18 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,964http://dir.salon.com/story/news/fea
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/a
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0927/p11s
http://www.slate.com/id/2107012/
October 27 2008, 21:48:19 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
Sir, you make me proud to be a Republican. People planning to make a scene were moved. The horror! Mr. Wright's examples were scary. Your examples just show how confused the Left is about the uses of public space.October 27 2008, 20:12:02 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act..., the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.-- Executive Order 12139
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
-- Executive Order 12949
October 28 2008, 03:02:34 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
FYIThe first EO was issued by Carter. The second one by Clinton.
October 30 2008, 09:05:39 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
True, and the wiretapping brou-ha-ha story trumpeted by the treacherous New York Times was merely an attempt to bring current law up to speed with the 21st century.Merely using a U.S. based communication network to route their calls does not privige the communications of people based in other countries to be treated as if they were made by U.S. citizens. Syrians routing a call to Iran via a U.S. telecomm shouldn't be specially protected--and telecomms who cooperate with anti-terrorist goverment agencies tapping these calls should be applauded, rather than condemned.
October 27 2008, 23:39:26 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
Actually, during the last 8 years, nearly everyone has bashed Bush, and very few people have been bothered for it.October 30 2008, 09:00:45 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Secret Service behavior
For the last 8 years the Secret Service has been manhandling generally trampling on the rights of anyone accused of holding anti-Bush sentimentsI started to write: Eh? Is this another assertion on a par with "they're flushing Korans down the toilet in Gitmo" or is there some evidence for it? and then saw (and followed) your links.
So... protesters are not allowed to get too close to the President, but they are allowed to be present because (says the Secret Service) they are scared that the people who regularly make "assassinate Bush" films, and other media, and who (like Mr. Ayers) regularly opine that Pres. Bush and his ilk ought to be shot down like the dogs they are might, ah... actually follow through. I note that similar precautions were taken during the Democratic national convention, and that at some Obama rallies protesters weren't allowed to be present at all, never mind cordoned off at a "safe" distance.
And this is... trampling on the rights of anyone holding anti-Bush sentiments, on a par with the actual pilloring of that Joe Plumber dude, the hacking of Gov. Palin's private e-mail, and the attempts to force opposing voices off the airwaves entirely. And this is done, not merely by the Obama campaign, organizing mobs to shut down those who attempt public dissent, but by our own fourth estate! Who have a positive duty to protect our freedoms of speech!
Of course the prospect of an Obama Presidency is disturbing! Progressive movements throughout Europe (Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler) and China (Mao) during the 20th century all relied heavily on charismatic scholar-leaders who used mobs and suborned ideologically-allied agents in the press and racial-identity/tribal grievances to destroy their opponents in the service of their utopian goals. Pres. Obama may (may) be a fairly well-meaning man himself, but his supporters are appalling, and he appears to encourage, rather than check them in his bid for power.
It was, after all, a died-in-the-wool progressive who sent actual American citizens1 to internment camps.
I don't want to help elect America's Julius Nyerere.
Utopianists of any stripe are frakkin' dangerous.
Secularlists are terrified of electing a religious zealot who dreams of creating heaven on earth. I agree with them! What confuses me is that they seem to think that the only people who fit this description are Christians--this despite the bloody evidence of the most recent century.
[1] As opposed to foreign saboteurs, unlawful guerrilla combatants, and P.O.W.s.
October 30 2008, 09:02:06 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Whoops
Too intemperate, especially since you were spot on:The current Administration and the Senatorial Republicans haven't paved the way for this debacle. However it turns out, we'll be getting either a Wilsonian or (Teddy) Rooseveltian progressive come January 2009. That won't be good, and it's on their heads, the *&^%!