Stony_Hill's Blog

Media covering for Obama Obama remains unknown Tony Blankley
Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight out propagandists for the Obama campaign. While they have been liberal and blinkered in their worldview for decades, in 2007-08 for the first time, the major media are consciously covering for one candidate for president and consciously knifing the other. This is no longer journalism — it is simply propaganda. (The American left-wing version of the Volkischer Beobachter cannot be far behind.) And as a result, we are less than seven weeks away from possibly electing a president who has not been thoroughly and even half way honestly presented to the country by our watchdogs — the press.

The image of Barack Obama that the press has presented is not a fair approximation of the real man. They have consciously ignored whole years in his life, and showed a lack of curiosity about such gaps that bespeaks a lack of journalistic instinct. Thus, the public image of Mr. Obama is of a "Man who never was." I take that phrase from a 1956 movie about a real life WWII British intelligence operation to trick the Germans into thinking the Allies were going to invade Greece, rather than Italy, in 1943. Operation "Mincemeat" involved the acquisition of a human corpse dressed as a Maj. William Martin, R.M. and put into the sea near Spain. Attached to the corpse was a brief-case containing fake letters suggesting that the Allied attack would be against Sardinia and Greece.

To make the operation credible, British intelligence created a fictional life for the corpse — a letter from a lover, tickets to a London theater, all the details of a life — but not the actual life of the dead young man whose corpse was being used. So, too, the man the media has presented to the nation as Mr. Obama is not the real man.

The mainstream media ruthlessly and endlessly repeats any McCain gaffes, while ignoring Obama gaffes. You have to go to weird little Internet sites to see all the stammering and stuttering that Mr. Obama needs before getting out a sentence fragment or two. But all you see on the networks is an eventual one or two clear sentences from Mr. Obama. Nor do you see Mr. Obama's ludicrous gaffe that Iran is a tiny country and no threat to us. Nor his 57 American states gaffe. Nor his forgetting, if he ever knew, that Russia has a veto in the United Nations. Nor his whining and puerile "come on" when he is being challenged. This is the kind of editing one would expect from Goebbels' disciples, not Cronkite's.

More appalling, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin's husband had sex with his own daughters. That scene was written with the assistance of Al Franken, Democratic Party candidate for Senate in Minnesota. Talk about incest.

 

Democratic presidential candidate Sen.Barack Obama, D-Ill., greets supporters before his speech in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina on September 21, 2008. (UPI Photo/Nell Redmond)

But worse than all the unfair and distorted reporting and image projecting, is the shocking gaps in Mr. Obama's life that are not reported at all. The major media simply has not reported on Mr. Obama's two years at Columbia University in New York, where, among other things, he lived a mere quarter mile from former terrorist Bill Ayers— after which they both ended up as neighbors and associates in Chicago. Mr. Obama denies more than a passing relationship with Mr. Ayers. Should the media be curious? In only two weeks the media has focused on all the colleges Mrs. Palin has attended, her husband's driving habits 20 years ago and the close criticism of Mrs. Palin's mayoral political opponents. But in two years they haven't bothered to see how close Mr. Obama was with the terrorist Ayers.

Nor have the media paid any serious attention to Mr. Obama's rise in Chicago politics — how did honest Obama rise in the famously sordid Chicago political machine with the full support of Boss Daley? Despite the great — and unflattering details on Mr. Obama's Chicago years presented in David Freddoso's new book, the mainstream media continues to ignore both the facts and the book. It took a British publication, the Economist, to give Mr. Freddoso's book a review with fair comment.

The public image of Mr. Obama as an idealistic, post-race, post-partisan, well-spoken and honest young man with the wisdom and courage befitting a great national leader is a confection spun by a willing conspiracy of Mr. Obama, his publicist David Axelrod and most of the senior editors, producers and reporters of the national media.

Perhaps that is why the National Journal's respected correspondent Stuart Taylor has written that "the media can no longer be trusted to provide accurate and fair campaign reporting and analysis." That conspiracy has not only photo-shopped out all of Mr. Obama's imperfections (and dirtied up his opponent Mr. McCain's image), but it has put most of his questionable history down the memory hole.

The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was. If he wins, however, we will be governed by the sunken, cynical man Mr. Obama really is. One can only hope that the senior journalists will be judged as harshly for their professional misconduct as Wall Street's leaders currently are for their failings.

Bill Clinton: Don't 'Overly Parse' McCain Request to Delay Debate Email Share 

September 25, 2008 8:26 AM

Nitya

 

-->

ABC News' Nitya Venkataraman Reports: Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward.

Appearing on Good Morning America Thursday, Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo that McCain's push to postpone the debate would only be a good political move if both candidates agreed. McCain announced on Wednesday that he would "suspend" his presidential campaign to come to Washington to help negotiate a financial bailout bill

"We know he didn't do it because he's afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said, adding that he was "encouraged" by the joint statement from McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

"You can put it off a few days the problem is it's hard to reschedule those things," Clinton said, "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought to overly parse that."

If the debate moves forward as planned for Friday night, Clinton says "they should be able to talk about this some of the debate because it is a security issue."

The former president thought Bush's address Wednesday night on the economic crisis had a "positive reaction".

"I thought it was the clearest statement of why we're in the fix we're in, at least what the nature of it is and why some national action is needed," Clinton said.

He said that both Democrats and Republicans "should move as quickly as they can" on the president's economic rescue plan but that both parties "want to know exactly how this $700 billion is going to be invested..to stabilize the system."

President Bush's bipartisan meeting on the economic crisis will take place at 4pm at the White House, both Obama and McCain will be in attendance.

Now these are BOTH sick I don't care who you are! These people are complete and utter idiots and need to be dealt with appropriately and quickly! The right man for the job in each persons eyes is whom needs to be considered in ANY position regardless of race, color, creed. This makes me mad and sick of some of my fellow americans.

"Do You Want A Black President?"

White supremacist anti-Obama leaflets distributed in New Jersey town

SEPTEMBER 24--In a glimpse of what may be to come in the final weeks before Election Day, a white supremacist group peppered a New Jersey neighborhood with an anti-Barack Obama political leaflet asking, "Do You Want A Black President?" The leaflet, a copy of which you'll find below, was distributed by the New Jersey-based League of American Patriots, which notes on its web site that membership is "restricted to adult heterosexual men and women who are entirely of European Christian ancestry." The leaflet, which some Roxbury, N.J. residents found Saturday in their driveways, claims that "Black Ruled Nations most unstable and violent in the world," and asks, "Why should we seal our fate by allowing a Black ruler to destroy us?" The one-page flyer, which misspells the Democratic presidential candidate's first name, includes a doctored photo purporting to show Obama wearing a turban.

AND

Obama effigy found hanging on Ore. campus

Sep 24 12:06 PM US/Eastern

NEWBERG, Ore. (AP) - Officials of a Christian university say a life-size effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was hung from a tree on the campus.

George Fox University President Robin Baker says a custodian discovered the cardboard cutout of Obama early Tuesday at the Oregon school and removed it.

The effigy was accompanied by a message targeting participants of a minority student scholarship program called Act Six.

It read, "Act Six reject."

Baker says he met with the students in the Act Six program, who receive full scholarships, late Tuesday and plans to address the school's student body Wednesday.

Posted at 1:57 AM on 9/24/2008 by Michael Goldfarb A Partisan Paper of Record

Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

 

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Name Office Party/State Total 1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT

$133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA

$111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL

$105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY

$75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA

$65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT

$61,499

7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD

$61,000

8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND

$58,991

9. Davis, Tom H R-VA

$55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S R-MO

$55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL

$55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL

$55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL

$51,750

14. Reed, Jack S D-RI

$50,750

15. Carper, Tom S D-DE

$44,389

16. Frank, Barney H D-MA

$40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY

$38,750

18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL

$37,249

19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO

$36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH

$34,750

21. Miller, Gary H R-CA

$33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA

$32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY

$32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD

$30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR

$28,750

 

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the
Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

The original.............

Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2001 12:04:14 PM by Behind Liberal Lines

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffee pot with water to prepare his morning coffee. Joe can afford the coffee because corporate loving rich Republicans exported our jobs overseas with NAFTA and CAFTA.

With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications work because money-grubbing Republicans refuse to place price controls on drugs, thereby allowing pharmaceutical companies to earn enough money to pay for the extensive R&D and take the risks necessary to create miracle drugs. But the drugs still cost too much because government mandated health insurance has artificially increased the demand for medications with no one to police the prices, but that’s OK since Joe’s Bush-supporting bossman pays all but $10 of Joe's medications.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient, none of which are damaging to his skin because some animal-hating sadistic corporations paid some scientists to swab the shampoo in some poor rabbit’s eyes. Just for kicks.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some dollar-worshipping conservative developers built some nice houses with pretty yards 15 miles from the industrial sector of the city, and Joe drives his comfortable and affordable “Japanese” car made in Georgia without the inflated cost of union labor, and Joe can stop on his way home to pick up a package of reasonably priced T-shirts at the evil Wal-Mart, instead of having to park his car and take a filthy subway to pay twice as much downtown.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because his parents instilled in him the value of hard work so he studied when he was in school and learned that he could get by just fine without relying on the government. Joe's employer pays these benefits because Joe's employer knows Joe’s a valuable employee and Joe’s employer doesn’t want him to go work for his competitor. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get another job pretty quick because he’s a self-starting go getter who has a lot of friends at church and from college that he can call to find more work.

It's noontime and Joe would need to make a bank deposit but doesn’t need to go to a bank because evil monopolist Bill Gates helped make computers useable to the general public and he can automatically pay bills thanks to the economies of scale of Bank of America or Wachovia installing the expensive equipment to allow Joe this convenience. While Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC, Joe doesn’t have to worry about Democrats in Congress pulling the rug out from under the real estate market again like they did in the 80s. At least Joe hopes they learned their lesson.

Joe pays a low rate mortgage because Americans voted for that war monger Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton had the good sense to reappoint Alan Greenspan. And Joe can afford a nicer home, not only just because of the low mortgage rates, but also because he gets to keep more of his hard earned money because Republican Presidents in the 1980s and in 2001 cut his taxes.

After work this evening, Joe plans to visit his father at his farm home in the country that Joe’s dad still owns because his landed-gentry Republican County Commissioners have refused to steal his land in the name of a higher tax base.

Joe gets in his car for the drive because the government added additional lanes to the local highways that people actually use instead of throwing money away on a regional rail system that studies project people would little use. Joe gets to his house in record time because death-loving Republicans allow you to go 65 and 70 mph, and you can because pollution loving Republicans don’t make you plug your car in overnight so you can drive for 2 hours at a maximum speed of 20 mph.

Joe arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house, but he doesn’t because when his grandparents moved to the United States they learned to speak English and didn’t spend their time complaining about how the government wasn’t doing enough for them. The house didn't have electricity until some military-industrial power company plopped a big ol’ nuclear power plant over by the river.

Joe is happy to see his father, so they go to the local bar and enjoy a beer and a cigar, where Joe’s dad tells him that if the estate tax is repealed, Joe can keep the farm in the family for a fourth generation and won’t have to sell it to pay the taxes.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The reporters keep telling stories about how bad corporations only care about profit and that higher taxes will allow the government to “invest” in our future. They don’t mention that the beloved Democrats have vilified the very people who have provided us jobs, good and services from their small businesses and big companies.

Joe agrees: "Those evil corporations don’t care about the little guy, all they want is to pay their executives huge salaries and steal oil from the middle east. Why can’t we be like Europe where we can work 30 hour weeks and get a month vacation? Bastard rich people only care about themselves."

I am under 45 years old,

 

 

 

I love the outdoors,

 

 

 

I hunt,

 

 

 

I am a Republican reformer,

 

 

 

I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,

 

 

 

I have many children, one very sick and a wife in poor health

 

 

 

I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.

 

Did you guess?

 

This is exactly why this man can not be trusted or elected!  

Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

ADVERTISEMENT

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

YES!!!!

A Shot Heard Around The World!

Court: A constitutional right to a gunThursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am | Lyle Denniston | Comments Off |

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.  The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

This is the guy whom is supposedly the front runner to gain the POTUS position at a recent fundraiser in San Fran, CA...........

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone or declining now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. Each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.


They get bitter, they cling to their guns and religion have antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti - free trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. These are the people we need to help change their antiquated views."

Sorry Barrack (Barry) Obama (B.O.) but I don't feel that believing illegal  immigrants are in fact illegal, that sending jobs out of this country, or that owning guns and hunting is wrong and sentiments like these is EXACTLY what will cause you to lose the upcoming election!