konane's Blog

  Go Sarah!!!!!!  Thrift stores have some awesome clothes at equally awesome prices.

________________

"Palin makes lemonade out of wardrobe lemons

Source Chicagotribune.com
The Swamp reports:

Since bloggers have taken over reporting the news like the video below I posted earlier, the pajamas media has relegated the lamestream media to that of sub-tabloid. 

Very interesting perspective of one journalist from his position in the middle of the muck.

________________

"2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT"  Drudgereport.com 

"Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

______________

"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I'm cut. I am a fourth-generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kan., during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian).

My hard-living -- and when I knew her, scary -- grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I've spent 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national byline before he earned his drivers license.

So, when I say I'm deeply ashamed right now to be called a "journalist," you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.

Now, of course, there's always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you 10 different ways to color variations of the word "said" -- muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. -- to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom.

But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against them.

But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible.

That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can't achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty -- especially in ourselves.

Reporting Bias

For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy.

Sure, being a child of the '60s I saw a lot of subjective "New" Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from "real" reporting, and, at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.

But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth.

I'd spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else's work -- not out of any native honesty, but out of fear: I'd always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense … indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.

And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes -- and if they did they were soon rehired into even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who'd managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.

The Presidential Campaign

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

Joe the Plumber

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes … and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain's. That's what reporters do. I was proud to have been one, and I'm still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

Bad Editors

Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you've spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the <snip>pit of power … only to discover that you're presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn't have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you'll lose your job before you cross that finish line, 10 years hence, of retirement and a pension.

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -- and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway -- all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself -- an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …

This is the opinion of the columnist and in no way reflects the opinion of ABC News. "

Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000. " 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

"I don't think there is any precedent in our history for the shameful manner in which the Left has treated Sarah Palin. Left-winger Andrew Sullivan gleefully posted a particularly disgusting example of the phenomenon today; it's a YouTube video titled "Red, White and MILF." Watch it only if you have a strong stomach. If you don't know what "MILF" means--I'm sure most of our readers don't--Google it.

I can remember when Sullivan was a respected journalist, not a gutter smear merchant and borderline pornographer. His descent exemplifies the Left's decline in recent years to a baboon-like level of discourse. The vileness of much of what passes for political "argument" on the Left has to be seen to be believed. The worst impulses of human nature have been not just unleashed, but rewarded. If you haven't looked at web sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, you have no idea what the phrase "gutter politics" really means.

Nowhere has the vileness of the Left been more sickening than in its treatment of Governor Palin. It is interesting to contemplate what a semi-pornographic video about Barack Obama, playing on the same sort of prejudices and stereotypes that are so disgustingly on display in Sullivan's video, would look like. Frankly, I can't imagine such a video being made, let alone featured on the web site of the once-proud Atlantic magazine. But on the Left, anything goes--the more slimy and disgusting, the better.

I think this represents, in part, a conscious effort to drive decent people out of politics. How many Republican women, observing the vicious treatment to which Sarah Palin has been subjected, will decide to steer clear of public life? More than a few, I suspect.

Barack Obama can't be blamed for all of his followers' vile actions, but, like it or not, he trails in his wake a howling mob of barbarians. If he is elected, these bottom-feeders will have achieved their goal, and some of them, at least, will be rewarded for doing their leader's dirty work. This is not, folks, your father's Democratic Party. "

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021890.php

Interesting information.  Highlighted bold emphasis mine.

Copy of referenced letter below article.  Did not copy in correct paragraph form but content intact.

____________________

" The Real Obama—From Someone Who Knows   Friday, October 24, 2008  

Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's TRUE History in the Illinois Senate 

"We've repeatedly warned readers not to believe Barack Obama when he claims to support our Second Amendment rights.  We have told you the truth--that Barack Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history!  Hands down. No question.  Barack Obama opposes the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, freedom-loving, American firearm owners. 

We've given the facts, and provided the documentation.  But if you know someone who's still not convinced, you'll want to share with them a recent, open letter to our nation's gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen, written by Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) Executive Director Richard Pearson.  Pearson's credentials include deep involvement in the firearm rights movement for more than 40 years.  He's been the chief lobbyist for the ISRA for the past 15 years.  And, most importantly, because of his personal experience, he knows Barack Obama's true stance on the Second Amendment. 

In his letter, Mr. Pearson says, "I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator.  As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone.  The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama." 

Mr. Pearson goes on to describe just some of Obama's anti-gun voting record, saying, "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens.  That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns."  Obama also voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would protect a homeowner who use a firearm in defense of home and family! 

It doesn't get much plainer than that, folks.  This letter is a must-read for every pro-freedom, pro-self-defense, pro-Second Amendment American. 

To read the entire letter, please click here.  Then be sure to forward the link to every Second Amendment supporter you know.  The truth about Obama's stance on firearms and the Second Amendment needs to be told—again!  "

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4221

______________

"Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson Issues Open Letter to Nation's Sportsmen Regarding Obama's History in the Illinois Senate CHICAGO, Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

 The following is the textof an open letter to the nation's hunters and sportsmen issued today byIllinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson:

Fellow Sportsman, Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearmrights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served inthe Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois StateRifle Association. I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois StateSenator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes towardguns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my yearsin the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt forthe law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama. Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, hisvoting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every huntingrifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same billwould authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forciblyconfiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut downlaw-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite,Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month. Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of thelaw abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to bea friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm indefense of home and family. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abidinggun owner? And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the companythey keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - arenegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shopowners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, themayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros -the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's internationaleffort to disarm law-abiding citizens. Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people'smoney to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a boardmember of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tensof millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as theIllinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center. Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abidinggun owner? By now, I'm sure that many of you have received mailings from anorganization called "American Hunters and Shooters Association(AHSA)"talking about what a swell fellow Obama is and how he honors the 2ndAmendment and how you will never have to worry about Obama coming to takeyour guns. Let me make it perfectly clear - everything the AHSA says aboutObama is pure hogwash. The AHSA is headed by a group of left-wing elitistswho subscribe to the British view of hunting and shooting. That is, a stateof affairs where hunting and shooting are reserved for the wealthyupper-crust who can afford guided hunts on exclusive private reserves. TheAHSA is not your friend, never will be. In closing, I'd like to remind you that I'm a guy who has actually gonenose to nose with Obama on gun rights issues. The Obama I know cannot evenbegin to identify with this nation's outdoor traditions. The Obama I knowsees you, the law abiding gun owner, as nothing but a low-class lummox whois easily swayed by the flash of a smile and a ration of rosy rhetoric. TheObama I know is a stony-faced liar who has honed his skill at getting whathe wants - so long as people are willing to give it to him. That's the Barack Obama I know. The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful andresponsible firearms ownership. Founded in 1903, the ISRA has representedthe interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners. WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-15-2008/0004904149&EDATE=

Via Drudge "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT

"Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Allow me to preface my statements by stating I'm not Jewish by blood or conversion so the following is not based on that bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but have been given to undersand that Jews are a very ancient race of people, not just a religion.

That being true .... provided the following quotes from this article are accurate ... it gives a chilling insight into Obama's key advisors who will likely have a place in his administration.  Racist statements???  Decide for yourself.

"Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama’s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ‘politician wants to run against’ and who he says exercise undue influence on America’s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ‘monster’ but who says she still expects to be in Obama’s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ‘mammoth force’ of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ‘good for the Jews’. "

______________

"Is America really going to do this?

By Melanie Phillips

"The impact of the financial crisis on the American presidential election has somewhat obscured the most important reason why the prospect of an Obama presidency is giving so many people nightmares. This is the fear that, if he wins, US defences will be emasculated at a time of unprecedented international peril and the enemies of America and the free world will seize their opportunity to destroy the west.

Personally, I don’t give any credence to the ‘support’ for one candidate over the other that has been expressed by the enemies of civilisation (Iran and Hamas ‘support’ Obama, while an al Qaeda blogger ‘supports’ McCain). Their agenda is simply to sow confusion and promote American recriminations and disarray. Nor do I set much store by many of the remarks made by either candidate during the latter stages of this election campaign, since under this kind of pressure both will now say pretty much anything to win it. TheNew York Times has run a useful analysis of the candidates’ foreign policy campaign statements which shows how Obama has carefully tacked to the ‘hard power’ agenda while McCain has in turn nodded towards ‘soft power’.

No, the only way to assess their position is to look at each man in the round, at what his general attitude is towards war and self-defence, aggression and appeasement, the values of the west and those of its enemies and – perhaps most crucially of all – the nature of the advisers and associates to whom he is listening. As I have said before, I do not trust McCain; I think his judgment is erratic and impetuous, and sometimes wrong. But on the big picture, he gets it. He will defend America and the free world whereas Obama will undermine them and aid their enemies.

Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?

To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.

McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.

Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel – particularly through the ‘settlements’ – is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders – actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ‘Auschwitz borders’.

Obama would thus speak to Iran’s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ‘Zionist’ Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel’s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ‘surge’ in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.

Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists’ camp. Daniel Pipes lists Obama’s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:

Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America’s strategic enemy; Obama’s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.

The hatred that these Islamist connections entertain towards Israel is reflected amongst Obama’s own advisers. With one notable exception in Dennis Ross, whose late arrival in Camp Obama suggests a cosmetic exercise designed to allay alarm among Israel supporters, his advisers are overwhelmingly not only hostile to Israel but perpetrate the loathesome canard that Jews have too much power over American policy.

The former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, not only denounced Israel’s war against Hezbollah thus:

I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect– maybe not in intent – the killing of hostages

but also supports Mearsheimer and Walt’s notorious smear that the Jews have subverted America’s foreign policy in the interests of Israel. Merrill McPeak, vice chairman of Obama’s campaign and his chief military adviser, has similarly blamed problems in the Middle East on the influence of people who live in New York City and Miami (guess who) whom no ‘politician wants to run against’ and who he says exercise undue influence on America’s foreign affairs. Most revolting of all is Samantha Power, a very close adviser whom Obama fired for calling Hillary a ‘monster’ but who says she still expects to be in Obama’s administration. Not only has Power has advocated the ending of all aid to Israel and redirecting it to the Palestinians, but she has spoken about the need to land a ‘mammoth force’ of US troops in Israel to protect the Palestinians from Israeli attempts at genocide (sic) -- and has complained that criticism of Barack Obama all too often came down to what was ‘good for the Jews’.

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us can’t sleep at night.  "

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2545716/is-america-really-going-to-do-this.thtml

Bringing forward a post by Jarasan below my article following expands a bit farther on the same subject.

Live links.

_______________

"Obama Would Fail Security Clearance
By  Daniel Pipes "

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?i=25078&b=p

______________

"How do Muslims see Barack Hussein Obama? They have three choices: either as he presents himself – someone who has "never been a Muslim" and has "always been a Christian"; or as a fellow Muslim; or as an apostate from Islam.

Reports suggests that while Americans generally view the Democratic candidate having had no religion before converting at Reverend Jeremiah Wrights's hands at age 27, Muslims the world over rarely see him as Christian but usually as either Muslim or ex-Muslim.

Lee Smith of the Hudson Institute explains why: "Barack Obama's father was Muslim and therefore, according to Islamic law, so is the candidate. In spite of the Quranic verses explaining that there is no compulsion in religion, a Muslim child takes the religion of his or her father. … for Muslims around the world, non-American Muslims at any rate, they can only ever see Barack Hussein Obama as a Muslim." In addition, his school record from Indonesia lists him as a Muslim

Thus, an Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm, refers to his "Muslim origins." Libyan ruler Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi referred to Obama as "a Muslim" and a person with an "African and Islamic identity." One Al-Jazeera analysis calls him a "non-Christian man," a second refers to his "Muslim Kenyan" father, and a third, by Naseem Jamali, notes that "Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own."

A conversation in Beirut, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, captures the puzzlement. "He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim," observed a grocer. "He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian," replied a customer. Retorted the grocer: "He can't be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein." Arabic discussions of Obama sometimes mention his middle name as a code, with no further comment needed.

"The symbolism of a major American presidential candidate with the middle name of Hussein, who went to elementary school in Indonesia," reports Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution from a U.S.-Muslim conference in Qatar, "that certainly speaks to Muslims abroad." Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times found that Egyptians "don't really understand Obama's family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name ‘Hussein,' it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations."

Some American Muslim leaders also perceive Obama as Muslim. The president of the Islamic Society of North America, Sayyid M. Syeed, told Muslims at a conference in Houston that whether Obama wins or loses, his candidacy will reinforce that Muslim children can "become the presidents of this country." The Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan called Obama "the hope of the entire world" and compared him to his religion's founder, Fard Muhammad.

But this excitement also has a dark side – suspicions that Obama is a traitor to his birth religion, an apostate (murtadd) from Islam. Al-Qaeda has prominently featured Obama's stating "I am not a Muslim" and one analyst, Shireen K. Burki of the University of Mary Washington, sees Obama as "bin Laden's dream candidate." Should he become U.S. commander in chief, she believes, Al-Qaeda would likely "exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror … to galvanize sympathizers into action."

Mainstream Muslims tend to tiptoe around this topic. An Egyptian supporter of Obama, Yasser Khalil, reports that many Muslims react "with bewilderment and curiosity" when Obama is described as a Muslim apostate; Josie Delap and Robert Lane Greene of the Economist even claim that the Obama-as-apostate theme "has been notably absent" among Arabic-language columnists and editorialists.

That latter claim is inaccurate, for the topic is indeed discussed. At least one Arabic-language newspaper published Burki's article. Kuwait's Al-Watan referred to Obama as "a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity." Writing in the Arab Times, Syrian liberal Nidal Na‘isa repeatedly called Obama an "apostate Muslim."

In sum, Muslims puzzle over Obama's present religious status. They resist his self-identification as a Christian while they assume a baby born to a Muslim father and named "Hussein" began life a Muslim. Should Obama become president, differences in Muslim and American views of religious affiliation will create problems.  "

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5845

Please refer to one of my previous blog posts below for Obama's strategy

"AN OBAMA PANIC?MARKETS FEAR HIS POLICIES

Last updated: 1:45 pm
October 15, 2008
Posted: 4:09 am
October 13, 2008

"Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens.

See Gasparino Talk About Obama's Economics on CNBC.

Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years.

The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

To be fair, McCain hardly instills confidence among the Wall Streeters I speak to. Why has his campaign spent the last week focusing on Obama's friendship with former terrorist William Ayers - when it should be hitting Obama's blind loyalty to policies that bring together the worst elements of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter?

Recently, Obama said he wants to expedite loans to small businesses, so he seems to have a clue that they produce much of the country's job growth. Yet his income-tax hike on upper brackets will hit vast numbers of small businesses - they'd face the highest rates they've seen in decades.

Overall, his plan includes some of the most lethal tax increases imaginable, including a jump in the capital-gains rate. He'd expand government spending massively, with everything from new public-works projects to increases in foreign aid to a surge in Afghanistan - plus hand out a token $500 welfare check that he calls a tax cut to everyone else.

This is clearly the wrong way to go in the wake of an economic meltdown - yet Obama, for all his talk of how willing he is to compromise, of how he'd bring people together, is sticking to his tax guns.

I know at least one top Wall Street executive, an Obama supporter from the start of his campaign, who has recently urged Obama to rethink his tax plan - and that was before last week's record losses on the Dow.

But if Obama is rethinking, he's not saying. As his running mate, Joe Biden tells us that it's patriotic to pay higher taxes, Obama remains committed to squeezing businesses even if the recession grows.

The closest evidence I could find of compromise from Obama on taxes came in a June interview with CNBC, when he said: "Some of those [tax hikes] you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important."

It's easy to understand why so many of my colleagues in the media have fallen head over heels for Obama. He's smart, ambitious and cool under pressure. But what is he really like under the surface?

Some reckon that a President Obama won't go through with his plans. They look at his (thin) record and see a wimp who's never taken a firm stand on much of anything, much less enacting tax hikes during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I look at Obama's record differently. From his days as a community activist, to his years in the Illinois Senate and now his brief time in the US Senate, he has shown little inclination to deviate from his party's tax-and-spend orthodoxy.

And if he governs like a liberal ideologue - with a belief that the government that works best is the one that's biggest and raises taxes the most - he won't even have to work hard to get his way. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't stop him - the Democratic majorities in Congress are only likely to grow.

And the markets know this - even if pundits (even many of the financial ones) refuse to face it.

No one can blame the faltering stock market solely on Obama's tax plans or McCain's own inanity on economic issues. But stock prices reflect current market conditions plus best guesses of what's coming down the road. And I keep hearing nervous traders and investors talk about "a lack of leadership from Washington."

Charles Gasparino is on-air editor at CNBC and author ....."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10132008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/an_obama_panic__133374.htm

TigerAngel had an absolutely brilliant post this morning "

"Hidden Hypnosis Techniques Of Obama" 

https://www.lotterypost.com/blogcomments.asp?o=k&i=25044

_____________

His article has a PDF link explaining mechanisms of hypnosis which I've excerpted below, linked to PDF .... these did not copy in correct paragraph format.

As I commented on TigerAngel's blog I've been hypnotized many times by a licensed professional highly respected hypnotherapist so have a working background over several years as to how hypnosis is ethically brought about with consent of the person being hypnotized.     

Hypnosis like meditation has 4 stages beginning with light trance/meditation such as daydreaming all the way down to a "deep sleep" level while maintaining full awareness of everything taking place.  Going through those stages is like gently turning a dial where you do deeper and deeper within yourself. 

Before every session any ethical hypnotherapist will tell you that you will not accept any suggestion which doesn't ring true within yourself and that you can bring yourself out of hypnosis any time you desire by simply waking up because you are in complete control.  That's the ethical way.

What is described in this PDF is more sinister, it is criminal because it is being done without specific consent.   

________________________

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf 

"An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis

Techniques in His Speeches

Barack Obama’s speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a

form of “conversational” hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients

without their knowledge for therapy purposes. Obama’s speeches intentionally contain:

- Trance Inductions

- Hypnotic Anchoring

- Pacing and Leading

- Pacing, Distraction and Utilization

- Critical Factor Bypass

- Stacking Language Patterns

- Preprogrammed Response Adaptation

- Linking Statements/ Causality Bridges

- Secondary Hidden Meanings/Imbedded Suggestions

- Emotion Transfer

- Non-Dominant Hemisphere Programming

Real “hypnosis” explained
Most people are hypnotized and fall into trance every day of their lives.2  It is a common, every day
occurrence, whether for a brief second, or minutes or longer.  A very basic example is when you are driving
a car while in deep thought, and you suddenly realize you are much further along with no memory of
driving the whole distance.  Another example, is when you are on an elevator watching the numbers change
and go into trance, and when everyone else gets off, you take that as a nonverbal suggestion to get off,
before you “wake up” and realize it is not your floor.  This elevator example is an example of mass
hypnosis, where the close rapport with the hypnotist is not necessary, because many people are both
hypnotized partly by whatever is causing the trance, and partly by the fact that you are being “paced” or also
hypnotized by everyone else in the elevator doing the exact same thing as you.  The reason you cry from
reading sad book simply by reading ink on paper is because of the mind’s interaction with that information,
which is also a hypnotic process.3 

Two separate definitions of “hypnosis”:
1.  First, hypnosis, is “a particular altered state of hyper-suggestibility brought about in an individual by a
combination of relaxation, fixation of attention, and suggestion.”4
2.  Second, hypnosis is also “bypassing the ‘critical factor’ and setting up acceptable selective thinking.5” 
The “critical factor” is the conscious part of the brain that you think with that has the ability to make rational logical judgments about what information is received.6  The critical factor acts as a filter, determining what can pass into the subconscious mind which is a non-rational computer-like system which accepts everything
in it as absolute truth.7  That is why sidelining it is so dangerous.
Milton Erickson, had a broader definition of the unconscious mind, described as, “both the functioning of
the dominant hemisphere of the brain that occurs below the level of awareness, as well as the functioning of
the non-dominant hemisphere.” 8   
Ericksonian trance induction has three dimensions which we will return to often and compare to Obama’s
language patterns.  They are:9
1.  Pacing and distraction of the dominant (language) hemisphere;
2.  Utilization of the dominant hemisphere, language processing which occurs below the level of
awareness;
3.  Accessing of the non-dominant hemisphere; 
This above three part process is extremely important to later analysis.  Essentially, hypnosis is an altered
and common state of mind involving intense focus, sidelining or disassociation of the rational critical
thinking, and the state of hyper-suggestibility brought about while the subconscious mind is the dominant
player.10  It happens while reading, listening to music, and even while hearing a great speaker.11
However, the power of such methods is what is difficult to grasp.  What we are talking about is
“transformational linguistics” – language that literally changes who you are at your deepest levels, your
deepest passions, drives, and emotions while you are completely unaware.   
Under Freud, there is the conscious mind that you think with, called the “ego.”  You also have a conscience,
called the “super-ego.”  Then, there is the largest part of the psyche, the id, which is the back-end of all our
memory, our most basic instincts and drives, emotions, and suppressed desires.12   “The unconscious mind is
the source of our energy, and no amount of conscious reasoning can override it.  The unconscious mind is
un-critical, it accepts as absolute truth any idea that is allowed to enter its computer-like system”13  The
messages of hypnosis, including mass hypnosis, can be far more powerful than just someone’s conscious
thoughts, as it affects their most basic biological drives and instincts.14  That is why many of Obama’s
followers are so passionate for him, why they are fainting in his presence, comparing him to Jesus, and
supporting him like no other candidate before.
 Bypassing the dominant hemisphere’s rational judgment (“critical factor”)
The critical factor is the part of the mind that logically analyzes and scrutinizes all information like a filter,
and decides what information is allowed to pass into your subconscious mind and become part of what your
mind accepts as unquestionably true, like your deepest and most powerful emotions, drives, and instincts.21 
It is the primary cognitive defense that usually stops all information and rationally analyzes it, whether
consciously or unconsciously.  It keeps your computer-like subconscious mind from literally believing that
you are a chicken when someone calls you a “chicken”, and keeps you from literally believing that you are a
square (box) when somebody calls you a “square”, and keeps you from literally believing you are a (snow
or cereal) flake when somebody calls you a “flake.”  you don’t consciously ponder it when someone calls
you a chicken, your critical fator stops that information below the level of awareness.     
The critical factor is the cognitive function best analogized to a security guard (critical factor) who searches
every person (information) entering into a nightclub looking for weapons. (and stops all information that is
questionable)22  The critical factor stops all information and allows your thinking and rationality to
determine whether it is acceptable to the subconscious mind or not.   
Hypnosis uses language patterns, visual tricks, body language, voice, tone, an Hypnosis uses language patterns, visual tricks, body language, voice, tone, and other aspects of
communication to get “suggestions” past the critical factor part of the brain and directly into the listener’s
subconscious.23  This is wonderful if the command is to be free of a phobia, or quit smoking.  The reason
hypnosis is used for such psychological change, is that the critical factor allows in only what it accepts as
true.  Without bypassing the smoker’s critical factor, a smoker has a difficult time quitting because they
have a difficult time accepting as absolutely true the information that they are a nonsmoker, because their
critical factor and conscious mind knows differently and doesn’t let the information through.
How one might simplify this point, is, in normal everyday life, calling someone a “chicken” will not cause
them to literally believe they are a chicken and act like one.  This is because the critical factor stops this
information from passing into the subconscious.  So how can a hypnotist get a subject to cluck like a
chicken believing they are one?  The hypnotist knows how to get the hypnotic suggestion that the subject is
a chicken past the critical factor part of the consciousness, and get the subconscious mind to accept it as
unquestionably true. Obama’s actions are far more deceptive than simply lying
If used by a politician and discovered, such hypnosis technique, if understood as it should be, to be the
height of manipulation and deception, would destroy a politician’s career.24  There is no other way to view
such a politician other than disturbingly and disqualifyingly deceptive, someone whom we apparently know
very little about, and cannot trust, who has been continually hiding something from us and manipulating us. 
To see a politician continue to perform a multitude of hundreds of deceptive acts, which he knows about but
we are meant not to know about, that affect our judgment and mental processes, and that manipulate us in
ways we are not even aware of, all the while thinking he is clever enough to get away with it until he finally
gets caught, is the height of immoral deception.  It is perhaps the biggest fraud and deception in American
history.     
Most of our beliefs come to us from our own rational judgment and conscious analysis of the world.  For
example, we know it good to wake up in the morning and do something because we rationally know the
consequences of staying in bed all day.  When we like people, it is usually due to a combination of our
rational judgment and how that person naturally makes us feel about them.  We try to make people like us
more by following social norms, making people feel good, smiling, and so on.
However, a very small percentage of the population actually study subconscious manipulation of not only
how people feel about them, but how to manipulate and alter the beliefs we usually come to by our rational
judgment, reason, and experience.  These people study specifically how to sideline this rational judgment,
reason, and experience, and natural feelings, and bend people’s feelings and will through the application of
this branch of psychiatry to their interactions.   
Obama is an expert at this type of artificial manipulation.  His ability to convince rationally and any natural
“charm” is only part of how a person feels about Obama.  The rest is deceptive subconscious manipulation.   
His tactics are deceptive because he has mastered the science and art of lowering the effects of the rational
scrutiny parts of the mind through his speaking, actions, and presentation.  He gets you to believe not by
convincing you rationally until you decide to believe it, but by knowing how to say to your subconscious
mind literally the words that “you believe” in a way that your subconscious mind will simply accept the
message and believe without having rationally decided to believe.  He knows how to say to your
subconscious mind that it “chose” (Obama) even when it hasn’t, in a way that you will believe that you have
chosen.  He understands subconscious manipulation enough to know how to talk about families, and your
children, and John F. Kennedy, and conjure up feelings within you from speaking in certain rhythmic and
unnaturally slow tempos,  and then subconsciously transfer the emotions he conjures up onto him, such as
with hand gestures or hidden content in language.  You genuinely walk away from him feeling warm, and
viewing him as a JFK, except it is artificial.  He knows how to say one thing, but have your subconscious
mind ultra-powerfully receive a different message and feeling than you are aware of.  He is actually
implanting feelings and emotions into your subconscious.  They feel like your own.  Rationally he is an
unaccomplished man with shady connections, but you are tricked into feelings about him that overpower those, that feel like your genuine feelings about him because they come from inside you, implanted into the
deepest parts of your psyche.     
Obama’s deception here is not simply a few subliminal messages like those used in some advertisements. 
Obama is employing with art and skill a complex hidden system applying a multitude of the most advanced
techniques in subconscious manipulation known to psychology.  This entire system is designed to do one
thing - to make us feel like the decision to support Obama is our own when it is really, at least for many,
implanted artificially through hypnosis.   
What Obama is doing is in effect the same as if he dangled a silver watch in front of us and said “you are
getting sleepy and going into trance....you have an unstoppable urge that you cannot resist.....you must vote
for Barack.”  In fact, as discussed below, Obama was actually caught at least once saying something very
similar with his own lips.  Yes, Obama was caught giving an overt hypnotic command to vote for him.25 
People even made fun of it, but nobody realized it was actual intentional hypnosis until it is now explained. 
(see below)
Hypnotizing someone without their knowledge is the height of immorality.  The level of deception involved
here, in Obama’s use of covert hypnosis, and his presumption that he has the right to use hypnosis on us to
gain votes is just unconscionable.  If a stranger came up to you in a restaurant and tried to hypnotize you to
get you to do anything, even so much as buy them a cup of coffee, and you figured out that they were trying
to use actual hypnosis on you, you would run.   
If Obama simply lied, we voters would be able to use our rational judgment to make a logical decision about
what is the truth, and what we should believe, and what we shouldn’t.  However, because he is implanting
subconscious commands we are not aware of consciously, into the deepest parts of our emotional and
subconscious psyches, he is actually taking away our ability to make those rational judgments.  He is
making the decision to and taking away even our ability to question the commands he is hypnotizing us
with.  We never even know the commands are being implanted (until now with this document), and we are
tricked into believing that our feelings are coming from deep inside us.  Obama’s concealment of his
hypnotic techniques can only be looked at as deception.26   

The study of the effects of mass hypnosis
A widely held view among psychologists and experts is that conversational hypnosis is literally a form of
mind control.  One author says:
“Essentially conversational hypnosis allow users to gain control of their subjects mind through
spoken word, and literally get them to do as they wish - within reason of course. Essentially the
English language has various emotional triggers and tone's which can be utilised to induce people
into a trance. When people are in such a trance it is possible to alter their views and control their
actions.”28

Some video examples of the power of hypnosis are included in the footnotes.29  However, this particular one
at this footnote at the end of this sentence of hypnotist Derren Brown is amazing, and very exemplary of
how conversational hypnosis works, and is highly recommended for a quick understanding.30  To give you
an idea of the power of hypnosis in the wrong hands, hypnosis can be used to get a complete stranger to
hand over a wallet in seconds.31  MSNBC32 and BBC33 reports a man stealing from stores and banks using
hypnosis.   

One book that studied mass hypnosis called Rape of the Mind was written by Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D.,
Instructor in Psychiatry, Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology, New School for Social
Research, Former Chief, Psychological Department, Netherlands Forces.  It examines the dangers of mass
hypnosis.34
An except of the book discusses what a hypnotist could get a subject to do through hypnotic commands,

Chapter 3 – Hypnotism and Mental Coercion: There are many quacks who practice hypnosis, not to cure their victims but to force them into
submission, using the victim's unconscious ties and dependency needs in a criminal, profitable way.
One of the most absorbing aspects of this whole problem of hypnosis is the question of whether
people can be forced to commit crimes, such as murder or treason, while under a hypnotic spell.
Many psychologists would deny that such a thing could happen and would insist that no person can
be compelled to do under hypnosis what he would refuse to do in a state of alert consciousness. But
actually what a person can be compelled to do depends on the degree of dependency that hypnosis
causes and the frequency of repetition of the so-called posthypnotic suggestions.35

Rape of the Mind discusses psychological conditioning from World War II Nazi tactics, to Soviet Cold-War
theoreticians, to our own democracy.  (See Chapter 2 – Mass Conditioning Through Speech, and Political
Conditioning.36  The Book also discusses the dangers of the real phenomenon of mass hypnosis:

Illegality of Obama’s use of hypnosis

Hypnosis-type mental pressure has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be so unduly
influential as to deprive someone of their fundamental rights.  The US Supreme court case was Leyra v.
Denno, 347 U.S. 556 (1954), Leyra v. Denno, No. 635, Argued April 28, 1954, Decided June 1, 1954, 347
U.S. 556.  After police questioned a suspect day and night unable to obtain a confession, a hypnotist tried,
and did successfully get the suspect to confess.  The legal battles over whether the confession was voluntary
or not, undue influence or not, went all the way to the Supreme court of the United States, which decided
that his confession could not be used as evidence against him in court.  In discussing what the New York Court of Appeals held, that “were so clearly the product of ‘mental coercion’ that their use as evidence was
inconsistent with due process of law”, the United States Supreme Court said “exhausted suspect's ability to
resist interrogation was broken to almost trance-like submission by use of the arts of a highly skilled
psychiatrist.”  It violated the most fundamental rights of the suspect to have this confession used, because it
was not of his own free will. 

Hypnosis on a non-consenting person may arguably constitute fraud38, undue influence, and/or potentially
other violations of the law, depending on the jurisdiction.39  Undue influence is “persuasion that overcomes
the will without convincing the judgment.”40  Hypnosis works on mental and emotional weaknesses fitting
the legal definition precisely.  For example, with hypnotizing someone to get access to that person’s bank
account – even the hypnotist makes the person believe they want to do it, they are using techniques which
create an undue influence on the person. 

The Executive Committee of the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis
has said, “clinical hypnosis should be used only by properly trained and credentialed health care
professionals (e.g. licensed clinical psychologists), who have also been trained in the clinical use of
hypnosis and are working within the areas of their professional expertise.”  The Appellate Division of the
Los Angeles County Superior Court has held that practice of hypnotism as curative measure or mode of
procedure by one not licensed to practice medicine amounts to unlawful practice of medicine.41   

What Obama is doing is making some people’s support of him in this election not of our own free will.  He
us using hidden techniques so we cannot even question the commands he is slipping into our subconscious. 
Many genuinely want to support him like smokers want a cigarette, and as smokers, we find the logic to
justify how we feel.

 The hypnosis technique of “pacing and leading” to sideline rational judgment ..............."

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

"Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

Source American Thinker

"America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. 

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org) 

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth. 

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. 

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse. 

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.   

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely. 

• 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
• 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
• 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards. 

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state. 

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation. 

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

 

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. 

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.) 

Stanley Kurtz has been digging deep in Obama's past he'd rather have buried.  Several live links within this well written article

_____________________

"Something New Here
Radical? Check. Tied to ACORN? Check. Redistributionist? Check.

By Stanley Kurtz

Source National Review

"During his first campaign for the Illinois state senate in 1995-96, Barack Obama was a member of, and was endorsed by, the far-left New Party. Obama’s New Party ties give the lie to his claim to be a post-partisan, post-ideological pragmatist. Particularly in Chicago, the New Party functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). So despite repeated attempts to distance himself from ACORN, Obama’s New Party ties raise disturbing questions about his links to those proudly militant leftists. The media’s near-total silence on this critical element of Obama’s past is deeply irresponsible.

SOCIALIST?
While a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama’s New Party ties, discussion has often turned on the New Party’s alleged socialism. Was the New Party actually established by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)? Was the New Party’s platform effectively socialist in content? Although these debates are both interesting and important, we needn’t resolve them to conclude that the New Party was far to the left of the American mainstream. Whether formally socialist or not, the New Party and its ACORN backers favored policies of economic redistribution. As Obama would say, they wanted to spread the wealth around. Bracketing the socialism question and simply taking the New Party on its own terms is sufficient to raise serious questions about Obama’s political commitments — questions that cry out for attention from a responsible press.

In 2002, Micah L. Sifry, a former writer and editor with The Nation magazine, published Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America, a book that contains what is probably our best account of the rise and fall of the New Party. Although Sifry leaves us hanging on the socialism question, his chapter on the New Party is more than enough to raise disturbing questions about Obama’s radicalism, and about his ties to ACORN.

Sifry reports a quip by New Party co-founder, Daniel Cantor: “The shorthand strategy for accomplishing all this is to get the Bruce Springsteen, Lauryn Hill, and Pete Seeger vote united in one party.” The Peter Seeger vote does sound like shorthand for the old-time socialist Left — but also for far-left-leaning baby boomers in general. Bruce Springsteen and Lauryn Hill point to young blacks and whites on the left, perhaps including, but not restricted to, openly socialist sympathizers. In short, the New Party was a mid-1990s effort to build a “progressive” coalition to the left of the Democratic party, uniting left-leaning baby boomers with minorities, relatively militant unionists, and “idealistic” young people.

PARTY WITHIN A PARTY
In contrast to Ralph Nader’s recent third-party campaigns, the New Party’s strategy was to work through “fusion.” Fusion parties were popular in the 19th century. Although these small parties had a separate line on the ballot, they often endorsed one of the major-party candidates. That meant these third parties didn’t have to act as “spoilers” in close elections. Yet by constituting themselves as separate entities and offering their endorsement as bait, fusion parties tended to push the major parties further to the right or the left. We see remnants of the old fusion-party pattern in New York State, where separate Liberal and Conservative parties sometimes shift elections by endorsing one or another major party candidate.

As the New Party’s founders put it, they were looking for a cross between the “party within the party” strategy favored by leftist Democrats and the “plague on both your houses” stance later adopted by the Naderites. That means Obama’s New Party ties place him on the far left end of the Democratic party, arguably with one foot outside and to the left of the party itself.

Does this make Obama “socialist?” Maybe so, but according to Sifry, the vague “New Party” name was chosen precisely to avoid such ideological pigeonholing. Maybe that vagueness was designed to avoid exposing the party as the socialist sympathizer it was. Or maybe the name was a way of avoiding complex internal struggles between competing ideological factions, some socialist and some not. (The answer is “both of the above,” I tend to think.) In any case, the New Party was clearly far to the left of mainstream Democrats, and according to Sifry, the party explicitly thought of itself as made up of committed “progressives,” rather than conventional “liberals.” That is entirely consistent with a famous 1995 profile of Obama by Hank De Zutter, which portrays him as closely tied to ACORN, and holding a world-view well “beyond” his mother’s conventional liberalism.

To get a sense of where the New Party stood politically, consider some of its early supporters: Barbara Dudley of Greenpeace; Steve Cobble, political director of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coaltion; prominent academics like Frances Fox Piven, coauthor of the “Cloward-Piven strategy” and a leader of the drive for the “motor-voter” legislation Obama later defended in court on behalf of ACORN; economist Juliet Schor; black historian Manning Marable; historian Howard Zinn; linguist Noam Chomsky; Todd Gitlin; and writers like Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich. Socialist? Readers can draw their own conclusions. At one point, Sifry does describe the party’s goals as “social democratic.” In any case, the New Party clearly stands substantially to the left of the mainstream Democratic party.

ACORN CONNECTION
Unquestionably, ACORN was one of the most important forces behind the creation of the New Party. According to Sifry: “Wade Rathke, ACORN’s lead national organizer, was in on the founding discussions that led to the New Party, and the group’s political director, Zach Polett, also came to play a big role in guiding New Party field organizing for the party [in Chicago and Little Rock].” In fact, Sifry portrays ACORN’s leading role in the New Party as the result of a conscious decision by the organization to move into electoral politics in a more substantial way than they had been able to solely through their political action committee. In addition to Rathke and Polett, a key early supporter of the New Party was Obama’s closest ACORN contact, Madeline Talbott.

While ACORN played an important founding role for the New Party nationally, ACORN was clearly the main force behind the New Party chapter in Chicago. In general, New Party chapters built around an ACORN nucleus were the most disciplined and successful party outposts. Nationally, the New Party’s biggest wins were in Chicago, very much including Obama’s victory in his 1996 run for the Illinois state senate. Chicago’s New Party was actually formed around two core elements, ACORN and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 880. Yet, as Sifry notes, SEIU 880 was itself an ACORN offshoot.

Together ACORN and SEIU 880 were the dominant forces in Chicago’s New Party. True, there was also participation by open socialists, but these were not a majority of New Party organizers. You can certainly argue, as libertarian blogger Trevor Louden has, that whether openly or not, the New Party in Chicago and beyond was effectively socialist. It’s a powerful argument and worthy of consideration. After all, according to Rutgers University political scientist Heidi J. Swarts, ACORN’s leaders see themselves as “a solitary vanguard of principled leftists.” So a party outpost built around ACORN would be a party built around “principled vanguard leftists.” Sounds pretty socialist to me. Yet, as I’ve emphasized, we needn’t resolve the “socialism” question to conclude that the New Party, and particularly its Chicago branch, was far to the left of the Democratic party, and largely under the control of ACORN.

Consider “The People Shall Rule,” a look at some of Chicago ACORN’s electoral efforts co-authored by Madeline Talbott, Obama’s closest ACORN contact and a key New Party supporter. In describing former Chicago ACORN leader Ted Thomas’s successful run for alderman, Talbott stresses that, even after election, Thomas retained his ACORN ties. Thomas was invited to retain his seat on ACORN’s Chicago board, ACORN members continued to treat him as a leader, and Thomas continued to brainstorm and strategize with ACORN’s other organizers. Talbott is so busy detailing Thomas’s continued links to ACORN that she doesn’t even bother to mention that Thomas actually ran on behalf of the New Party. (See “NP Chair elected to Chicago City Council.”)

As so often with ACORN, technically separate organizations are often relatively meaningless designations for different branches of ACORN itself. And in Chicago, the New Party was very much an ACORN-dominated operation. Ted Thomas was a city alderman, de facto ACORN leader, and New Party chair all at once. So Obama’s ties to the New Party represent yet another important, and still unacknowledged, link between Obama and ACORN.

We already know that Obama’s ties to ACORN’s Madeline Talbott ran deep. Less known is that Obama’s links to Chicago ACORN/New Party leader Ted Thomas were also strong. Thomas was one of a handful of aldermen who stood with Obama in his unsuccessful 2000 race for Congress against Bobby Rush. Obama is also had long-standing ties to SEIU Local 880, an ACORN union spin-off and a bulwark of Chicago’s New Party. In his 2004 race for the Democratic Senate nomination, SEIU Local 880 strongly endorsed Obama, citing his long history of support for the group.

REVEALING TIE
So the fact that Obama received the New Party’s endorsement in his first run for office in 1995-96 cannot be dismissed as insignificant. On the contrary, Obama’s ties to the New Party, and the New Party’s backers at ACORN (often the very same people), are long-standing, substantial, and reveal a great deal about his personal political allegiances. Because it was a fusion party, the New Party did not require that all the candidates it endorsed be members. Yet the New Party’s endorsements were carefully targeted. There was no attempt to endorse candidates in every race, or even to set up nationwide chapters. Carefully selected races in carefully targeted cities were seized upon — and only when the candidate fit the profile of a decidedly left-leaning progressive Democrat. In this way, the New Party set out to form a hard-left “party within a party” among the Democrats.

More than this, we now have substantial evidence that Obama himself was in fact a New Party member. We even have a photograph of Obama appearing with other successful New Party candidates. Clearly, then, it is more than fair to identify Obama with the hard-left stance of the New Party and its ACORN backers. In her recent study of ACORN and the Gamaliel Foundation, the two groups of community organizers to which Obama was closest, Heidi Swarts describes their core ideology as “redistributionist.” Joe the Plumber take note. Whether formally socialist or not, Obama ties with ACORN and its New Party political arm show that spreading your wealth around has long been his ultimate goal.

All this means that Barack Obama is far from the post-partisan, post-ideological pragmatist he pretends to be. On the contrary, Obama’s ideological home is substantially to the left of the Democratic-party mainstream, so far to the left that he has one foot planted outside the party itself. And since the New Party Chicago was essentially an electoral arm of ACORN, Obama’s New Party tie, is yet another example of his deep links to the far-left militant organizers of that group. Obama’s account of his limited ties to ACORN in the third debate was clearly not truthful. Likewise, his earlier denials of ties to ACORN have fallen apart.

At what point will the press force Obama to own up to the full extent of his ties to ACORN? At what point will the press demand a full accounting of Obama’s ties to the New Party? At what point will the depth of Obama’s redistributionist economic stance be acknowledged? Barack Obama is hiding the truth about his political past, and the press is playing along. "

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA==

"JUST WHO DO YOU BELONG TO?

"Sounds like an odd question, doesn't it? But have you ever actually thought for a moment about who has ownership rights to you? This is no silly or meaningless exercise here. You exist. You have value. That value belongs to someone. The question is who? This is an important question in this election because there are quite a lot of people out there who earnestly believe that you belong not to yourself, but to the government. For the first time in my memory we have a presidential candidate who wants to raise taxes on a few not so much to cover the costs of the essential functions of government, but to bring about some sense of what he calls "fairness" in the distribution of wealth. This would mean that in the eyes of this particular presidential candidate (I would mention his name, but that would be racist.) the government owns a portion of you; a portion to be used by the government to enrich the lives of others in the quest for economic "fairness."

Let me know how this works out for you.  "

http://boortz.com/nuze/200810/10232008.html#belong

"AP presidential poll: Race tightens in final weeks

Oct 22, 5:16 PM (ET)

Source My Way News

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.

The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.  ...."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081022/D93VPI9O0.html

"The Obama Witch Project

Michelle Malkin Michelle Malkin – Fri Oct 10, 3:00 am ET
Source Yahoo news.

"Creators Syndicate – Republicans don't need to dress up for Halloween this year. They're scaring the pants off Barack Obama's followers by their mere presence. Anything they say, wear or do provokes instant cries of "RAAAAACISM!" Wink, blink or think critical thoughts about Obama? You're a bigot!

How many racial bogeymen have Obama operatives and sympathetic journalists discovered lurking in "coded language" and attire? Let us count the ways:

— During Tuesday's presidential debate, John McCain referred to Obama as "that one." Official Obama press agitator Bill Burton sent off an e-mail blast to reporters: "Did John McCain just refer to Obama as 'that one'?" Horrors.

Taking their cue from Burton, spooked Obama supporters hyperventilated like teenagers on the film set of "The Blair Witch Project." "The racial undertones were subtle but unmistakable," declared Maya Wiley of the leftist Center for Social Inclusion. "McCain was tapping into a current of superiority among white voters. It was an attempt to 'otherize' Obama."

"Otherize"? Sounds like something you do to your car tires to prepare for winter.

UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff was also haunted by "That One": "The phrase was meant to say, 'You and I are in the same area, but he's the outsider.'"

Memo to McCain: Next time, call him "The One."

— Obama supporters on the heavily trafficked Democratic Underground website (where such mainstream Democrats as Elizabeth Edwards hang out) saw the ghost of the Ku Klux Klan in Sarah Palin's white suit jacket. Yes, white clothes equal racism.

"Palin is wearing white again, inciting the racist crowds. She should just drop all pretense and put on her white hood and light up a cross. She is a despicable human being," fumed a DU poster. "Grand Princess of the KKK," proclaimed another. They're "trying to send subtle signals to their rabid base," declared yet another member of Obama's rabid base.

My racial decoder ring must be on the fritz. I'm not getting the signal. If she wears white stockings, drinks a vanilla milkshake and refers to budgetary black holes, are those incitements, too? And what about her gorgeous white teeth? Perhaps she should drink more coffee — hold the white cream! — to avoid emitting further racial radiation.

— Such paranoia is not limited to the fever swamps of the Internet. Earlier this week, the Associated Press disseminated an "analysis" accusing Palin of injecting a "racial tinge" into the campaign because she criticized Obama for his longtime relationship with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Palin's comments were completely unobjectionable: "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America."

I saw a vice presidential candidate drawing stark philosophical differences between two tickets. The AP saw Freddy Krueger with lipstick and a noose.

"Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as 'not like us' is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American," the AP piece frothed.

Obama is half-black. Ayers is white. One of the Weather Underground's victims was black police officer Waverly Brown of Nyack, N.Y. Where do I buy a pair of the super X-ray glasses that can detect the racism in Palin's remarks about the Obama-Ayers alliance?

— I'll have to borrow those hysterical-colored spectacles from Time's Karen Tumulty, who spotted racist goblins in the recent McCain ad criticizing Obama for seeking advice from Fannie Mae corruptocrat Franklin Raines. "Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman," Tumulty balked in a blog post titled "McCain plays the race card."

Um, "sinister"? The ad's photos of Obama and Raines were standard shots — some with dour expressions, others smiling. The fact that Tumulty perceived them as "sinister" suggests that she should perform a self-racism exam before diagnosing anyone else.

— A parade of congressional witch hunters for Obama also detects the specter of George Wallace behind every policy bush. Democratic New York Gov. David Paterson says conservative criticism of Obama's community organizing days is code for "black." Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks complained to the New York Observer: "They are trying to throw out these codes." In the same piece, Democratic Rep. Yvette Clark divined segregationist intent in Palin's references to Joe Six-Pack and hockey moms. "It leaves a lot of people out."

And Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid echoed Time's Tumulty on the McCain camp's Obama/Raines broadsides: "The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama is that they both are African-American, other than that there is nothing."

The Washington Post reported that Obama's office phoned Raines for housing advice and has stood by its reporting. Is the newspaper part of the McCain/Palin hooded racists' coven, too?

Obama's witch hunters better beware. When there's racism in every hiccup, nobody's air supply is safe. "

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20081010/cm_uc_crmmax/op_197693