Welcome to My Worlds: A Bipolar Christian Tells All

Boo-Yah to ya! 

You may not know, but I’m well versed in Politics, Foreign Policy, and Economics. [And y’all thought I was just another pretty face!] Yep, I’m not just a fun gal, I’m a bon-a-fied intellectual. Amazing, if ya consider I should’ve lost all my gray matter due to the large volume of drugs I did in the past. Gee, if I’m this smart now, what if I hadn’t fried my brain? I’d give Sarah Palin [my hero] a run for her money! [You bet I’d race her for a grand … sorry, can’t keep a sharp wit down.]

I pray my reports help in some way. I pray reading the material presented gives y’all a clear picture of your options. I pray this information is something you feel confident passing on.

This may sound harsh, but if you don’t know how the economy works, what we face in dealing with other nations, how our system of government runs, then how can you make an educated decision on whom to vote for?

If the media tells ya to set yourself on fire, would you do it? [Pyromaniacs and masochists need not answer.] So, if the Media tells ya the country will be better off with Mr. Obama as president, do you vote for him? I dare y’all to follow my blog and educate yourself. I’ve always been up-front with you, and I always will be. Even if I make enemies; even if my view isn’t the popular one. I ask for your trust, and I ask for an open mind. [For you—mine is already open.]. You have my thanks for “listening.”

Ain’t No Towels Getting’ Thrown In Here… - by Kelly Mortimer

Don’t let the biased media convince you McCain has already lost. The polls are often flawed, and the polls are close with a decent percentage of “undecided.” Since I often call myself a Maverick, and I’m definitely an Underdog who came out ahead, I have faith  the outcome of the election will have Senator McCain and Governor Palin [my hero] in the White House. [Please, God!]

In the words of Senator McCain:
“Stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. And we never quit. I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.” [He reminds me of me. Sigh.]

On With the Alphabet:

[I’ve edited some of these articles to save space and give you the most vital information without overloading y’all.]

“F”

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy – The Museum of Broadcasting Communications [I leave no stone unturned.]
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the “Mayflower Doctrine,” which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station’s. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as “Ascertainment of Community Needs,” and was to be done systematically and by the station management.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a “Christian Crusade” program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. However, before the Commission’s action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law–a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.
-Val E. Limburg
 

The Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest

The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end.

If Obama wins [this is the second thing he’ll do], Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.

So, what’s their plan of attack?

As Newsmax magazine reveals in its special report, “The Battle for Talk Radio,” leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations.

Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.
With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.

This Newsmax special report also features an exclusive interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly who tells Newsmax there is no question a plan is being hatched. “The far-left kooks will try, but they will fail,” O’Reilly says. [From your lips to God’s ear, Bill.]

FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM

You Votin’ for the Promise Breaker? by Kelly Mortimer

Ah, heck. Nothin’ to worry about. I’m sure Mr. Obama will keep all of his promises once he’s in the White house. [I hope he remains in character and breaks his promises if he gets in. Then I might not have to close my three small businesses, and, honestly, I have considered it.]

The federal campaign finance system gives each presidential nominee a dollar for every dollar they raise. There’s a catch. The system limits the amount the candidates can spend after their party convention to 84 million dollars.

Let’s revisit November of 2007. Mr. Obama promised to accept this financing to “work with Republicans to see both have the same opportunities within those limits.”

Last time I checked, the dude was flush with dead presidents. [No irreverence intended.] So, Obama broke his promise. His excuse? [Oh, I don’t like excuses either, especially bad ones.] Mr. Obama said our system is broken. He justified breaking his promise by saying he’d need those extra dollars to battle all those negative “527” ads that were gonna flood the airwaves. Hmm. I haven’t seen any. You? Nope. Mr. Obama has cash-cows forkin’ over major bales of hay. Right now, less than a week away from the election, he’s earned an unprecedented 600 million dollars. [Guess it is an advantage to have Oprah endorse ya.]

Say, why doesn’t he save the cheese for some of his programs? He could be the 600 Million Dollar Man … I can make the government bigger, stronger, fatter… [Sorry.]

The truth is—and even those voting for Obama know it—he broke his promise because it was to his financial advantage. Senator McCain made the same promise in November of 2008. Unfortunately, he kept his promise, to his detriment.

I’d expect nothing less from either of the candidates.

Here’s a quote for ya from the Washington Post:
“A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue—who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we have here.” Yeah, I know. Probably a Rush Limbaugh quote. Nope. The author of the statement is Obama supporter, John Kerry.

To hear more, go to cnn.com and click on “Politics.” On the right-hand side, click on Commentary: Obama Breaks Promise [Sorry I’m not including a link, but I can’t chance it with “the blog from Hell!”]

FILIBUSTER– tactic used to delay or prevent action, especially in a legislative context

Busted! by Kelly Mortimer

Mr. Obama is an open book. He’s not hiding his Marxist/Socialist political views. [The Leftist Times—beg pardon—Los AngelesTimes is. More on that later.] We have more to fear than the obvious. Has anyone thought of what’s creeping around the corner? Busted! The Democrats have a working 51-vote majority, and it’s possible they can swing the moderate Republicans on major issues. [If there’s one thing that turns me purple, it’s “moderates” who are liberals masquerading as conservatives. Hey, guys, Halloween is on Oct. 31….]

If Mr. Obama wins with 56 Senate seats, we have a major problem. If Mr. Obama wins and gets 60 votes in the Senate, we have a Socialist-governed nation. We’ll have a one-party, filibuster-proof system. [I’m cringing in terror!]

Republican filibusters could be the only way to stop Democratic domination of Washington. We’ve had the power to filibuster for 30 years. If we lose it now, conservatives won’t be able to block anything the liberal agenda rams down our throats. Can any of you imagine a President Obama with no checks and balances? You’ve heard it before, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman; that a fetus isn’t a “choice,” it’s a baby; if you don’t want the government in charge of your healthcare; if you think you should keep the money you earn, how can you, in good conscience, vote for Mr. Obama? There’s more at stake here than the economy, which as I reported under “E,” will not improve with Mr. Obama in the White House—unless you’re a fan of Carl Marx.

So, just a reminder. The presidential election isn’t the only issue of importance. Get the word out on the Senate seats possibly in jeopardy: Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Oregon. We can’t lose those seats. We can’t give the spend-happy Congress a blank check, and if Obama wins, give him absolute power.

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT – See previous post “C” for Columbian Free Trade Agreement

FUNDING

Obama’s loaded. So, what’s he gonna do with the cash? I’ll let Karl Rove answer…

Money alone won’t decide the contest. John Kerry and the Democrats outspent Mr. Bush and the GOP in 2004 by $121 million and still lost.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is to do all he can to look presidential, including using funding to purchase very expensive half-hour slots to address the country [tonight]. He wants to give a serious, Oval-Office type address. This is smart. People appreciate Mr. Obama’s empathy on the economy, but as they take a long look at what he wants to do about it, they will be less impressed, especially if Mr. McCain draws sharp contrasts with clear policy proposals.

Mr. Obama is trying to make the case that his lack of experience or record should not disqualify him. But in doing so, he seems to recognize that the U.S. is still a center-right country. His TV ads promise tax cuts and his radio ads savage Mr. McCain’s health-care plan as a tax increase. It’s a startling campaign conversion for the most liberal member of the Senate. We’ll know on Election Day if he is able to get away with it.

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

by Matthew Mosk - Washington Post Staff Writer

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama’s accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama’s finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
Case in point: The Washington Post noted the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama’s FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t accept prepaid cards. R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said she was “flabbergasted” to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

“H”

HEALTHCARE

Government-run healthcare. This alone is reason enough not to vote Obama. Think, people. As previously stated by moi, can anyone point out any program the government has taken over that now works better? Lemme think. Nope. The government making the decisions about my medical problems? No thanks! To add insult to injury, I’ll not only be payin’ for min through higher taxes, which I won’t have control over, but for someone else’s. Well, it works great in Canada….
 
“I”

IRAQ – That country my daughter went to to free the oppressed crushed under Sadam Hussein’s boot. [She doesn’t think setting those people free was wrong. Say, isn’t that was Jesus does? Sets people free?]

Sure-fire Way to Make Money! by Kelly Mortimer

Sellin’ white flags.

If Mr. Obama wins the election, he promises we’ll leave Iraq, tail between our legs. I’m flamin’. My kid sweat bullets over there, and for what? To slink away like cowards when we have victory in sight? No great shock that the military overwhelmingly supports Senator McCain.

Fact: The. Surge. Is. Working.
Fact: Mr. Obama said the surge wouldn’t work. So, he’s a wealth-spreader, a promise- breaker, and his take on the Iraqi war was incorrect.

Remember, we aren’t just votin’ for a man who’ll regenerate our economy [that would be Senator McCain] but also, the leader of our Armed Forces. How can anyone say they support the troops, and then vote for Obama knowing he has no clue how to win a war? Knowing the leaders of the Middle East want him to win the presidency?

Mr. Obama could be the nicest guy in the world with no ties to Marxist terrorists, a wife who’s been proud of her country her entire adult life, a pastor who loves the U.S., and HE STILL WOULDN’T BE QUALIFIED TO LEAD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

IRAN – That other country over there that needs to get their butt kicked before they nuke someone.

Let’s see what Iranian and French officials think of Mr. Obama…

Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday, 10/22, that Iran would prefer Democrat Barack Obama in the White House next year. [What a shock! Wonder why they don’t want McCain? Mayhap they feel Mr. Obama will be more globally friendly?]

‘Kozy Rips Bam on Iran
By Geoff Earle - October 29, 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ripped Barack Obama’s posture on Iran as “utterly immature,” according to a stunning report. Sarkozy, who gushed over Obama when they met this summer, has said in private meetings that Obama’s views were “formulations empty of all content,” according to Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper.

Sarkozy fears Obama would pursue direct, unconditional talks with Iran. [Wonder we he got that idea?] He reportedly told Obama in their meeting that it would be “very problematic” if US policy toward Iran changes, “arrogantly” ignoring ongoing efforts. [Well said, Frog.]

ILLEGAL ALIENS – People who come into our country ILLEGALLY

Mr. Obama has two moves to make, pronto, if he wins the election. Already mentioned one. Guess what? He wants to welcome illegal aliens with open arms, and a driver’s license in hand. Worse, Obama wants to give 12 million illegals citizenship. Failed in 2007, but what about 2009? Mayhap Democrat super-majorities in the Senate and the House?

Most of these new citizens will register as Democrats. They’ll vote for Democrats. I’m an optimist, but if that happens, we may never wrestle control back. One-party nation comin’ up!

Well, one thing is obvious to me. It’s true. Mr. Obama is smart. Scary smart.

ISRAEL – An ally of the U.S., and an enemy of Iran.

Is he or isn’t he? Mr. Obama declares he’s for Israel. In January, 2006…

“In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations [Iran] would openly call for the elimination of another member state [Israel]. But that is exactly what President Ahmadinejad  has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric. We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. When Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.”

But in March of 2008, Obama had a slip-of-the-tongue [kinda like when he said, “My Muslim faith…”], stating compassion for Palestinians: “Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.”

From: Obama’s Israel Shuffle by Justin Elliot

The suspicion of pro-Israel advocates for Obama was most recently captured in a January 23 Jerusalem Post op-edin which Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., called the senator’s candidacy cause for “some degree of concern.” A memo by a top official at the American Jewish Committee, recently leaked to the Jewish Daily Forward, neatly outlined the roots of this concern: In the late 1990s Obama reportedly called for an even-handed approach to the conflict; his pastor had praised Louis Farrakhan; he has called for diplomacy with Iran; and, of course, he was once photographed breaking bread with the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said.

Obama experienced a mini-version of the Dean treatment after his statement about Palestinian suffering in March. When David Adelman, a prominent Iowa Democrat and AIPAC member, shot off a letter to Obama calling the comment “deeply troubling,” a spokesman scrambled to run damage control, telling the AP that Obama believes “in the end, the Palestinian people are suffering from the Hamas-led government’s refusal to renounce terrorism.” Aides met personally with Adelman, who told the Des Moines Register he was “satisfied with their response.”

The campaign let the quote stand for six weeks. Then, in the first debate, before a televised audience of around two million, Brian Williams asked the senator if he stood by his comment. Obama bailed. “Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said.… [N]obody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel…”

For the candidate who is selling hope, it was a fairly cynical move. [end]

Lastly, consider what his advisor of foreign policy from 2005 until March (when she called Hillary “a monster”), Samantha Power, said about Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in an interview a few years back on how she would advise the president on monitoring Israel:
 
“It may take putting something on the line in service of helping. Sacrificing or investing billions of dollars, not in servicing Israeli’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars to support a mammoth protection force … a meaningful military presence …” [go to hotair.com archives to hear the interview in it’s
entirety]

Note: Ms. Powers wasn’t dismissed because of her stance on Israel, but on her comment about Ms. Clinton. Also ties into Khalidi, under “K”….

“J”

JUDGES – Those who sit in judgment

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution  by Steven Calabresi

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on
January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.
Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

(Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University)

“K”

RASHID KHALIDI – Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University [yeah, another professor], a known Palestinian Activist, and an alleged PLO spokesman

(CNN) — The Obama campaign said on its Web site that “ugly insinuations about Barack Obama’s relationship with a former neighbor [Oh! Another “guy from the neighborhood.” I’m sensing a pattern here…] and university colleague … are completely false.”

Governor Palin [my hero] said, “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years.”

Khalidi was a contemporary of Obama’s while on faculty at the University of Chicago.

Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s. Khalidi said Wednesday, “I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.” [How convenient.]

In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003.

The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.
The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage. [McCain ain’t the only one.]

“What we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it.” Palin said.
The Times said it won’t release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of ’suppressing’ Obama video
By a Times staff writer - 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008

John McCain’s presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama’s ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.

The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public. “A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. ” . . . The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public.”

The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.” [Hmm. But they No Problemo releasing a private tape of Arnold right before the gubernatorial election. Did they think we’d forget?]

What is the L.A. Times Hiding?
29 Oct 2008 01:01 pm

There’s a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Rashid Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn’t be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won’t explain. And it’s looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.

I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won’t discuss in detail why it’s keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper’s “readers’ representative,” Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.

There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps — this is just a thought here — the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.

Like I said, just a thought. [Somehow lost who wrote this, but whoever he is, he’s absolutely right!]

“L”

LIBERAL – Someone who wishes to liberate us by making us more dependant on the government [No, I didn’t get that out of the dictionary. I made it up. Sue me.]

Liberals give child molesters light prison sentences. They believe in killing unborn babies. They want gay marriage legalized. They want more welfare programs. They want bigger government. They want to spend, and spend, and spend more money than they have … well, they don’t have it at first. They tax the people of the United States to get it.

Mr. Obama is the most liberal candidate running for president in our history. If you like the qualities listed above, he’s your man.

More on Friday. Thanks for making this entire day worth my time by reading the blog.

K.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 03:49 and is filed under Obama from A to Z. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.