Tuesday, September 23, 2008

More on Obama the elitist

Just who are the 'Elites' in America? Mostly they self-identify into a few broad classes: Political, Media, Business and Military. They are the self-important 'know-it-alls' who are willing to sacrifice liberty, freedom and the Nation to their beliefs that they are the best ones suited to run the world. They are the wannabe ruling class who are always ready to tell you what is good for you, and then use the power they have at hand to try and force that to come to pass. You see they 'know' things and are way smarter and more powerful than you, and they... they 'know' what you want... if you would just let them give it to you.

Take Yuval Levin's link to ABC News and a video clip of Sen. Obama at a Planned Parenthood meeting answering a question on sexual education for children. I'll point out what struck Yuval at The Corner at NRO, and it is extremely telling about Sen. Obama in that portion of the video at about the 3:10 mark:
The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch the wrong TV networks, um, but they're, they're basically decent, they're basically sound.

- Sen. Barack Obama, 18 JUL 2007

What that leaves out are the appreciative audience twitters and scattered laughs after 'they get confused sometimes' and 'listen to the wrong talk radio shows'. The audience likes those remarks and do believe that *you* are confused and that *you* listen to the wrong talk radio programs. Way to be for the 'little guy'... the 'they' out there, Sen. Obama, that you talk about as if it is a microbial colony that you are not apart of. Come on in and join the gene pool, Senator. That passage is *not* something that demonstrates that he wants to reach out to the American people, and, just before that, he tells you how he sees the President's role in this just before that excerpt:
You know I... eh...eh... the longer I'm in this race for the Presidency, the more I realize that so much of leadership is about using the bully pulpit to frame the issues in a way that allows us to draw on the best impulses of the American people.

More here

Fully invested in your misery

Obama seems happier these days. It is almost as if the disembodied spirit of his mentor, Saul Alinsky, is watching and smiling. Americans are suffering. Losses in the stock market, panic in the financial market, pain at the gas pump and in the grocery -- all these miseries of average Americans are a delicious narcotic to socialists like Barack Obama.

What was the historic maxim of the Left? "The worse, the better." Alinsky said that if there was an afterlife, "I will unreservedly choose to go to hell." This is the man whose mind guides Obama's thoughts.

Americans ought to ponder that before electing a man who thrives politically -- the sphere of his life that really matter to him -- on the unhappiness, helplessness, and hopelessness of his fellow citizens. When his voice promises "hope," as it so often does, we should recall that what he is promising is communal "hope." Our experiences, our lives, our souls, to Obama, belong to society. We cannot have hope by ourselves. We can only have hope as part of a vast mass of humanity.

The "change" he promises is also collective change, enforced by the rod of government. Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals. Political leaders bring benefits like honest government, national security, sensible and moderate programs to accomplish the broad purposes of the Constitution, and blind justice. But in a free world, in a free country, politicians do not complete our personal dreams or our private hopes.

It takes much to separate Americans from ownership of their lives. The means of rendering people from their lives is misery. Let the mortgage giants collapse. Let refineries and oil exploration stop. Let food prices spike. Let individual lives drown in worries and in troubles created by the state. Then make those individuals turn to the state for release from pain. Long ago, the formula was written: "The worse, the better."

Existence ordered by free hearts and minds is chaos to the Left. We cannot find happiness in our own, unorganized and unregulated pursuits. We cannot have meaningful lives separate from the dogma of the Party and, as Obama put in it the closed doors of San Francisco elites, "clinging to our religion."

No, it is not our religion which we must cling to. It is his religion, the religion of collectivism, the faith in the coercive power of the state, that must become our passionate system of belief. But men do not chain themselves willingly. There must be a pressure cooker, an artificial creation of unbearable forces, before men place manacles on their wrists and feet and smile. Men must be made to believe inwardly what the Left whispers quietly: The worse, the better.

Do not doubt that Barack Obama is just as thrilled with the panic in our economic markets as Adolph Hitler was seventy-five years ago in Germany by the heartbreak of the German middle class. Obama is a much more humane, sane, and placid man than Hitler, but the basic principle of all radical Leftists -- Hitler or Obama -- is identical. A happy society is a society that does not need them. A desperate society, alone, will grant them the power they crave, and "The worse, the better" is the unstated goal of men who want power above all else.

It is not coincidence that the rhetoric of Obama is so blank that almost anyone could put almost any wish within the womb of his words. Barack Obama does not intend to really say anything. He seeks, instead, to promise vague emotional fulfillment to unhappy people. He whispers undefined action which will make the dreariness of life go away. He needs your sadness to grant his dreams. If Americans are doing well, Barack Obama cannot do well. He grasps at every level the grim truth of the Left: The worse, the better.

So what do we think will happen if we choose a man so fixed upon our wretchedness? Do we assume that he will solve our problems? When, if ever, has that happened in human history? True saviors are men like Churchill, who do not promise hope but rather blood, toil, sweat, and tears. True saviors are men like Washington, who told his countrymen as often as he could that they did not need him. True saviors are men like Reagan, who did not make his fame or fortune in politics, but entered politics to liberate us all. None of those great men ever relished a single pain of their countrymen.

The hungry Left always imagines that the end, truly, justifies the means. It holds (it thinks) the key to secular heaven and the suffering of ordinary people feeds the bonfires of its march to power. History is the lesson book of man. We do not have to guess about what happens when the people, without hope, give power to those who thrive on suffering. "The worse, the better" always leads to things much worse than the causes that made men barter their rights for promises.


NYT trashing truth-tellers on Obama's abortion record

The New York Times published an editorial "The Right to Smear" praising a federal judge in Virginia who has blocked a group from running ads on Barack Obama's positions on abortion. The Times disparages this groups ad and claims it:
...trashes the candidate's nuanced position. It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.

"Nuanced"- I guess that is an intellectual way to describe and cover "lying". The Times editorial board are well-versed in such "nuance" for they are lying about Barack Obama (and Joe Biden's) record on policy proposals. Barack Obama would allow taxpayer's funding for abortion, would help minors conceal abortions from their parents and legalize late-term abortions. Fact-checking the Times:
... in 2007, Biden voted in favor of taxpayer funding for abortions. According to the National Right to Life Committee, Biden has not voted to restrict funding for abortion since 1999. Barack Obama has said that that the Freedom of Choice Act is the first bill he would sign upon entering the White House. That bill would strike down all federal and state restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal tax dollars from paying for abortions.

In a 2004 Zogby poll commissioned by the NRLC, voters opposed taxpayer funding for abortion 74 percent to 22 percent. I'm willing to bet that most voters don't know that an Obama-Biden administration plans on spending their taxes on abortions. The McCain campaign might want to inform them.

More on The Freedom of Choice Act: here is Obama in his own words promising to sign the act as the first step he will take as President. David Freddoso (The Case Against Barack Obama) elaborates on what this bill entails:
This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. If Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion.

In making this promise, Freddoso writes, Obama is promising:
...to abolish state laws that protect doctors and nurses from losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in abortions .. to abolish requirements for parental notification and informed consent for mothers who consider the procedure

Freddoso also notes:
Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.

The Times clearly has an agenda: elect Barack Obama even at the cost of violating basic journalism 101: print the objective truth. Even editorial page writers should abide by this basic tenet of journalism and public responsibility.


Media Not Reporting Failed Financial Agencies Are Big Donors to Obama

A 2005 Video of Fannie Mae CEO Shown Affirming his Connection to Congressional Black Caucus and Barack Obama, Where is the Media?

In a 2005 video Daniel Mudd, at the time the interim CEO of the catastrophically failed mortgage lender Fannie Mae, affirmed his fealty and that of Fannie Mae to the Congressional Black Caucus. The top three campaign donation recipients were Democrats, number two of which was Barack Obama, yet the media is laying mum on these facts. One wonders what would be going on in the media if John McCain were a top recipient of campaign donations from a market crashing, government bail-out getting organization like Fannie Mae?

The three top campaign donation recipients from Fannie Mae were all Democrats. Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) got $165,000, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was given $126,349, and failed presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) took $111,000 from the folks at Fannie Mae. Is this information getting out there?

Most of the top Fannie executives were also Democrats each of whom worked closely with Democratic presidents and Barack Obama. Franklin Raines, Clinton White House budget director, ran Fannie Mae and pocketed $50 million. Jamie Gorelick was a Clinton Justice Department Official (famous for adding to our intelligence failures helping cause the attacks on 9/11) was paid $26 million. Jim Johnson, who most recently served on Obama's VP search committee, was the CEO of Fannie Mae and has also made millions. These Clinton/Obama associates sat at the head of a failing financial agency all the while raking in millions and donating hundreds of thousands to top Democrats.

So what, you may ask? Well, there is a reason that these Fannie Mae officials donated to Democrats. It was because Democrats continued to stymie Republican efforts to fix these failing lending agencies. Democrats protected these rotten lending practices and the Fannie Mae executives knew who were the sugar daddies that needed greasing.


The cultural left's Obama drumbeat intensifies

The worldwide left is clearly alarmed that Barack Obama's campaign appeared derailed by Sarah Palin's emergence as a cultural icon representing all that they despise. As a result, they are pulling out all the stops to celebrate Obama and denigrate the opposition.

Woody Allen, still embraced by many on the left despite disgracing himself with his step-daughter, now instructs the world that "It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win." Of course, he said this in a chi-chi European resort, San Sebastian.

Barack Obama is to become the source of a musical play in London's West End. I am relieved to know that the Styrofoam columns from Invesco Field may be recycled as stage settings overseas. I have argued, in fact, that Obama is best understood as a showman - someone who creates the appearance of being intelligent, charismatic, attractive, caring, etc. But like other showmen, when he doesn't have a good script on the teleprompter, he falters.

Meanwhile, a sculptor named Daniel Edwards, previously known for a 25 foot bust of Fidel Castro and a sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth, has taken upon himself the task of sculpting a bust of Michelle Obama in a style reminiscent of African sculpture, complete with exposed breasts (cropped from the picture below -- original is viewable here).

I find Edwards' choice of subject matter most revealing. In fact I remember quite a bit of criticism when a McCain ad likened Obama's celebrity to that of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Castro as an object of adoration by Edwards tells us a lot, too.

I am more convinced than ever that the cultural left's adoration of Obama will backfire with American voters, sick of the drumbeat of hatred for America by those showmen and artists who fashion themselves of superior intellect.


Big PR firm of Ethan S. Winner paid to produce lying videos about Palin

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

* David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe. Our findings follow.


[UPDATE: Within 1 hour of posting, "eswinner" has removed all videos from YouTube and began removing any traces of his activities. But we have the video and all relevant websites backed up.

If "eswinner" isn't Ethan Winner of the Publicis Groupe, then why did "eswinner" yank the video so quickly? Or if this was just an innocent homemade ad, then what does he have to hide? You'd think he'd want more attention for it.

I uploaded it to my YouTube acount from the original unwatermarked Google version (see below for explanation) and that is the version you now see embedded below. Here's an image that show's he had the videos in question just moments ago. Click for bigger. I'll be able to provide a backup of the original YouTube page in the morning. For now, this will have to do.]

Who is behind this video against Sarah Palin? It alleges:
Sarah Palin was a member of an Anti-American separatist organization.
It claims that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party and cites The New York Times for that source. Then it quotes the founder of that Party with some pretty outrageous statements.

But here's what FactCheck.org says about that:
[Sarah Palin] was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She's been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
And The New York Times was forced to retract their earlier claim that Palin was a member of the party, blaming the error on the party's chair. That retraction was published Sept. 3rd, 8 days before the video was first made publicly available.

Sarah Palin wasn't even physically at the party's convention. The clip you see is part of Palin's videotaped welcome for the convention's opening in which she gives some general remarks about the need for party competition and then tries to draw some common ground on the need to reel in government spending. Hardly evidence of extremism or anti-American sentiment.

In our opinion the Palin smear video appears professionally produced. Especially revealing is the voice over, which has a ring of familiarity to it and which also sounds professional.

If we are correct, that means that someone paid for the ad and for the talent behind it. Yet no one identifies themselves as being behind the video.

Using techniques that we've used in the past to find the identity of online terrorist supporters, the Jawa team went to work trying to figure out who was behind what appeared, in our opinion, to be a professionally orchestrated smear campaign aimed at Sarah Palin with the ultimate goal of electing Barack Obama.


The YouTube poster who uploaded the video did so under the account name "eswinner". He names his channel "AGroupofConcernedAmericans". The goal of his channel, says "eswinner", is:
Offering a fair and unbiased view towards life and politics...

I try to give an unbiased account of all things American.
The video was uploaded four times under the "eswinner" account, using different titles for each video. The video was also uploaded to Google Video on the same day and with the same title.

A Google search of other people using the nickname or account name "eswinner" reveals that someone very interested in yachts also goes by that name. There is, for example, a Picasa page under the account name "eswinner". I won't link to that page because it also has pictures of his family, but I will include a screenshot here.


That Picasa page of "eswinner" is used by an "Ethan" advertising on Craig's List that he will rent out his yacht to interested parties. But "Ethan" also leaves his e-mail account: ewinner@winnr.com.

And just what is winnr.com? An alternate dns designation for Winner & Associates. A firm that employs one Ethan S. Winner.

Hundreds of pictures on the Picassa page belonging to "eswinner" show that the page belongs to the same Ethan S. Winner that is employed by the public relations firm of Winner & Associates. Other instances of an "eswinner" or "ewinner" posting on the internet are found sprinkled here and there. All of those postings seem to fit the profile of Ethan S. Winner and suggest that eswinner and Ethan Winner are one and the same.

The company he works for, Winner & Associates, is one of the largest PR firms in the country and part of an even larger international conglomerate Publicis Groupe, which is, "one the world's top 10 advertising and communications firms."

A firm that specializes in "helping companies survive and succeed" a "controversial issue such as a lawsuit, a government investigation, a political protest, a labor dispute, or a defective product or recall."

A firm that also happens to produce TV ads. And owns a number of affiliated firms which do similar work.

These people are professional guns for hire. Looking at their portfolio makes that clear. And they only work for big clients. The kind of clients that pay big bucks. The kind of people hired by Exxon to convince people that the effects of the Valdez spill were over. The kind of people hired to help push through oil fields in Chad and Cameroon or help companies respond to boycott threats over the Beijing Olympics....

Charles "Chuck" Winner was once described as:
A revered political consultant, Winner began his career working for California Gov. Pat Brown in 1958; he later worked for President John F. Kennedy. Winner is frequently called upon by a wide range of political groups, candidates and organizations for his unparalleled skills as an adviser, planner and strategic thinker.
Chuck owns $23,000 court-side seats for UCLA basketball. He's the type of guy who own horses that have raced at the Kentucky Derby.

He is a Barack Obama contributor. As are the rest of the Winner & Associate employees who share the family name. Chuck Winner contributed to Obama as early as February of 2007, which means he was a supporter from the beginning.

Much more here

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

No comments: