President of the U.S. Elected through a confluence of factors: the great unpopularity of George W Bush, the incredible weakness of John McCain, the mistakes of all those who opposed him, a highly-skilled campaign staff that was able to sell an inexperienced cipher with a questionable background through partially dishonest means, and, most of all, due to the complicity of the mainstream media.
The MSM was the major factor involved in demoting McCain's opponents, promoting McCain, demoting Hillary Clinton, and then relentlessly promoting Obama at the same time as lying and misleading about and smearing Sarah Palin.
Before the campaign, this site tried to draw attention to Obama's long list of faults, as did many other sites. However, this site was nearly alone in trying to push things such as his indoctrination plan for pre-teens.
And, almost no other site even just once suggested this highly effective plan under which regular citizens would ask him tough questions on video destined for Youtube.
Anti-American: Barack Obama says only Native Americans can decide U.S. immigration policy - 11/28/14
Speaking in Chicago yesterday, Barack Obama said that U.S. citizens have no right to control who comes into the U.S. and that the only people who can rightfully control that are Native Americans. In so doing, Obama denied the sovereignty of the United States and denied the very laws and structures that made him president in the first place. HIs statement also harkens back to the days when the "one drop rule" was used to deprive blacks of rights.
Barack Obama let Ebola into the U.S. He could have instituted travel restrictions without much effort, but instead he allowed commercial flights originating in Liberia to continue. As a result, Thomas Eric Duncan traveled to the U.S. and infected at least two others.
All of that was preventable with commonsense travel restrictions that wouldn't interfere with the response to Ebola.
A very curious phrase illegal immigration supporters use is a variant of "safe, legal, and orderly" when referring to movements of people between countries. For instance, George W Bush, a Mexican consul, and the Canadian government have all used variants of that phrase.
Here's how (link):
If [11 million illegal aliens] had been on the voting rolls in 2012 and voted along the same lines as other Hispanic voters did last fall, President Barack Obama’s relatively narrow victory last fall would have been considerably wider, a POLITICO analysis showed.
The shocking video below is a new ad from Mitt Romney that - quite understandably as you'll see - is only running in parts of the upper Midwest and in the so-called "Polka Belt".
Remember the phrase "Question Authority"? What the site Reddit  did yesterday is the opposite of that.
A new and almost entirely worthless controversy involves Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tweeting a comment about chimichangas. No, really. But, it's not entirely worthless: I'll tell you below some of the things you won't hear from either side.
In case you haven't been following along, see  for a recap. Some notes:
[UPDATE: Things went exactly as expected, AskObama on Twitter was a sham.]
Barack Obama spoke at the White House Correspondents Dinner last night and joked about Donald Trump and smeared millions of Americans who have valid questions about Obama's past. None of what Obama did was presidential, but it's what most of his supporters want and his detractors are generally unable to do anything about it.
Barack Obama recently spoke with Brad Watson of WFAA in an interview (link, video below) that was sold by Matt Drudge and others as some sort of watershed moment ("FIRST TIME: REPORTER TURNS AGGRESSIVE WITH OBAMA" was his headline).
Certainly, almost all reporters have treated Obama extremely reverentially and from that perspective the interview is markedly different. However, the interview was basically worthless: it didn't hold Obama accountable and it didn't force him to answer the tough questions he's needed to be asked for years. I'm not surprised he'd get angry, but a politician getting angry is nothing; everyone can relate to someone getting angry. The interview is just entertainment, an Oprah/Springer moment.
I tried to ask Obama a question over four years ago, and it was much tougher than what's on the video below. And, for over four years, I've been promoting the question authority plan, encouraging people to go ask politicians tough questions. I've gotten almost zero help with that, and I've even gotten some opposition from commenters on sites like Protein Wisdom.
For an example of how worthless the interview was, consider this supposed question Watson asked:
"Was the shuttle not awarded to Houston because of politics?"
That's not a question, it's an allegation with a question mark at the end. When asking a question, one should be imagining how it's going to be answered and change the question to get a more preferred response. Unless the reporter's goal was simply to get an allegation out there, he did not do that. What would anyone expect Obama to say? "Yes, it was awarded because of politics"?
A better question would be something like, "Awarding the shuttle to Florida makes less sense than awarding it to Houston for [valid, documented reason]. Do you have a study showing that [valid, documented reason] is wrong?" If there's no such study, then find the rationale of whoever awarded the shuttle and try to find a hole in the rationale. Then, ask a specific question designed to force Obama into some sort of answer that exposes that it was awarded for invalid reasons (assuming it was).
Obama also denies being involved with the commission that made the shuttle decision. There are two possibilities: either that's true or false. If he wasn't involved, then why ask him the question? If he's lying about being involved, then ask specific questions designed to reveal that, such as pointing out who was on the commission and Obama's links to them (if any), pointing out who was not on the commission, and so on.
Please don't give in to Oprah/Springer-level entertainment: help promote the question authority plan.
Obama plays race card on Tea Party and whites in general; "subterranean agenda"; Teaparty interferes with proper response - 03/03/11
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said.
A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to "take back" their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn't dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a "subterranean agenda" in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.
1. This isn't just an attack on the teaparties but on white people in general, and it's of course reminiscent of Obama's "bitter clinging" remarks from two years earlier. It's not clear whether Obama himself used the phrase "subterranean agenda", or whether he just agreed with someone else who used it. However, expect "subterranean agenda" to become as famous as "bitter clingers". It's also not clear whether Obama wanted his comments to become public. The last sentence is probably an example of a sleazy, passive-aggressive attack.
2. The closest whites have to a defensive group of their own akin to the NAACP are the tea parties. Yet, the only people in that movement who might be smart enough to intellectually challenge Obama and show how he's wrong are only in it for the money. The core "principles" of the teaparties are all about the money, and they explicitly ignore "social issues". So, when they're attacked using a "social issue" like the race card, they don't know what to do, or they help their opponents (see also the section of the main teaparties page).
Other than check-cashers like Dick Armey of FreedomWorks and others who are linked to the Koch family, the rest of the teaparty movement lacks the ability and the sanity to intellectually challenge Obama. The teapartiers are the loudest opposition to Obama and, not only are they the dumbest opposition to Obama, but they try to undercut smarter opponents to Obama (through red-baiting, lying, smearing, etc.) Opposing Obama is a job for smart people, not for useful idiot sign-wavers who play dress-up.
For years, the establishment has tried to tell us that concerns about a North American Union were just crazy talk. Yet, on Friday, the U.S. and Canada established a "Shared Vision for Perimeter Security", a common security perimeter designed among other things to "accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries". In the case of Canada we (at least currently) don't need to worry too much about millions of Canadians wanting to move to the U.S., but the same can't be said of similar efforts that might be planned with Mexico: around 39 million Mexicans would move to the U.S. if given the chance.
While the "shared vision" says it respects the "sovereign right of each country", the agreement will help blur the line between the two countries and cost each sovereignty. For an example, see the issue of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads as mandated by NAFTA.
Further, both countries agreed to the "shared vision" with executive orders rather than with decisions by the U.S. Congress or the Canadian parliament. And, talks leading up to the agreement were secret and the announcement itself was designed to be propagandized.
Note that Obama is simply continuing what George W Bush started with the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (formerly at spp.gov). In fact - while you never heard about it from rightwing bloggers and pundits - Obama indicated his interest in continuing the SPP before the election.
While the leftwing in Canada is generally on the correct side of this issue, the leftwing in the U.S. has been trained to reflexively respond to any concerns with childish mockery. And, those like the tea partiers who pretend Obama's a far-left transformative figure should try and explain why he's continuing a very establishment-friendly proposal that Bush started.
 From whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/04/
Note that in the third paragraph below the people who live in the U.S. and Canada are seemingly an afterthought. Note also the use of biometrics and the mention of "harmonizing existing programs". The latter was one of the goals of Bush's SPP.
To preserve and extend the benefits our close relationship has helped bring to Americans and Canadians alike, we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries. We intend to do so in partnership, and in ways that support economic competitiveness, job creation, and prosperity...
...We intend to work together in cooperation and partnership to develop, implement, manage, and monitor security initiatives, standards, and practices to fulfill our vision. We recognize that our efforts should accelerate job creation and economic growth through trade facilitation at our borders and contribute directly to the economic security and well-being of both the United States and Canada.
...We intend to work together to engage with all levels of government and with communities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, as well as with our citizens, on innovative approaches to security and competitiveness.
...We value and respect our separate constitutional and legal frameworks that protect privacy, civil liberties, and human rights and provide for appropriate recourse and redress.
We recognize the sovereign right of each country to act independently in its own interest and in accordance with its laws.
...To increase security, counter fraud, and improve efficiency, we intend to work together to establish and verify the identities of travelers and conduct screening at the earliest possible opportunity. We intend to work toward common technical standards for the collection, transmission, and matching of biometrics that enable the sharing of information on travelers in real time. This collaboration should facilitate combined United States and Canadian screening efforts and strengthen methods of threat notification.
In order to promote mobility between our two countries, we expect to work towards an integrated United States-Canada entry-exit system, including work towards the exchange of relevant entry information in the land environment so that documented entry into one country serves to verify exit from the other country.
...We aim to build on the success of current joint programs by expanding trusted traveler and trader programs, harmonizing existing programs, and automating processes at the land border to increase efficiency.
...We intend to work together to defend and protect our use of air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace, and enhance the security of our integrated transportation and communications networks.
...The United States and Canada intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) composed of representatives from the appropriate departments and offices of our respective federal governments.
...We intend for the BBWG to report to their respective Leaders in the coming months, and after a period of consultation, with a joint Plan of Action to realize the goals of this declaration, that would, where appropriate, rely upon existing bilateral border-related groups, for implementation.
The BBWG will report on the implementation of this declaration to Leaders on an annual basis. The mandate of the BBWG will be reviewed after three years.
 From "Canada kept U.S. border talks under wraps: document" (link):
OTTAWA - The federal government deliberately kept negotiations on a border deal with Washington secret while it planned ways to massage public opinion in favour of the pact, according to a confidential communications strategy.
The 14-page public relations document recommended that talks keep a "low public profile" in the months leading up to the announcement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama. At the same time, the government would secretly engage "stakeholders" - interested parties such as big business groups and others - in a way that respected "the confidentiality of the announcement."
AskObama: did Steve Grove choose an unpopular immigration question because of Voto Latino? - 01/28/11
Yesterday, Steve Grove of Youtube interviewed Barack Obama with a series of questions that users had submitted through the "Ask Obama" event. The Youtube interview was a scam; see that link for the details and the backstory.
To further drive home just how much of a scam it was, Grove appears to have undercut the implied rules of the competition by choosing an unpopular video as the only question about immigration. However, that video just happens to have been uploaded by an organization that's partnered with Youtube.
According to the implied rules of the competition, Youtube visitors would vote on the most popular questions, and then Youtube would select from those top-voted questions the ones they were going to ask.
Yet, the video they selected only has 17 up votes and 10 down votes, and not only is it very difficult to find, but its popularity is swamped by dozens of other questions . One wonders how Grove picked that particular video out of such a crowded field.
Perhaps a clue comes from the fact that the uploader  was Voto Latino, a Washington DC-based organization started by the actress Rosario Dawson. On their Youtube home page (youtube.com/user/votolatino) they include this:
Volunteers called thousands of voters and documented their experiences at the polls through our YouTube partnership Video Your Vote.
And, Grove today references this odd coincidence, retweeting this from VotoLatino:
RT @votolatino We helped get this video up & the President watched it. Thx Mario Lopez & Steve Li: http://fb.me/T7i8fqtj & @grove!
twitter dot com/grove/status/30945241347391488
The link in that tweet leads to this Facebook page containing a screengrab of the video as shown during the AskObama event and a repeat of their claim.
A screengrab of the video in a search for "ice" is attached, as is the video in question. See the first post for the full video.
Please contact @Grove and ask him to explain this odd coincidental discovery of his.
 For instance, I clicked "Next" countless times trying to find it at youtube.com/worldview after choosing "Video questions" and "Sorted by popularity". I gave up, and then searched for phrases I thought would be in the description. The only way I found it was through a search for "ice" (as in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement), and even then I had to click several times. In fact, it's only the 35th video shown for a search for "ice". There are 929 questions in a search for "dream act", and it's not in the first 100. And, there are dozens upon dozens of more popular questions - a few with videos - in the immigration category. The top five questions in the immigration category have between 1723 and 1899 up votes.
 Currently, the video is in the "SteveProd" account, but in Google Moderator (see the screengrab), the video is clearly marked as coming from "votolatino, Washington, D.C." and the small icon with the check mark is votolatino's logo. The "SteveProd" account just has that one video; it probably had other videos since the channel has lists total upload views of 44,574 and the only video in the account just has 386 views.
[UPDATE: Make sure and see this too]
Youtube and Barack Obama are conducting yet another scam, soliciting questions for Obama based on the State of the Union that he'll answer on Thursday, January 27. Other users vote up or down submitted questions, and then Obama will answer the top vote-getters.
The questions that get the most votes will invariably not be the best questions, the ones that Obama should be pressed on. In fact, they're likely to be some of the weakest questions of all. Obama and all other politicians should be "cross-examined" over their policies, and this latest scam will not even come close.
How systems like this are scams has already been discussed over and over with several examples involving Obama, Youtube, and others on the popular voting systems and Youtube corporate pages. If you don't agree that such systems are scams, see those pages and the past examples.
I submitted the following three questions to their immigration category; I'm not even going to bother suggesting voting them up because I know they'll never get enough of a vote differential between up and down.
For instance, at post time, six people like the DREAM Act question but five don't. The question is perfectly valid, very important, and needs to be asked. Yet, five people don't want it to be asked despite how valid it is. Under my plan (see the popular voting systems page), that wouldn't happen: known quantities who participated would be voting on how tough a question is, and if they unjustifiably voted a very tough question down they could be held publicly accountable.
Here are the questions; you might be able to find them through a search or here:
The Fed is profiting from money that illegal aliens send home to Mexico through their Directo a Mexico program ( http://24ahead.com/n/5978 ). Do you agree that a federal entity seeking to profit from illegally-earned money is a sign of corruption?
Do you agree that both college slots and college funding are finite? Do you agree that any college slots/funding given to illegal aliens under the DREAM Act will deprive some U.S. citizens of college? (attached video: youtube.com/watch?v=WZkvEmSy1vk)
Due to massive legal & illegal immigration, do you admit that the Mexican gov't has political power inside the U.S.? Do you agree that foreign countries shouldn't have political power inside the U.S.? What do you intend to do about it?
1/27/11 UPDATE 1: As yet another example of how Google Moderator (the software used in this case) and popular voting systems in general don't work, with voting closed the top 80 or so questions are all about pot. Those voting up the questions didn't abuse the system, they followed the rules of the system. And, the system revealed its flaws.
As for my questions, they have up/down votes of 9/6, 6/5, and 4/4 respectively. Meanwhile, this has 3152/282:
Mr. President, what is your stance on Net Neutrality? What do you intend to do to keep the internet free from censorship?
Obama's stance on Net Neutrality has been known for years and years and the FCC has taken steps in that area. A question that was going to do a public service would ask Obama a specific question about what his FCC has done in that specific area, based on a full knowledge of what they've said and done. Instead, questions like that just allow politicians to give stock speeches they've given many times before.
And, MoveOn voted up a similarly weak question about Net Neutrality in 2007 in a similar sham.
1/27/11 UPDATE 2: The event went exactly as expected: it was a complete sham. Steve Grove asked a series of weak questions, including some that were even weaker than "boxers or briefs?" And, Youtube managed to get in various plugs for their service, occasionally using the president of the U.S. as little more than a prop to promote a commercial company.
Video is attached, and at 33:00 you'll see Obama answer the only immigration question, about the anti-American DREAM Act. Instead of calling Obama on the downsides of that bill, Grove simply introduced a video of an apparent illegal alien and asked Obama when the bill might pass. (And, didn't call Obama on his use of nation of immigrants).
Personal anecdotes about the DREAM Act are not at all difficult to find (see dozens on the PIIPP page), but a debate about the downsides is very difficult to find. There are two or more sides to every story, yet all Youtube could do is present one side without acknowledging the viewpoint of another side.
1/28/11 UPDATE: I fixed the bad year (10) in the updates above. More importantly, the DREAM Act question that Grove chose is unpopular, but just happens to be from an organization that's partnered with Youtube in the past. See the link for the details.
Obama flames reconquista at Hispanic Caucus, gets history, Declaration of Independence wrong - 09/19/10
Just over two years ago and as discussed here and almost nowhere else, Barack Obama flamed reconquista sentiments. Speaking at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus event recently he did it again. He also got history wrong and left "by their Creator" out of the Declaration of Independence.
On the video at peekURL.com/vrbi8hy Obama says:
...long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. From British to French, to Dutch and Spanish - to Mexican - to countless Indian tribes, we all shared the same land. We didn't always get along, but over the centuries what eventually bound us all together, what made us all Americans, was not a matter of blood, it wasn't a matter of birth, it was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear... We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that's what makes us unique, that's what makes us strong.
1. A loud cheer goes up when he says "to Mexican". If he attended events put on by the British, the French, or the Dutch, can anyone imagine such a cheer? Of course not. The latter two groups have no national sentiment that they have a rightful claim on U.S. territory, and the same is true of popular national sentiment in England. (No doubt many British elites still think of us as a colony and try to influence our policies, but that's not the same as thinking they have territorial claims). If Obama said the same thing in Spain he might get a different reaction, and he certainly got a reaction when playing to Mexican irredentist sentiments. One of those "shared values" is a belief in the territorial integrity of the U.S., something that Obama to a certain extent doesn't share.
2. The U.S. was an idea in the late 1700s, and at that time Mexico didn't exist: it was a Spanish colony called "New Spain". Some of their territory became part of U.S. territory, but those inhabiting it weren't "Mexicans", they were Spanish or Indians under Spanish control.
3. The "didn't always get along" part sounds more like a children's TV show with an Important Life Lesson. Various countries had various claims over parts of what's now the U.S., but we hold that territory now even if Obama has come close to not recognizing that. And, most of the citizens of the U.S. are descendants of more recent immigrants and not of, say, foreign citizens who left after the territory they inhabited became part of the U.S.
4. He left "by their Creator" out of his recitation of the Declaration of Independence at the end; whether that was by design or what isn't clear. It's also "unalienable" and not "inalienable", so perhaps there was just a Teleprompter malfunction.
Barack Obama appeared at a nationally-televised House Republican retreat in Baltimore yesterday at which several leading Republicans asked him questions which he then handled with ease. He "p0wned" them so badly that Fox News cut away from the coverage twenty minutes before it ended. What the House members asked were weak, open-ended question or simply requests. They weren't adversarial questions designed to reveal flaws in his policies or statements. Because of that, they allowed him to say things like this:
And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, "You could do this cheaper and get increased results," that I wouldn't say, "Great." ...The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.
He also shined them on: "Here's what I'm going to do, Mike: What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing" and referenced those who say tea parties types of things: "But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot."
This incident shows a structural problem the GOP has: their leaders are great at cashing checks, but not so great at representing the interests of the American public. They aren't going to change, so if you want to oppose Obama in a smart and effective way you'll have to do it yourself. See the question authority page for a plan (note especially that the questioner has to be experienced), and here's our guide to asking politicians tough questions.
Some light coverage of Barack Obama's 2010 State of the Union will commence shortly. However, feel free to leave comments about the speech in comments. A few largely worthless excerpts are here; expect the rest to be along those lines.
He'll apparently be concentrating on healthcare and jobs. For the first, see our past coverage in Obama healthcare. For the second, note that the number of jobs supposedly "saved or created" under the stimulus plan is dwarfed by the number of work permits issued to foreign citizens in the same time period. And, not only has the Obama administration added illegal aliens back into the labor market rather than seeking to deport them, they recently added up to 200,000 Haitians to the legal labor pool in a plan that will hurt not just low-wage U.S. citizens but the country it's sold as helping.
Our leaders' obsession with community colleges continues...
Meanwhile, instead of Obama discussing how he's trying to make college more affordable, he should discuss his support for the DREAM Act, and anti-American bill that would take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally.
UPDATE: He also said this:
And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.
That's stock boilerplate for comprehensive immigration reform; a semi-secret wink to supporters of amnesty but also indicating that he's not willing to go to the wall for them. See secure the border, and note that when he refers to playing by the rules, he means after amnesty, when a magic wand will be waved and those who didn't play by the rules before will become model legal residents and eventually citizens.
FightTheSmears.com - the debunking site that's home to a picture of what is supposedly Barack Obama's COLB as well as the home of at least a couple of lies - is currently offline. The last homepage in Google's cache was from July 7, so it's not clear whether this is just a temporary issue or something permanent. A look through the same cache shows that they were hacked by spammers and those pages were there in May to the end of June, so that might have something to do with it.
Tom Brokaw, Wesley Clark, Tom Daschle, Obama sister, Sidwell Friends board member, others on White House Fellowships Commission - 06/17/09
The 28 members of the "President’s Commission on White House Fellowships" have been named  and include:
Obama, ADL, SPLC, Phil Gordon, Catherine Herridge, Shep Smith, Joan Walsh, Chris Matthews, others try to exploit shooting at Holocaust Museum - 06/11/09
Here are just some of those trying to use yesterday's shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC to score political points:
* Barack Obama says: "This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms". That sounds good, until one remembers things like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, "bitter cling", his campaign's constant attempts to race-bait, his smears of Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh, and how he'd deal with "hate" (see #14).
* Josh Gerstein of the Politico in "Attacks validate DHS report, some say" (link). He quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center's Mark Potok: "I think this latest round of killing once again shows how ridiculous the criticism from the right of the Department of Homeland Security report was. That whole brouhaha was absurd... Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner can go on until the end of time about how [the report] was an attack on conservatives, but in reality it was a perfectly sober assessment of what was going on out there." That report was even criticized by Bennie Thompson. Gerstein also quotes the Anti Defamation League's Deborah Lauter: "We felt the DHS report was pretty right on... Clearly the election of Obama, the current financial crisis, and the discussion of immigration reform - those things have certainly fueled the right wing extremist movement in this country….There are clear indications that the rhetoric is manifesting. We hope it's not the tip of the iceberg.”
UPDATE: A list of others who've tried to exploit this tragedy is in "Holocaust Museum Shooter: Christian-Hating Socialist" (link). It includes this:
A review of his lengthy associations reveals Von Brunn hardly fits the stereotype of a Religious Right, GOP precinct captain. He denounced the Christian faith as a dastardly Jewish conspiracy, a “HOAX” invented by the Apostle Paul to “DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE” from within by undermining its pagan virility. (All screaming capitalization and grammatical errors in this piece appear in the original.) Like others on the racist fringe, the shooter proclaimed clearly: "SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West."
Extensive quotes are provided to show those aren't being taken out of context.
No, really. Bilderberg - a group that just a few short years ago was presented by the MSM as a tinfoil hat topic - has gone mainstream. Kenneth Vogel of the Politico - seen here "debunking" some "myths" in order to assist the Barack Obama campaign - offers "Obama officials gave Bilderberg briefings" (politico.com/news/stories/0509/22957.html):
A handful of high-ranking Obama administration officials this month delivered private briefings at the annual invitation-only conference held by an elite international organization known as the Bilderberg group.
The closed meeting of some of the most powerful business, media and political leaders in North America and Western Europe heard from top Obama diplomats James Steinberg and Richard Holbrooke, who detailed the administration’s foreign policy, while economic adviser Paul Volcker, chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, also gave a presentation at the heavily guarded seaside resort in Greece that hosted the event...
...But any suggestion that Bilderberg is secretly anointing world leaders or plotting global policy is the provenance of “the black helicopter crowd,” the attendee of this year’s conference told POLITICO...
In five years they'll probably be using hacks like Vogel to say the opposite.
UPDATE: If that doesn't work, go here. Also, ND president Rev. John Jenkins seems to be the root of the problem. In his introduction he said, among many other things, that Obama wanted to make immigration more humane; the opposite is true. At the start of Obama's speech, some are booing and one person was just re-seated by security. Another interrupted the speech with a louder shout; the audience then launched into their own unintelligible chant.
UPDATE 2: Now, Obama is calling on all of us to join hands. Aww. He also gets in a plug for his book. He wants us to work together to reduce the numbers of abortions... reduce unintended pregnancies... make adoption more available... In the audience, a baby started crying as Obama launched into that bit.
UPDATE 3: Fox News says just four people were escorted out of the event.
UPDATE 5: A transcript of his remarks is here. Consider this:
Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.
As far as I know, the debate is about embryonic stem cell research, not that research in general. I'll leave it to those familiar with that debate to indicate whether this was an attempt by Obama to mislead.
UPDATE 6: Here's video of protesters being arrested before the speech.
Obama admin deports two illegal aliens, but only because they tried to tour the White House - 05/14/09
Two people facing deportation from the United States have been taken into custody at the White House gate. They had arrived for a tour of the executive mansion... The pair was part of an adult education program, and a routine background check showed they had an outstanding immigration order against them.
The attached video is a cartoon from about fifty years ago made by Harding College (now University), "a Christian liberal arts University in Searcy, Arkansas". It's a "pro-freedom" answer to Communism, but it's also surprisingly ecumenical and, while the style would be different, could have been made much more recently and as a response to Barack Obama and the current state of the Democratic Party. Now, certainly, they don't want state control over all factories and farms, but it's not like that's a foreign concept to the administration and some of their policy advisors. While some of the video needs some serious caveats, the Democratic Party seems to have used "ISM" as a blueprint:
When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.
You see folks waving tea bags around -- let me just remind them I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care cuts over the long term, how we are gong to stabilize social security. Lets not play games.
There's a very strong possibility that Obama wants to keep the tea party magic flowing, because those "parties" serve his interests. The partiers have no stated principles, they wave loopy signs, and there are so few of them (just 0.1 to 0.2% of Americans turned out) that they'll have no electoral impact whatsoever. The "tea parties" give every leader what they want: a small, ineffective, fringe opposition.
This is akin to, say, Bill OReilly baiting CodePink and then sending out a camera crew to take pictures of their loopy signs at their protest against him.
The "tea party" leaders aren't smart enough to figure any of that out and to create a broad-based movement. Instead, they're just giving Obama what he wants.
John Nichols /The Nation pushes bogus flu pandemic preparedness issue; distraction from Obama admin, Dem failures - 04/27/09
John Nichols of The Nation offers "GOP Know-Nothings Fought Pandemic Preparedness" (link). Sens. Arlen Spector and Susan Collins fought the addition of around $900 million for flu pandemic preparedness to the stimulus plan. Now, Nichols is disreputably trying to tie that into the current possible flu crisis, and he's getting some help from his friends (link).
Yet, the issue is bogus for various reasons: neither Spector nor Collins oppose spending on preparedness, they just didn't want it in a bill that was supposedly about stimulating the economy rather than just about everything the Dems and Congress in general want to spend money on. There are general spending bills and narrowly-focused bills available for such purposes. Further, even as he bashes them, Ryan Powers of ThinkProgress quotes Collins and Spectors - both more friends of the Democrats than not - as in favor of spending money on preparedness. 
"All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they're all out."
A slightly low-ball question for a Dem would involve reading that quote, getting the Dem to condemn it, and then pointing out who said it.
There might also be fiscal year and related funding issues here: even if money for preparedness had been in the stimulus bill, how much of it would have been disbursed by now? That would be a good question to ask someone pushing this line. And, those familiar with accounting issues might want to look into whether the current funding flows for preparedness are meeting the needs of the agencies involved.
And, if flu preparedness was such a vital issue to the Democrats - David Obey is presented as an oracle when it was much more likely that no such pandemic would surface - why weren't they banging on the table night and day demanding an emergency bill? That would be a good question to ask them: why didn't you raise this issue until now, why not two weeks ago when an emergency bill could have been rushed through?
Another good question to ask is why isn't Janet Napolitano willing to greatly ramp up border security to prevent sick people - including those who are infected but not visibly sick - crossing our borders legally or illegally? Why wasn't the Obama administration closely monitoring the situation in Mexico from near the very start?
UPDATE: Collins says through her spokeswoman (link):
...Senator Collins has led hearings on pandemic flu preparedness, worked on “bioshield” legislation and funding, and helped strengthen our nation’s preparedness for a pandemic flu... Claims that she is opposed to increased funding for pandemic flu research are blatantly false and politically motivated. In fact, in December 2008, Senator Collins joined in a letter to Senate leaders requesting a $905 million increase for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund at the Department of Health and Human Services... There is no evidence that federal efforts to address the swine flu outbreak have been hampered by a lack of funds.
The past wondrous 100 days of the Barack Obama administration kicked off on a high note, as the benediction at his inauguration implied that all white people are racists and all non-whites are oppressed. That was just offensive; most of what's followed has serious to very serious long-term consequences.
[L]ast month, [Knox] described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as “discredited leaders” because of their opposition to same-sex marriage... Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being “foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression” because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8. The latter was a ballot initiative that amended California’s state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and passed in November 2008... Knox told CNSNews.com that he “absolutely” stands by his criticism of the pope.
I'll let you decide.
At yesterday's Barack Obama town hall meeting, some of those who asked questions live at the event - as distinguished from those who submitted questions online - were plants with connections to the White House or other Beltway establishments. Garance Franke Ruta of the Washington Post says:
the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008.
Those involved were: Sergio Salmeron, Tom Sawner, Carlos Del Toro, Linda Bock, and Bonnee Breese. Bock was invited through the Nurse Alliance Leadership Council, and Breese through the American Federation of Teachers.
He said he was invited to the White House town hall through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Executive Council.
Del Toro also has unspecified ties to that Council.
The above shouldn't come as much of a surprise; at the recent Obama townhall in Orange County, one of those called on was - chance of all chances - a union official. And, this is similar to the plants at a CNN debate in November 2007.
Sat. 3/21/09: Obama organizing petition signing drives for his stimulus plan (door-to-door, at malls, etc.) - 03/20/09
In an apparent attempt to define creepy down, Obama for America - the successor to Barack Obama's campaign organization - is organizing a "Pledge Project Canvass", where the president's supporters will go door-to-door asking people to sign a pledge in support of the stimulus plan. They'll also be stationed at malls, stores and other places with large numbers of people. The training video is attached, and the pledge itself is deceptively simple:
* I support President Obama's bold approach for renewing America's economy
* I will ask friends, family, and neighbors to pledge their support for this plan
What you can do about this - in the short term - is to ignore them. Or, if you want to throw a monkeywrench into their plans, sign using a somewhat unknown fake name (I suggest Dale Gribble or Dr. Rusty Shackleford; if you want to get creative, come up with an anagram of some phrase). Alternatively, give them some literature of your own and maybe have your own petition they can sign handy. If you're in a pranking mood, I'm sure you can find some good literature; see if there's a cult deprogramming clinic in your area.
In the long term, things like this should be fought against through such means as asking politicians tough questions and publicizing their response.
Because, whether done through a nominally independent organization or not, U.S. presidents shouldn't be mobilizing their supporters to take down names, especially since in some cases those who don't sign might be almost as obvious as those who do.
Analysts say there don't appear to be any rules that would bar such transactions after a president takes office, but it's unclear whether an incoming or sitting president has ever signed a book deal upon entering the White House.
"I don't recall any sitting president entering into a book deal," said campaign finance lawyer Jan Baran, former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "They all have historically done that after they leave office.
The half a million comes on top of millions that he's received in royalties from both of his current books.