Book of Oppositions | Pocket Full of Mumbles |

 

This world is one big game of "Go"-- Black against White, Light against Darkness --and we all have a choice to make: Do we war FOR the Light?

...or against it?




A Taste of Things to Come?

Is one's past actions a fair predictor of one's future actions?


Watch What You Say
--by Monica Crowley


An excerpt:

You aren't allowed to raise Obama's middle name, Hussein. You aren't allowed to say that half of his family is Muslim. You aren't allowed to say that he was born to a Muslim father, which, under Islam, automatically made him a Muslim. You aren't allowed to discuss Reverend Wright. Or Bill Ayers. Or Bernardine Dohrn. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or Father Phleger. Or Tony Rezko. You aren't allowed to point out that so far, the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, Hamas, parts of al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, and Kim Jong Il have endorsed him. You aren't allowed to ask him about the vote fraud or illegal campaign contributions being done in his name. You aren't allowed to say he's lying about his tax plan. Or about his past associations. Or his past, period.

If you raise any of these issues, you risk being punished, smeared, and silenced.


Anyone who frequents this blog knows what I think of Obama, but for the record I'll reiterate.

He is a liar. He is a Murderer. He is a Marxist. He is racist. He does not respect the Constitution. He does not believe in genuine free speech.

So, does how one acts now reflect how one will act later? If Barack is lying now, will he lie later? Yes.

If he supports the murder of unborn children now... infanticide... will he support it later? Yes.

If he believes taking from those according to their ability, to give to those according to their need today, will he believe the same later? Yes.

If he writes racist remarks in his books, and sits under the tutelage of racists for twenty years, will he be racist later? After the election? Yes.

If he held the Constitution in disdain a few short years ago, will he hold the Constitution in that same vein of disdain after the election? Yes.

If he spends campaign resources to attack and threaten those who dare to question his past, present, and future today, will he do the same later? After the election?

Yes. He will.

I simply refuse to drink his Kool-Aid. There's just too much blood and filth on his hands, thank you.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 11:20 PM, , links to this post





Change We Can Be Afraid Of...






Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 11:49 AM, , links to this post





Change We Can Believe In




Obama will be the first president to increase taxes solely for the purpose of income redistribution, not for the purpose of funding the essential operations of government. That's a HUGE change.

--Neal Boortz, Oct 23, 2008


Who needs the rule of law when you have greedy incompetent government?



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 9:25 AM, , links to this post





Can Anyone Guess Orson Scott Card's Party Affiliation?

What follows is reprinted in its entirety, without permission.


Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights
--Orson Scott Card, Oct. 5, 2008
First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled Do Facts Matter? "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth -- even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means. That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time -- and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter -- while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe --and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats -- including Barack Obama -- and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans -- then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.


--------
You can find Card's original post at The Ornery American



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:22 PM, , links to this post





The Light of Ignorance in a Dark, Dark World

Did you know that 'Republican' means 'Slavery'? Yep, it's true. The Republican party was established on March 20, 1854. That's 154 years of unbridled racism aimed primarily at blacks, but more recently toward Hispanics and Muslims.

I bet you didn't know that. I mean, I was taught something entirely different in school. I mean, I was told that the Republican party was established as an abolitionist movement, to tear down the foundations of American slavery and bring the negro out of bondage. The war between the states was fought, ostensibly, because the South resented the North demanding changes that would cripple the South's economy. After all, should the slaves be freed, cheap labor would be a thing of the past, and the riches would not so quickly fill their coffers.

But apparently, this is not the case. I have been fed a lie. I have spent my entire adult life believing that the Republican party-- that grand old party --stood for freedom. But it took the vandalism of some unknown freedom fighter with an unassuming can of spray paint to tear a hole in the roof of my intellect and shine some light on the truth that...

I always thought it was the other way around... that 'Democrat' meant slavery. Someone... and I don't know who... is guilty of propagating revisionist history.




But if this 'artist' is right then the Republicans must be stopped.

OH! And did you know Columbus was a Republican? Yes, it's true! He's responsible for bringing disease and genocide to native peoples in East India... the New World. Because of Columbus many tribes of natives have ceased to be! Which is why we celebrate Columbus Day... to remind of us the horrors perpetrated on innocent natives by greedy Europeans. This is a day to reflect and rededicate ourselves to the promise, "Never Again"

Never Again. And yet we have dropped the ball in Iraq. We have allowed the evil Republicans to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The Republicans must be stopped.

Obama will show us the way. He will part the seas, give us bread in the wilderness, make water spring forth from barren rock. He will feed us, clothe us, and be our spiritual guide. And, in time, he will lead us, with the help of a democratically controlled house and senate, into the promised land.

A vote for Barack is a vote for Freedom-- Freedom from tyranny and slavery. He will heal the world and our planet. A vote for Barack is a vote for a new Golden Age. An age of justice, wisdom, and peace in our time.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 10:26 AM, , links to this post





What's Coming

--by Glenn Beck

[Here's an excerpt from a long read. There's enough of a wake up call in this letter to attract BOTH sides of the political divide]

Too many politicians are anxiously waiting for the right moment to expand government. They’re waiting for the “Megan Law” moment. That moment when the stars align so politicians can pass legislation over any objections, whether it’s good or bad.

Megan’s Law is named after a 7 year old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a repeat violent sexual offender. The public had finally become so outraged that the politicians had to act. Megan’s Law requires the posting of information about sexual offenders to the public. Passing Megan’s Law was the right thing to do but it shouldn’t have taken this tragedy to do it—but it took Megan’s tragedy in order to overcome the opposition from the ACLU and other groups who kept screaming about the rights of the accused.

Pelosi, Reid and the progressive left as well as many Republicans still don’t believe that our very survival is at stake with what is going on today. They still look at this meltdown as just another opportunity to score political points. If the Democrats in the House of Representatives really believed that our country’s economic security was at stake then they would have passed the bailout bill. They didn’t need any Republican support. They had the votes. But Pelosi and the Democratic leadership didn’t want to risk a massive voter backlash so they didn’t push the bill through. That is playing politics. If the Senate believed that our country’s economic security was at stake they would have passed a bailout bill without the $100 billion in ‘goodies’ attached. That is playing politics. Do the right thing for the country, stop playing politics.

As the crisis worsens and takes a higher emotional toll on the public we will see tragic stories. We will see more stories about people giving up hope, losing focus on what’s truly important and ending their lives and the lives of people they love. And when the ‘right’ story comes along, it will be exploited to take away more of our freedoms, to shred the Constitution just a little more and grab more money for the government from the people who earn it.


You can find the entire letter here

This is not about the election. This is not about who will make a better president. This is simply a wake-up call to ALL Americans. We are losing this county, and fast.



Here's another must read, also from Glenn Beck:

We are turning into France?

Don't let the tongue in cheek title fool you, this is not about us becoming French. It's about us on the verge of losing this country.

An Excerpt:

France, the UN, Russia, China has asked for a global currency. France said yesterday or day before, new world order. One financial system needs to come out of this. Last night for the first time ever all the central banks globalized and they all made one move together and they're all now saying we need to meet, we need to control the globe's financing. The UN is talking about a UN financial network. One currency. You add to the disenfranchisement now, what is it, 79% of Americans are Christian? How many of those actually still believe in the resurrection, how many believe still really in the return of Christ? 50%? 40%? I don't know, but it's large, that actually say, you know, there is some day where all these things are going to come true. Well, one world finance, one world currency, new world order, going to spook the bejesus out of those people.


And I think that's a fair assessment. All this financial turmoil has gotten me to thinking as well; days before I discovered Glenn Beck airing in my neck of the woods. America is NOT mentioned in prophecy; not as a world power. Europe is the big dog in the end. Are we anywhere near that day? Thousands of pastors across America say yes. I too say yes. It doesn't take a bible scholar to see the signs.

Where is America heading? I wrote last week about the partisanship killing this country. How is it that Bush is universally vilified by the Left as the worst president in American history when Congress' numbers are lower than his? How can all the talking heads in media, including Fox, say Obama won Tuesday's debate? I tell you, he did not win. The problem is politicians AND members of media have been in Washington, have been in "the game," so long that they can't empathize with the people they serve. They've forgotten how to think like an Average American.

I'm no intellectual slouch. I can read nuance, body-language, tone and tenor of speech. I can hear what IS said, and what is NOT said. I don't need the likes of Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, or anyone else to tell me what I heard.

I feel like some goat looking into the farmer's window only to see pigs sitting at table acting as though they were human. This country is not ours anymore. From the previous article, What's Coming:

Closer to home you will see that Americans are increasingly feeling isolated and detached from their government. Part of the reason is that we don’t think politicians care what we think anymore. The $700 billion bailout bill passed the Senate at a time when only 30% of the country supported it. We felt that a giant stick was poked into our collective eye!

59% of Americans would vote the entire Congress out of office but due to the self-serving way the politicians have drawn their election districts it’s just this side of impossible to do it. Only 49% of the people believe that this congress is currently doing a better job than a group of individuals selected randomly from a phone book would do and 33% of us actually believe the group selected at random would do a better job! [Emphasis mine]

Whatever our disagreements, we need, as Americans, to come together to save this country. NOT for Democrats, NOT for Republicans... but for AMERICANS. Party politics be damned. Save the planet? Let concentrate on saving our nation first.

Read the second article in its entirety here



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 7:53 PM, , links to this post





Michelle Sees Dead People

Found this over at MichelleMalkin.com





Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 8:55 PM, , links to this post





The Barack Obama Pop Quiz

by Edward L. Daley
Published originally at EtherZone.com


1) Cite one of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments since he became a U.S. Senator.

2) Describe the tactics Barack Obama has employed during this election cycle which have inspired hope and unity among Americans in general, or that constitute a genuine change in Democrat political campaign strategy.

3) What exactly are Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials?

4) Name one person closely associated with Barack Obama (other than a member of his family or fellow legislator) who isn't either an anti-American zealot, a racist, a hard-line Democrat party hack, a terrorist, a communist or a felon.

5) Explain how Barack Obama's tax proposals will punish only wealthy Americans, and not the middle class and poor people who work for them, buy goods and services from them, rent property from them or own stock in their companies.

6) Describe Barack Obama's moral stance on partial birth abortion.

7) Name one organization Barack Obama has been involved with in his adult life (aside from the Illinois or U.S. Senate) that is inherently pro-American or pro-capitalist.

8-A) In what way does Barack Obama's claim that "health care is a right" differ from the following claims?

* Food is a right.
* Clothing is a right.
* Housing is a right.

8-B) If your answer to the above question was that these things are all essential to a long and healthy life, and therefore, there is no substantive difference between them, why then shouldn't the federal government be allowed to exercise the same kind of control over how farmers, tailors and carpenters conduct their businesses that Mr. Obama proposes it exercise over the medical profession?

9) Explain precisely what Barack Obama did as a community organizer in Illinois, and how his activities in this regard enhance his qualifications for the office of President of the United States.

10) Name one foreign terrorist group, terrorist-supporting regime or communist dictatorship (which has made its preference known) that supports John McCain's presidential bid over Barack Obama's.

11) How do Barack Obama's views concerning the regulation and manipulation of financial institutions by the federal government differ from those of his economic adviser, Franklin Raines, who is as responsible as anyone for the recent sub-prime mortgage market collapse?

12) Define the word 'socialist' and explain why Barack Obama isn't one.



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 5:22 PM, , links to this post





Fahrenheit 451

Burn the new bill! All 451 pages of it!



Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 2:55 PM, , links to this post





One Fresh Pillowcase Later...

Moderator Ifill's Conflict of Interest

The highly anticipated vice presidential debate is being moderated by a Barack Obama worshipper, Gwen Ifill.

Ifill does not do a good job at pretending to be impartial. When she was reporting for PBS at the Republican National Convention, she was visibly disappointed by the excitement exhibited by the delegates on the night that Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin delivered their addresses.

She not only supports Obama, she has written a book about him, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, with a release slated for Inauguration Day no less.

--Freedom Eden, October 1, 2008

One commenter at Freedom Eden said,

Some people disagree.... It might be worthwhile to look for an opinion other than Drudge's or Malkin's.

Grumps

Well I've heard that tripe before. My response?

Why? Is Drudge's opinion of no value? Michelle's? When did the validity of their opinions take a back seat to folk like Olbermann? Matthews? Or Ifill for that matter?

Sure. It's prudent to "hold off" on judging her moderation of tomorrow night's debate... as it hasn't happened yet. But it's fair AND responsible to question her blatant conflict of interest. Why can't we have a moderator with nothing to gain or lose regardless of who wins?

"It might be worthwhile to look for an opinion other than Drudge's or Malkin's." ??? I'm hearing this bleating from only one side of the political fence.

A Comparison:
Said the Muslim to the Christian:

"It might be worthwhile to look to the Qur'an for enlightenment other than the Bible."

Yes, that's over the top. But so is the suggestion that Drudge and Malkin have nothing of value to add to the debate.


Rubbing it in a little more...

The debate is tomorrow night. The moderator is Gwen Ifill. The moderator has a financial interest in Barack Obama winning in November. How can I say that? Because Ifill has a book due out around inauguration day. Here's the Amazon.com link for Ifill's book titled "The Breaktrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama". Take a look at the publication date. January 20, 2009. Now what happens to Ifill's book if Barack Obama is not sworn in on that day? Easy ... it doesn't sell. So could someone please tell me why she's moderating this debate when clearly she has a financial interest in making Sarah Palin look bad?

Neal Boortz, October 1, 2008


This weeks syndicated column by Michelle Malkin can be found at her place:

A debate “moderator” in the tank for Obama

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

The title of Ifill’s book? "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." Nonpartisan my foot.

LOL! I have it on good authority that Marilyn McCoo & Billy Davis, Jr., of The Fifth Dimension fame, have been asked to perform live at BHO's inauguration.

Here's the lyrics to what they've been asked to sing:

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Obama
The Age of Obama
Obama! Obama!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Obama! Obama!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Obama
The Age of Obama
Obama! Obama!

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in

Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
The sun shine in
[Repeat Ad Nauseum]

...but six months after he's inaugurated this is what WE'LL be singing:

They used to tell me
I was building a dream.
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow
Or guns to bear
I was always there
Right on the job.
They used to tell me
I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead.
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad
I made it run
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad
Now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime.
Once I built a tower,
Now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits
Gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle dee dum.
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum!
Say don't you remember?
They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember?
I'm your pal.
Say buddy, can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits,
Ah, gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle dee dum!
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum!
Oh, say don't you remember?
They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Say, don't you remember?
I'm your pal.
Buddy, can you spare a dime?


From Bob Unruh at WND:

Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

"Well, that’s all you’ve got," she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn’t her intent.

Right... I remember that debate, and I remember as well that Ifill was more lenient and forgiving of John Edwards.

My final jab to the Left eye:



Welcome to Pre-Soviet America, everyone. Now get in line, keep quiet, and do as you're told.




Read the entire article...

posted by ELAshley @ 9:48 AM, , links to this post