Not to Worry: Polls are all wrong

In this fascinating article from an ex-pollster/political analyst, he's saying the polls are all wrong...

The Undecideds

The Undecideds *have* decided: they have decided not to declare their choice to pollsters.

The polls are way, way off this election cycle. Pollsters have admitted that this election has the highest ‘refusal to respond’ number. The ‘undecideds’ are people who don’t want to declare their choice. Why would they do that? If you belong to a Union, and they tell you to vote for Obama or ‘else’, you will not answer a pollster for it could be a union boss checking up on its members. PUMAs have declared their intention to lie to pollsters and they are organized. And there are many people who don’t want to declare ‘McCain’ because of being percieved as a ‘racist’.

Look, days away from the election and there are like 11% undecideds? No! This is not normal. The Bradley Effect is occuring with the undecideds. I suspect there is oversampling from the urban population as well. Another big factor is the pollsters putting in the additional Democrat registrations as if these are new voters. The boost in Democrat registrations came from many ‘registration drives’ where people are paid to meet a quota (where you get names like Mickey Mouse on the ballots or the Dallas Cowboys) as well as Republicans who switched to the Democrat Party to tamper with the Democrat Primary. I suspect the boost in Democrat registrations was intentional early on to throw off the pollsters so their calculations can only factor in a much larger than Democrat turnout than normal as part of their ‘inevitable strategy’ psy-op campaign.

Projections are only as good as their inputs. With the high rate of people refusing to be polled (as admitted by pollsters), the high rate of people not willing to declare who they want to vote for (the undecideds), and the huge wave of junk Democrat registrations, you’re going to see the polls be way, way off.

Long, but worth the read. Read it all. Awesome.

Don't forget to vote for McCain/Palin for president today. And vote for ANY freakin' Republican. Let's get rid of these stanky dimocrats!

The One now showing up in... 8th Grade Textbooks?

In a sign of things to come, a Racine mother discovers 15 pages about Barack Hussein Obama in a new 8th Grade textbook.

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 2008) Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an www.obama2004.com sign.

Now I understand that many teachers are liberals, but does the school have the right to shove Obama down our kid's throats? All the kids grouped together and read the story. After that, they discussed it... I guess it appears that Obama is planning ahead. If he doesn't get his coveted Presidency, Obama is going to make sure, that the younger generations know all about him, and his "life of service".

If you would like to see the 15 page story on Obama, it appears that you can order this book online. There is a note in the book that says, For more on Barack Obama, visit the Literature Center at www.ClassZone.com The book is: Wisconsin - 8th grade - McDougal Littell Literature - copyright 2008. The Obama story starts on page 830. I hope you will take the time to look at this book. I'm really angry about this - In fact, I would love to rip the pages right out of this book.

By the way, you might find this interesting: I did a little checking on McDougal Littell, and it appears that MCDOUGAL, ALFRED L CHICAGO , IL 60611 - N/A/RETIRED has been making contributions to Barack Obama's campaign!

I found that information on this website.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=IL&last=MCDOUGAL&first=ALFRED

Now I'm not an expert at these things (just a PTA mom), but It looks to me like Alfred McDougal is connected to McDougal Littell the same company that publishes the 8th grade textbook that has 15 pages on Obama. Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I'm sure you have someone who can delve into the dirty little details.

I guess my question is: Is it ethical for an Obama supporter to publish an educational book which has a 15 page Barrack Obama story in it? If the tax payers are paying for these books, why is it okay for McDougal Littell to promote Obama? This really bothers me. I would have no problem with it, if Obama had actually done something important. Why is Obama being put up on a pedestal, before he actually wins the pedestal? All I can say, is we can thank the liberal media, and now the liberal book publishers. Thanks to them, I'm sure there are probably thousands of these books all across the United States.

Of course it's not ethical. Since most teachers are liberals indoctrinated by the likes of Bill Ayers in liberal arts colleges, there will be no outcry. At least, not from the teachers or administrators.

Get used to it if The One is elected.

One more time: Obama's ties to terrorism

It came up again today at TMQ2, an article describing a talk radio show tying the One with other controversial, criminal, terrorist, anarchists.

There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk show host Laurie Roth’s revelations make the news story about Obama’s relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child’s play.

A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush’s Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.

Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department’s list of known terrorist groups.

Obama + David + Rezko + Ayers + Khalidi = MAJOR TROUBLE for the USA. Media, do your frickin' job!

Obama is a muslim Chicken. Heh.

The UK media gets it about Obama, why can't ours?

In the article in today's Daily Mail website, author Melanie Phillips gets it right: Obama is a dangerous left-wing radical candidate who has NOT been investigated by the US media.

With all eyes glued to the collapse of global capitalism as we know it, attention has been somewhat distracted from the race to lead what still remains the most powerful nation on earth - the United States. We ignore it at our peril.

From the shockingly partisan presentation by the pro-Obama media on both sides of the Atlantic, you'd think this was a contest between twin pillars of rectitude and inspirational high seriousness on the Democratic side, and a joke Republican ticket consisting of an erratic old man and a brainless, wacko, gun-toting beauty queen, who in a fit of madness John McCain picked as his vice-presidential candidate.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the beauty queen in question, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, has struck an enormous chord with Middle America. As a result, Barack Obama's media supporters are making a huge effort to destroy her.

...What is really astounding, however, is the hue and cry over this non-event in Alaska while a raft of disturbing evidence about Senator Obama's connections is being either glossed over or not reported at all.

This may come as a shock to most people, but Obama is at the centre of a network of radical associations which he has tried to conceal.

Take for example his relationship with William Ayers, founder of the terrorist Weather Underground which bombed federal buildings in the 1960s and who has consistently maintained his radical views ever since.

Something we've been saying here for a long, long time. Time to wake up and smell the coffee, America!

Read the rest here. Please.

VP Debate Moderator Gwen Ifill tainted?

'Journalist' Ifill has a Financial interest in outcome of debate

From Michelle Malkin comes this shocking (not really) expose of the moderator of the VP debate, Gwen Ifill from PBS, who apparently has a financial interest in the outcome of the debate: a book to be published on inauguration day 2009.

Despite the protestations of her colleagues that she will be fair, Ifill has appeared on numerous radio and TV talk shows over the past several months to cash in on her access to the Obama campaign. She recently penned a fawning cover story on the Obamas for Essence magazine that earned much buzz. The title? “The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family.” A sample of Ifill’s hard-hitting investigative journalism, illustrated with Kennedyesque photos of the Obamas and children posing at home on the backporch and by the piano: “Barack Obama is sitting in the back of his rented luxury campaign bus with its granite counters and two flat-screen TVs. The Illinois senator’s arms are wrapped around his wife, Michelle, whom he doesn’t get to see much these days. At this very moment he is, of all things, singing.”

Spread the word. The public deserves to know about this.

Let's hope Sarah'cuda starts the debate with "Gwen, congratulations on the publishing of your new book on Mr. Obama. I'm sure we're all looking forward to it being published next January." Not likely.

Why is the McCain campaign taking this lying down??

UPDATE: McCain said he's concerned, but thinks Ifill will do a professional job.

UPDATE: CNN.com has the story.

Obama Campaign Fails to Reveal Small Donors

In an article at Newsmax.com, Kenneth R. Timmerman reports today that more than half of the 426 million the obamessiah campaign has raised comes from unknown sources:

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The article raises the dark specter that foreigners are trying to influence the election:

...others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

No doubt, because the obamessiah is a citizen of the world.

Once again, not something you'll see in the leftmedia. Read the entire article here.

Olbermann ousted as MSNBC political anchor

It seems even the lefty nutjob Olbermann was catching too much hell for airing his political views during the past couple of weeks.

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

I've never seen anyone as blatantly liberal as Herr Olbermann. Unfortunately, he'll still be on MSNBC, just won't play as large a role.

If a conservative host had said some of the things he's said during a so-called "newscast" they would have been fired. Period.

Same old, same old.

UPDATE: I meant to attribute this article to the NYTimes.

IBD: Media Blackout On A Far-Left Past

A post today at INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY reiterates what we've been sayin' all along: the obamessiah is a radical, anti-american, white-hatin' liberal, and the Leftmedia is mum.

Democrats in Denver tried to introduce Barack Obama as a moderate, whitewashing his radical past, and the media are helping them by following the fictional script.

On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, CNN, for one, aired an in-depth profile called "Obama Revealed." In fact, it revealed nothing except for CNN's bias.

The special, hosted by White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux, started off by asking, "Who is Barack Obama?" — something not a few voters would like to know. It then let the presumptive Democrat nominee mostly answer the question "in his own words."

We learn he earned the nickname "Barry O'Bomber" on his high school basketball team, and that he was a "top student" at Harvard law school. Omitted from the saintly biography are hard truths about his radical ties. Voters hear nothing of his friendship with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers or the late black Communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.

There's no mention of the radical training he received from groups founded by the late socialist agitator Saul Alinsky, or how Obama later taught Alinsky's tactics as a college professor. (Connect the dots note: Hillary Clinton interned with Alinsky, so they're on par with one another.)

CNN glossed over his late Kenyan father's own radical politics by leaving it up to him to describe his "reputation."

"My father had this reputation as being this larger-than-life figure, charismatic, very smart, very engaging," Obama said, "and all those things were true."

It's also true that as a Nairobi bureaucrat, his father proposed a socialist economic plan for Kenya so radical it got him blackballed from the government. CNN left that part out, while also omitting Obama's recent support of Raila Odinga, a Communist-trained politician in Nairobi.

The one smudge in the network's otherwise glowing portrait — Obama's decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright — was quickly dispatched by noting he had distanced himself from his radically anti-American preacher. However, Obama's abiding faith in black liberation theology — a Marxist version of Christianity — was never even identified by the network.

CNN's coverage is par for the course. There's been a media blackout on Obama's radical past throughout the presidential campaign.

Take the story about his early mentor Davis, a known member of the Communist Party USA. No mainstream media reported on the relationship until Aug. 2, and that was only after IBD and a handful of conservative blogs weighed in on the controversy.

The Associated Press broke the silence with the article, "Writer offered a young Barack Obama advice on life." But it still does not tell the whole story. AP describes Davis as a "left-leaning black journalist" with "allegedly anti-American views" — when in fact, his Soviet allegiances and hatred for America are well documented in congressional reports and his own poems.

The Washington Post did AP one better. It managed to write an entire story on the controversy without identifying Davis by name. (It did have room to mention "the vast right-wing conspiracy" though.)

The establishment media have also ignored a long-lost article by Obama's father that reveals his communist leanings.

The 1965 paper by Barack Hussein Obama Sr., which called for Soviet-style expropriation and other extreme measures, was cited by Politico.com, a Web-based spin-off of the media elite in Washington. But it failed to quote any of his Marxist prescriptions, and in a shocking whitewash, concludes that "his central aim was moderate and conciliatory."

Many of these radical connections are cataloged in a new book, "The Obama Nation," which remains atop the national bestseller list. But CNN and other major news outlets have spent more time investigating its author than Obama, while parroting the Obama camp's line that the book is a "series of lies."

The Post in its coverage repeated word-for-word some of the talking points contained in a 40-page rebuttal of the book by Obama, essentially farming out the fact-checking to a political campaign.

It also noted that the book was being "pushed by conservative book clubs that buy in bulk to drive up sales," and that its publisher, Simon & Schuster, employs "former GOP strategist Mary Matalin" as an editor.

It's plain the media are protecting Obama from his radical past, insulating him from the kind of scrutiny voters need to make an informed choice in November. He got the same pass from the press running for the Senate. In fact, Obama in his latest autobiography said he couldn't believe his "good fortune."

"I was the beneficiary of unusually — and at times undeservedly — positive press coverage," he confessed in "The Audacity of Hope."

He skated into office then. Absent proper media vetting, he'll also skate into the Oval Office. But then that may be the plan.

Well said.

FWIW, much of this is also detailed in "The Case Against Barack Obama" a recently released volume. I recommend you read up and spread the word on the obamessiah.

Politics as usual at the Dispatch?

Yesterday morning, an article on the front page of the local fishwrap covered the FBI raids by nearly 200 agents of Cuyahoga politicians. Here's how the story ran:

Feds raid homes of Cuyahoma officials

The public-corruption investigation that paralyzed Cuyahoga County government Monday unraveled the political and business ties of the county's most powerful and colorful players: Commissioner Jimmy Dimora and Auditor Frank Russo.

The federal investigation centers on allegations that they traded jobs and contracts for thousands of dollars of free improvements to their homes and properties.
The investigation went public when nearly 200 agents from the FBI and IRS simultaneously raided county offices, businesses and homes at 9 a.m.

The operation was so broad that the FBI brought in agents from Pittsburgh and used three U-Haul trucks to take away cartons of documents and other items. Dimora and Russo, who have spent their political careers in the limelight, stayed out of sight all day and were not available for comment.

The nearly inseparable duo built a Democratic machine by hiring friends and allies, which is the subject of a continuing Plain Dealer investigative series. And the two have helped the party control every elected office in the county for decades, partly through Dimora's role as county Democratic Party chairman.

Notice they wait until the fourth paragraph to mention these goodfellas are dhimmicrats, nothing in the headline.

OTOH, on the cover of the Dispatch this morning:

SENATOR FACES FELONY COUNTS

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, was indicted yesterday on charges that he did not disclose receiving more then $250,000 in gifts. (emphasis mine)

The article stub on the front page includes a headshot of the senator and a push over to page three.

Is it just me, or is this politics as usual at the local birdcage liner?

In journalism school, you learn about the inverted pyramid approach to the newswriting. Because articles can get edited to almost any length, your lead should be the strongest graph, followed by the next most important detail, then the next most important, etc. Apparently, the politicians democrats liberals editors at the Dispatch feel that one (alleged) crooked politician's party affiliation is a bit more important than another's?

Granted, this is a senator vs. a couple of local cronies in Cuyahoga County, and he supposedly is the longest-sitting Republican, but the Cleveland goodfellas have been doing this, according to their article, for a very long time.

Leftmedia once again? You decide.

Obamessiah Gaffes from IBD

Investor's Business Daily has an interesting piece posted yesterday about all of the Obamessiah's gaffes.

Barack's Obama-isms
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Media: The gaffes Barack Obama has committed would have crushed the typical Republican politician. But the reporters who can't get over Dan Quayle's misspelling of "potato" have little to say about their man's slip-ups.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if Obama is really fouling up or simply puffed up when he tries to live up to his media-fed image as a leader ready for prime time.

...While the media have ensured that Obama's communication skills are now widely viewed to be impeccable, it's obvious that when the man doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him, he tends to mangle both facts and language.

How else to explain his "Face The Nation" comment that the leaders he would meet in the Middle East and Europe are the ones "who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years"?

Had a Republican candidate said that, he'd have been suspected of some dark plan to shred the Constitution and institute martial law.

Indeed.
Read the entire article here.

The Left's Conspiracy to Kill Free Speech... er.. Talk Radio

In today's GrassTopsUSA.com Action Alert, Don Feder discusses the Liberal Left's potential reinstatment of the (un)Fairness Doctrine (FD), or possibly something worse - the Obamessiah's desire to eliminate free speech.

After eight years in the wilderness, the left expects a clean sweep in the 2008 election -- the presidency (and with it the federal bureaucracy) and larger majorities in both houses of Congress.

Looking ahead, liberals are determined to derail potential opposition to their plans to accelerate the deconstruction of America. Consequently, they have targeted talk radio. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just one facet of their scheme to eviscerate the only part of the media controlled by conservatives.

Crucial to an understanding of the jihad against talk radio is this: The left will do anything to gag its opponents. From the college campus to the halls of Congress (think campus speech codes, think hate crimes legislation, think speech-suppression zones surrounding abortion clinics), liberals are the chief proponents of censorship in America.

How would the Fairness Doctrine affect talk radio?

Ah, the Fairness Doctrine -- the left's weapon of mass media destruction scheduled to detonate over talk radio. The FCC instituted said doctrine in 1949, when talk radio was 30 years in the future, television (limited to three or four channels) was just becoming popular and daily newspapers were the primary source of political opinion.

The Fairness Doctrine (which is anything but) required balance -- a "reasonable opportunity for ample play for free and fair competition of opposing views ... (for all) issues of importance to the public." In practice, it meant that if a TV or radio station say editorialized in favor of one side of an issue, it had to provide equal time to the other side.

In 1987, the Reagan FCC repealed the grotesque anachronism. Now, the left is panting to bring it back.

This is how the Fairness Doctrine would be applied to talk radio: If a station broadcast three hours of Rush Limbaugh -- or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Dr. Dobson -- in the afternoon, it would have to provide equal time to The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Father Michael Pfleger or Osama bin Laden.

The problem is no one would listen to the later, hence it would sell no advertising and talk stations would very quickly switch to sports, weather, pet psychologists or 1970s' elevator music -- exactly what the left intends.

The Federal Communications Commission is comprised of five individuals -- two from each party, and a fifth appointed by the POTUS. Yet another reason for the American Conservative to hold his nose and vote for McCain November 4. Centrist though he may be, I don't think McCain would support reinstating the FD.

What about the Obamessiah? His position is that he doesn't support the FD. Instead, he would give control of the airwaves back to local communities and control ownership of stations. He would force local stations to meet with review boards of local communities to discuss their content.

The Senator claims he's opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. If so, it's because he has something more ominous in mind.

Obama Press Secretary Michael Oritz says the candidate "considers this debate (over the Fairness Doctrine) to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible... That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increased minority ownership of broadcast and print outlets."

...Once you cut through the soothing Obama cliches, his plans for talk radio are chillingly apparent.

When the left says "diverse viewpoints," it means "our viewpoints." It wants diversity only where it's in the minority. Have you ever heard of liberals complaining about the lack of political diversity on college faculties?

Obama's objective in "opening up the airwaves to as many diverse points of view as possible" is putting doctrinaire leftists on boards of directors and installing them as program directors and in other management positions. He wants programming decisions made not by market forces but based on ideological considerations.

Some critics of talk radio want a shorter renewal period for broadcast licenses. They would force broadcasters to prove that they're "operating in the public interest" -- by meeting regularly with "community spokesmen," incorporating their recommendations in programming decisions and putting representatives of various leftwing interest groups in charge of what goes out over the airwaves.

...The foregoing amounts to stealth Fairness. It makes sense that, in anticipation of its new clout in Washington, the left is intent on silencing the opposition.

When you cast a presidential vote in November, you won't just be voting on federal judges or the future security of our nation, you'll also help to decide the fate of talk radio -- a medium that's gone from 360 stations in 1990 to over 1,300 today.

Well said. I'm not a McCain fan, but the Obamessiah scares me. Not necessarily the Manchurian Candidate, but not too far off. Vote for McCain unless you want another generation of 'fairness' in our media.
Read the entire article here.

Justice, .357 style

And now for something completely different, brought to you by the framers of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in particular the Second Amendment):

From the Ocala, FL Star Banner (h/t Hot Air):

Woman, .357 blazing, chases intruders from home
By AUSTIN L. MILLER
Star-Banner

OCALA – Firing a .357-caliber handgun until it was empty, an Ocala woman chased two intruders from her home in the 3800 block of Southeast 68th Street on Wednesday morning.

Later Wednesday, Marion County sheriff's detectives had one home invasion suspect in custody and were looking for the second. Aaron Scott Beardsley, 25, was charged with armed home invasion robbery. Deputies were still looking for a heavy-set Hispanic male, about 6-foot-1 or 6-feet-2, who was wearing black shorts at the time, a dark T-shirt and a bandana.

How much you wanna bet the 'heavy-set hispanic male' doesn't belong in this country?

Anyway, thanks to the SCOTUS, we can feel secure in our homes once again (sort of). I bet you won't see this article spread around the mainstream media.

On the cusp of the “most spectacular” victory against Al-Qaeda

Once again, can you hear the crickets chirping in the MSM when it comes to discussion of a victory in Iraq?

You won't hear any such news here in the US of A, especially before the general election. The Times of London, however, is running the story (h/t to Hot Air):

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror. (emphasis mine - CTD2006)

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

Read the entire article here.

Khudayr Taher: Europe and America Should Deport All Muslims - Including Myself

From the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) (H/T jihad watch):

Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite writer living in the U.S. and a regular contributor to the liberal Elaph website, had a quite illiberal suggestion - he asked why Europe and America shouldn't deport their Muslim populations. He wrote:

"Countries have the right to defend themselves and assure their citizens' safety from terrorism. Likewise, it is clear that the source of the terrorist crimes in Europe and America is the Muslims who live in these countries.

"The security services cannot know people's intentions and sort out who is the noble immigrant and who is a terrorist criminal. [But] wherever there are Muslims, their presence has produced crimes of terrorism and murder.

"Among those Muslims in Europe and America who do not practice terrorism, most of them do not have loyalty and sincere attachment to these countries that have offered them all of the means of life in dignity - housing, studies, work, and citizenship…

"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist… why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?

"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S…"

Wow. A voice of reason amid insanity. As Robert Spencer at JihadWatch said, he must be an islamaphobe.

The Blogosphere for Killers: Tech-savvy terrorists use the Web for propaganda and incitement

From the Opinion Journal. H/T to the Jawa report:

The Blogosphere for Killers
Tech-savvy terrorists use the Web for propaganda and incitement.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Living as we do now afloat the incoming and outgoing tides of media, perhaps the aborted London and Glasgow car bombings of a fortnight ago are worth another thought before these attempted mass murders drift away on the sea of bad memories. What about those doctors? The apparent complicity of U.K.-resident Muslim physicians in the attempted murder of innocent British civilians had many in the West asking why. The short answer is that these trained M.D.s somehow convinced themselves that these British people didn't deserve to live--that it would be morally good to kill them. That's insane. Why would they think that?

The best answer I have seen in a long time is found in a new study of Islamic media propaganda by a research team from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. "Iraqi Insurgent Media: The War of Images and Ideas" by Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Ridolfo (with Radio Free Iraq correspondents, two of whom were abducted and murdered this year) is an astounding compilation of the high-tech methods being used by the insurgency in Iraq to propagate the ideology of the Islamic jihadist movement. This is the blogosphere for killers.

What I've never understood is why we let media outlets like Al-Jazeera (or CNN, for that matter) report the propaganda they do. First, why don't we simply knock out the capabilities of Al Jazeera? Didn't we do that in WWII (the last war we really won) to stop the Nazi propaganda machine?

The reach of insurgent and jihadist propaganda increases exponentially when it is picked up by Arab TV--Al-Jazeera, of course, or the Al-Rafidayn satellite channel in Cairo or even the Iraqi Al-Zawra, which claims to be operating from a satellite truck in Iraq.

In an interview this week, RFE's Mr. Kimmage said they have presented the media study to both the House and Senate intelligence committees and to government national security agencies. Reactions range from "wow" to "we already know all that." In any event, what would they do? This is propaganda on an unprecedented scale.

If you are a young Muslim male, even a doctor, with a PC in Egypt, the Gulf states, Somalia, Morocco or Glasgow, as always with the Web you are marinating your mind in its content, and the content here is homicide on a mass scale. The answer--technical or political--is not obvious to me. But the one unacceptable answer is doing nothing.

Indeed. Are you listening, Congress? How about you, Mr. Bush? Thank God for the blogosphere.

Read the entire article here.

Columbus Dispatch: 'America overestimates terrorist threat'

I was outraged this morning, reading an article in the Op-Ed page of the Columbus Fishwrap, I mean the Dispatch. It's no secret that America's current fourth estate tends to lean toward the dark side by a wide margin (9-1, in a recent poll), but this column was ridiculous!

The basic assertion of this opinion piece is that Americans are pansies because we haven't suffered a 'real' war here, that Europe is tougher because they endured Nazi bombing in WWII and have endured terrorism since the 1940's. There are also assertions in the article 'the invasion of Iraq really had nothing to do with fighting terrorism,' yet another slam on Dubya, and that potential presidential candidate Fred Thompson, among others, is over-estimating the global war on terror. All democratic party, and islamists, talking points.

What this moron doesn't get, is that we are the United States, the most powerful, most properous country in recorded history, for a reason. We're not afraid of terrorists (except for the democrats). We wouldn't just lie down and take it, like the Europeans, if there was bombing going on here. We would find ways to fight back. Unless, of course, we had the current congress.

I suspect we may just be tested by the islamists in this fashion before it's all over. We underestimated the islamist threat before 9-11, and we are still underestimating it. And this idiot believes we are over-estimating it.

Read it. And respond. Let the management and editors at the Dispatch know how upset you are. Send your comments to letters@dispatch.com, and to the author at 76312.1476@compuserve.com.

Gwynne Dyer: America overestimates terrorist threats while Europe deals with them
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 3:22 AM
By Gwynne Dyer

As terrorists go, last week's attacks featured The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. One of the would-be London bombers drove erratically down Haymarket St. -- presumably affected by the fumes from the gas cylinders and gasoline containers that were the heart of his makeshift car-bomb -- before crashing into a garbage bin, getting out and running away. Another parked his explosives-packed car illegally, so it was towed away. The third attack was at Glasgow airport on the following day, but nobody was hurt except one of the attackers, who set himself on fire.

More-competent terrorists might have killed dozens of people, but it's safe to say that this incident will be taken more seriously in the United States than it is in Britain or anywhere else in Europe. An occasional terrorist attack is one of the costs of doing business in the modern world. You just have to bring a sense of proportion to the problem, as people in Europe do in general.

Most major European countries already had been through some sort of terrorist crisis well before the current fashion for "Islamist" terrorism: the IRA in Britain, the OAS in France, ETA in Spain, the Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany, the Red Brigades and their neofascist counterparts in Italy. Most European cities also were heavily bombed in a real war within living memory, which definitely puts terrorist attacks into a less-impressive category. So most Europeans do not obsess about terrorist attacks. They know that they are likelier to win the lottery than to be hurt by terrorists.

Russians also are pretty cool about the occasional terrorist attacks linked to the war in Chechnya, and Indians are positively heroic in their refusal (most of the time) to be panicked by terrorist attacks that have taken more lives in India than all the attacks in the West since terrorist techniques first became widespread in the 1960s. In almost all of these countries, despite the efforts of some governments to persuade the population that terrorism is an existential threat of enormous size, the vast majority of the people don't believe it.

Whereas in the United States, most people do believe it. A majority of Americans finally have figured out that the invasion of Iraq really had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, but they certainly have not understood that terrorism itself is only a minor threat. "We have a threat out there like we've never faced before," said actor, former senator and potential presidential candidate Fred Thompson last month. "I don't think the (American people) realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan," Thompson continued. "Whether it's Madrid, whether it's London, whether it's places that most people have never heard of, they're methodically going around trying to undermine our allies and attack people in conventional ways, while they try to develop nonconventional ways, and get their hands on a nuclear capability, and ultimately to see a mushroom cloud over an American city."

There has been only one major terrorist attack in the United States since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and that one, on 9/11, is almost six years in the past. So how have Americans been persuaded that their duty and their destiny in the 21st century is to lead the world in a titanic, globe-spanning "long war" against terrorism?

Inexperience is one reason: American cities never have been bombed in war, so Americans have no standard of comparison that would shrink terrorism to its true importance in the scale of threats that face any modern society. But the other is relentless official propaganda: the Bush administration has built its whole brand around the "war on terror" since 2001, so the threat must continue to be seen as huge and universal.

Ridiculous as it sounds to outsiders, Americans regularly are told that their survival as a free society depends on beating the "terrorists." They should treat those who say such things as fools or deliberate liars, but they don't. So the manipulators of public opinion in the White House and the more-compliant sectors of the U.S. media will give bigger play to the British bombings-that-weren't than Britain's own government and media have, and they will get away with it.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

I'm not sure what bothers me more: the fact that this defeatist moron is being publishing in the United States at all, or the fact that the Dispatch printed it the day before we celebrate our Independence from tyranny.

Nice work, Dispatch. Is it any wonder the blogosphere and talk radio are prospering, while newspapers and television are faltering?

We don't want to hear this crap any more!

Jihad Watch: Bush & MSM are off base, again, about Islam being the 'Religion of Peace'

From Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch, yet another clear indication of how Herr Bush and the mainstream media are totally missing the boat on the 'Religion of Peace' not being represented by the muslim jihadists.

Majid Khadduri and George W. Bush
When he spoke this week at the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Islamic Center of Washington, President Bush said: "In the Middle East, we have seen instead the rise of a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination. This self-appointed vanguard presumes to speak for Muslims. They do not."

There we are again. The Administration and the mainstream media (both Left and Right) take it as axiomatic that the jihad we see all over the world today represents a perversion of Islam, repudiated by the vast majority of Muslims. The American Muslim advocacy industry, chiefly the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has recently been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case, has quite successfully portrayed any exploration of the elements of Islam that give rise to and justify jihad violence and Islamic supremacism as a manifestation of "hatred," "bigotry," "Islamophobia." Those who do not accept the iron dogma that Islam contains nothing within it that can reasonably be used to justify terrorism are vilified and marginalized.

However, consider for a moment that if the iron dogma is false, the dogmatists are doing a grave disservice to the United States and even to peaceful Muslims. For if there is nothing in Islam that needs reforming, we cannot possibly offer assistance to Islamic reformers. And if Islam is a fundamentally peaceful belief-system, then we need not reevaluate our immigration policies vis-a-vis Muslims entering the U.S. from a national security standpoint, and we need not call American mosques to account for what they are teaching. If we're just dealing with a few crazies, we need not call upon Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere to perform a searching and honest reevaluation of their beliefs, and decide whether they want to live in a state of conflict with the rest of the international community on an indefinite basis. I suspect that if the question were posed to Muslims worldwide, many would opt for otherwise universally accepted notions of human rights: the freedom of conscience, equality of dignity of women and men, equality of dignity of non-Muslims with Muslims. But we will never know, because Western leaders wouldn't dare pose the question on those terms. After all, they don't want to be seen as "hatemongers."

Read the entire article here.

Bring on the 'Fairness Doctrine' -- It's a two-way street

As has been reported in the popular media, the liberal congress is trying to resurrect the 'Fairness Doctrine,' the old 'equal time' law for media. What the liberals are trying to do is kill conservative talk radio. So networks that carry the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys would then be forced to include kooks like Al Franken.

Why don't we turn this around to our advantage? If they manage to implement it again, why don't we request equal time on CNN, MSNBC, and other mainstream media outlets? We could upset the liberal bias of the mass media by requesting equal time for EVERY SINGLE STORY these outlets run. It's not that difficult to show the pattern of their bias in the stories they choose to, or choose not to, run.

I think Pelosi and Feinstein should be careful what they wish for. It might come back and bite them in the arse.

'Fairness Doctrine' is Everything But...

Leave it to the whiney democrats/liberals/lefties to try to legislate the airwaves and force their point of view on the broadcast public again, rather then let the free market decide what gets broadcast.

From Fred Thompson's Blog:

We've been hearing threats to use the obsolete Fairness Doctrine to go after talk radio ever since the left-leaning talk radio network, Air America, failed. Ironically, I think Air America might have had a shot if its target audience hadn’t already been served so well by many in the mainstream media. But regardless, giving the government veto power over radio stations' programming decisions is wrong. I don't think forcing the one sector of the media where conservatives have a clear voice to provide equal time to liberals is the American way. At the very least, it has a chilling effect on station owners.

At least Al Franken can comfort himself that it wasn't his fault Air Amerikka failed. He knows he's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like him. Or maybe they don't. (he wasn't that funny on SNL, what made him think people will listen to him on the airwaves?)

Read the complete entry here.

Another Poll: Make Your Thoughts Known on the Immigration Amnesty Bill

Liberal media pollsters are showing widely popular support for the senate immigration bill. They must be asking only liberals and hispanics.

Take a poll on the subject at FrontPageMagazine.com

I'll post results when I see them.