Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
2 novembre 2008 7 02 /11 /novembre /2008 23:44

Democrats Disgrace Themselves in Ohio

Party officials attack Iraq War vets in closely-watched congressional races.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/democrats-disgrace-themselves-in-ohio/

As most attention on the battleground state of Ohio has been focused on the presidential race, the battle for control of the statehouse and Congress has flared up in the Buckeye State.

But in two particular races featuring Republican candidates who are Iraq War veterans, the Democratic Party apparatus and their left-wing allies have launched vicious attacks incredibly questioning their commitment to serve the people.

On Monday, journalist Joel Mowbray published an article looking at the state representative race between Republican incumbent Josh Mandel and Democrat Bob Belovich. Mandel won the Ohio 17th seat in November 2006 in a longshot bid in a heavily Democratic district, but he had to take a leave of absence from the legislature when he was called up for a second tour in Iraq, which he completed earlier this year.

According to Mowbray’s research, Belovich has openly criticized Mandel for his military service during the legislative term, with his wife, Barbara, saying publicly that Mandel “went AWOL” on his constituents by returning to Iraq. Mowbray also reports that an audio clip of the Democratic couple revealed that attacking Mandel for his military service was a critical component to their election strategy:

At a Progressive Majority event in Cleveland this July, Mr. and Mrs. Belovich laid out their campaign blueprint for defeating Mandel. “[Mandel] feels that his obligation to George Bush is stronger than his, you know, his obligation to the people in the 17th District,” Barbara Belovich said.

To make matters worse, Bob Belovich added that Mandel was elected in 2006 because of his “blue sign” and his “Jewish name.” When Mowbray spoke with Belovich, he defended his openly anti-Semitic remarks by launching into a five-minute diatribe about the voting habits of Jewish voters in his district.

But Democratic Party officials haven’t limited their attacks on Iraq veterans to statehouse races. In one of the most closely watched congressional races nationally in the Ohio 15th District, Republican Steve Stivers and Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy are squaring off to replace retiring Rep. Deborah Pryce, a Republican. In the 2006 cycle, Kilroy barely lost her bid to knock off Pryce in an election year when Democrats surged in Ohio.

To help buoy Kilroy’s chances, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has poured mountains of cash — $280,000 in just the past two weeks and another $600,000 reserved for this last week alone — into the race to flip the Ohio 15th seat from red to blue. The DCCC is running television ads attacking Stivers, telling voters that the current state senator is “not on your side” — a claim that flies in the face of Stivers’ 23-year military service in the Ohio Army National Guard (where he currently holds the rank of lieutenant colonel), including a one-year tour in Iraq where he was awarded a Bronze Star.

The DCCC and Kilroy attack ads turned so vicious that Stivers had to respond with a campaign commercial highlighting his military service and featuring those who had served under his command. Currently only one Iraq or Afghanistan War vet, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), is serving in the U.S. Congress, and the number of vets overall in both the House and Senate is declining rapidly.

Stivers has also responded to the DCCC and Kilroy’s attack ads by pointing out exactly whose side Mary Jo Kilroy is on during her tenure as Franklin County commissioner. Having taken a “no new taxes” pledge in the 2004 election, Kilroy was no sooner in office than she voted for a $200 million tax increase on Franklin County families.

And as the Columbus Dispatch noted in its endorsement of Stivers, recognizing his distinguished military service, the editors pointed to Kilroy’s gross mismanagement as county commissioner and her willingness to put her own political ambitions and her corrupt union boss campaign backers ahead of Franklin County taxpayers:

Kilroy, who lost a race for the 15th District seat two years ago, lacks Stivers’ legislative experience, but perhaps even more important, she has shown that personal political ambition is more important to her than the public interest. This is demonstrated by her use of the county’s Quality Contracting Standards to reject nonunion bidders on county construction projects and to steer contracts to union contractors to reward her labor supporters. In one case, Kilroy rejected an Ohio low-bidder in favor of an out-of-state union contractor that previously had been fined $23,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for four serious safety violations related to an accident that killed a worker in 2006. The same company also failed to pay an employee’s pension while he served in Iraq, and the company’s former president was sent to jail for tax evasion.

As the Dispatch reported back in July, Kilroy had voted for an out-of-state contractor and rejected a lower bid from an in-state firm to reward union bosses for their support for her congressional campaign.

When it comes to supporting veterans, Mary Jo Kilroy has promised to look out for their interests, but hasn’t bothered to offer any specific details on what she will do if voters send her to Congress. Steve Stivers, on the other hand, has laid out specific goals to improve the education, health care, and jobs for those returning home from combat and all veterans who have honorably served their country.

With with just days left before the election, it’s clear that Democrats are desperate to win Ohio for Obama and the rest of their ticket, and are willing to do or say whatever it takes, no matter how outrageous or untrue, to get elected. But in attacking Iraq War veterans who have served with honor and distinction, Democrats have not only hit rock bottom in the Buckeye State, but they continue to dig.

Partager cet article
Repost0
2 novembre 2008 7 02 /11 /novembre /2008 18:51
Le jeune Obama, à Columbia, a ingéré la doctrine de deux maîtres en matière de "politique étrangère" au Moyen-Orient : les Palestinistes Edward Saïd et Rashid Khalidi (ancien porte-parole de l'OLP). On n'a pas besoin d'une forte dose d'imagination pour comprendre de quelle façon sera dangereusement orientée sa "politique étrangère"...
Obama's Middle East Studies Mentors [on Rashid Khalidi]

by Cinnamon Stillwell
The American Thinker
November 2, 2008
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6119
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/obamas_middle_east_studies_men.html

When voters go to the polls on November 4th, they will choose not only a new presidential administration, but also the candidate's circles of influence. In the case of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, this includes Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

Much of the scrutiny surrounding Obama's long list of objectionable and radical alliances has focused on Khalidi, and with good reason. Despite Khalidi's claims to the contrary, facts indicate that he was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it was listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. (Khalidi's wife Mona also worked for the PLO's press agency, Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija, or WAFA, during that time and like her husband, is now at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs).

Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, writing for Campus Watch in 2004, point to a June 9, 1982, Thomas L. Friedman column in the New York Times describing Khalidi as "a director of the Palestinian press agency." The salient section of the Friedman column can be viewed at Middle East studies scholar Martin Kramer's Sandbox weblog, along with information on Khalidi's involvement in the 1991 Madrid peace talks. According to Kramer, Khalidi "belonged to a six-person advisory panel which came to Madrid precisely to serve as a conduit between the official delegation and the PLO." Citing an October 23, 1991, New York Times article listing Khalidi as a member of this panel, Kramer notes that "the Israeli government was not all pleased with this addition." Finally, Kramer points to a February 19, 1978, New York Times article in which Khalidi is described as "an American-educated Palestinian who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut and also works for the P.L.O." It's unlikely that, as Khalidi contends, these were all errors of attribution.

Khalidi certainly seems comfortable with the type of anti-Israel, anti-American propaganda the PLO and its allies peddle. In a January 27, 2003, article titled, "Attack Iraq?" in In These Times, he wrote the following:

...this war will be fought because these neoconservatives desire to make the Middle East safe not for democracy, but for Israeli hegemony. They are convinced that the Middle East is irremediably hostile to both the United States and Israel; and they firmly hold the racist view that Middle Easterners understand only force. For these American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts, sad to say, the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend: It enabled them to draft the United States to help fight Israel's enemies.

Such rhetoric hardly inspires confidence in Khalidi's teaching abilities, but his academic career has not suffered for it. Before his current position at Columbia, Khalidi taught political studies at the American University of Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s and then went on to become a professor at the University of Chicago from 1987 to 2003. It was there that Khalidi befriended Obama and launched a series of mutually beneficial dealings.

The Arab American Action Network (AAAN), a Chicago nonprofit with decidedly anti-Israel leanings that was founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi, sponsored a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid in 2000. In turn, the Woods Fund, a nonprofit whose board included both Obama and Weatherman-terrorist-turned-education-professor Bill Ayers, provided grants totaling $75,000 to AAAN over 2001-2002. At a farewell bash thrown by AAAN to celebrate Khalidi's move to Columbia University in 2003, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, was one of his most vocal supporters. During Obama's speech, he recalled his many dinners at the Khalidi home, the "conversations that had challenged his thinking," and his hope "that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation."

Nonetheless, Obama has tried to downplay his relationship with Khalidi. But the facts speak for themselves: Khalidi and Obama have far more than just a passing acquaintance. Khalidi's cousin, Tarif Khalidi, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the American University of Beirut, put it plainly: "Obama was a very good friend of Rashid."

The alliance between Obama and Khalidi makes perfect sense if seen in light of Obama's education at Columbia University during the 1980s. Although Obama refuses to release any information from that period, we know that he studied under the late Columbia professor and post-colonialist icon Edward Said. A 1998 photo of the Obamas and the Saids dining together at an event for the local Arab-American community at which Said gave the keynote address, suggests a continuing relationship. Not coincidentally, Khalidi was an intellectual follower of Said and now holds the chair at Columbia named for him. It's hard to imagine that Obama emerged from this triangular association without being influenced ideologically by these radical mentors.

Despite pandering to pro-Israel and pro-American sentiment-depending on the audience-Obama's tutelage under Middle East studies professors who view America and Israel as imperialist powers responsible for virtually every shortcoming and failure in the Muslim world, including radical Islam, demonstrates quite the opposite. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to deduce that Obama's foreign policies would do the same.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Related Items
Partager cet article
Repost0
1 novembre 2008 6 01 /11 /novembre /2008 10:20
In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias  
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 31, 2008

 

During the 2008 presidential election, even center-left observers have noted the unmistakable bias of the prestige news media toward Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party in general. As we shall reveal, the bias of the media is pervasive, ideologically motivated, and quantifiable: that is, it has been admitted, measured, and analyzed in statistical terms. Those results reveal a media doggedly out-of-touch with the political center and tilted decidedly leftward.

 

One of the most striking aspects of the current presidential campaign is the news media’s assault on Sarah Palin. The Republican vice presidential candidate has been portrayed as a ditzy know-nothing; a Christian fanatic who uses her office to vengefully carry out personal vendettas and who may even have faked her motherhood of her son Trig. From the media coverage of Palin, readers and viewers would never know that she effectively ran an important state, or that she had the highest voter-approval ratings of any governor in the U.S.

But the double standards of the media in their election coverage are as striking as their bias. Scant attention has been paid to the litany of idiocies that have flowed from the tongue of Palin’s vice-presidential opponent, Joe Biden. Some lowlights include the following:

 

a)  Biden exhorted a wheelchair-bound state senator at a Missouri campaign rally to stand up and take a bow;

b)  He told interviewer Katie Couric that in times of crisis, it was incumbent upon the U.S president “to demonstrate that he or she knows what they are talking about,” in the tradition of President FDR, whom he said “got on the television” to allay Americans’ fears “when the stock market crashed” in 1929. Of course, Herbert Hoover was president at the time (FDR would not take office until early 1933), and TV would not be introduced to the public until 1939;

c)  At a pair of October fundraisers, Biden advised supporters to “gird your loins” because, within six months after Barack Obama’s inauguration, an adversary somewhere in the world would undoubtedly manufacture a “crisis” in order to “test” the young president “like they did John Kennedy”;

d)  During his debate with Sarah Palin, Biden stated authoritatively: “Vice President Cheney…doesn’t realize that Article One of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that’s the executive – he works in the executive branch. He should understand that.” But in fact, Article One of the Constitution defines the role of the legislative branch of government, not the executive branch; and

e)  At a recent campaign appearance, Biden said that John McCain’s “last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-1 job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack [Obama] says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S.”

 

None of these gaffes are important. But neither is Gov. Palin’s wardrobe. And unlike her new clothes, Biden’s slips – like the reporting of his infamous plagiarism of a speech by British Labor leader Neil Kinnock in his abortive 1988 presidential run, a plagiarism so thorough that it resembled identity theft – received little mention in the mainstream media.

To understand why this is so, we need only to look at the
many major studies of the media which have been conducted over the past three decades. These studies have pointed, with remarkable consistency, to a single, unmistakable, overriding reality: The professionals who constitute America’s mainstream news media – the reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines, radio networks, and television networks – are leftists and Democrats in far greater numbers than they are conservatives or Republicans. These studies have of course excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists – all of whom make it quite clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it. Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the various relevant facts and perspectives – and to leave the task of analyzing the information to the readers, listeners, and viewers.

But the American news media no longer serve this function. Instead they have been transformed – by virtue of the one-sided, passionately partisan worldview shared by editors and reporters alike – into mouthpieces of the political Left. And their biases are all the more insidious because they present themselves as unbiased reporters. Those biases have been in place for several decades, but have never been more pronounced than they are in this election cycle.

A useful way of understanding the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that field believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. Let us look at some of the major findings of the research exploring those beliefs:[1]

  • Between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals have consistently deemed themselves pro-choice on the matter of abortion. More than half of the respondents said that abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances, including the late-term procedure commonly known as Partial Birth Abortion, where the abortionist punctures a living baby’s skull and suctions out its brain before the infant’s head passes from the birth canal. Only 4 percent of journalists said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.[2]
  • Fully 81 percent of news media professionals favor affirmative action in business and academia.[3]
  • More than half of respondents said that adultery could be acceptable under certain circumstances; only 15 percent said it was always wrong.[4]
  • Between 67 and 76 percent were opposed to prayer being permitted in public schools.[5]
  • Some 71 percent agreed that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.”[6]
  • 75 percent agreed that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”[7]
  • 56 percent said that the United States exploited the nations of the Third World.[8]
  • Three-fourths disagreed with the notion that the West, on balance, had been helpful to the Third World.[9]
  • 57 percent said that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources was “immoral.”[10]
  • Nearly half agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.”[11]
  • Only 30 percent agreed that “private enterprise is fair to workers.”[12]
  • Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.[13]
  • 78 percent said the use of torture was rarely or never justified in dealing with suspected terrorists.[14]
  • In the 1980s, 84 percent of journalists supported the nuclear freeze movement, which would have frozen military superiority in place for the Soviets; 80 percent opposed increased defense spending by the United States; and three-fourths opposed U.S. aid to the Contras, who were fighting the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.[15]
  • In 1996, 59 percent of journalists dismissed the Republican Party’s 1994 Contract with America as “an election-year campaign ploy,” while only 3 percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”[16]


It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:

  • In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
  • In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
  • In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
  • In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
  • In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
  • In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
  • In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
  • In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
  • Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
  • All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
  • In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
  • In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28]
  • In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
  • A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.[30]


These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. As the longtime CBS News reporter (and author of the 2002 book Bias) Bernard Goldberg puts it: “They love diversity in the newsroom. That’s what they say, anyway. They love diversity of color, diversity of gender, diversity of sexual orientation. But God forbid someone in their diverse newsroom has a diverse view about how the news ought to be presented.”[31] Goldberg adds, “[I]f long ago we came to the conclusion that newsrooms with too many white men were a bad idea because all we got was the white male perspective, then why isn’t it just as bad to have so many liberals dominating the culture of the newsroom?”[32]

The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:

  • In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.[33]
  • In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.[34]
  • In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.[35]
  • In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.[36]


We see precisely the same ratios in studies where news people are asked rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum.

  • In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65 percent identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.[37]
  • In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32 percent identified themselves as liberals, 11 percent as conservatives.[38]
  • In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44 percent identified themselves as liberals, 22 percent as conservatives.[39]
  • In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61 percent identified themselves as liberals, 9 percent as conservatives.[40]
  • In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.[41]
  • In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[42]
  • In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.[43]
  • In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[44]
  • In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[45]
  • In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.[46]


When the media report on various issues, they invariably interview, quote, or cite the positions of think tanks and policy groups whose views they deem authoritative, or at least worthy of consideration. If left-wing bias were pervasive, we would expect to find that America’s leading media outlets cited, with disproportionate frequency, the reports, publications, and statements issued by think tanks and policy groups whose political leanings were left-of-center.

 

And indeed we find precisely that.

 

The most comprehensive investigation of this subject, completed in 2004, found that such outlets cited the views of liberal/leftist organizations at fully 3 times the rate of conservative groups.[47]

In 1990, a similar landmark study had been conducted examining the political leanings of the individuals, rather than the organizations, who were most often cited or quoted as experts on various topics in the news. It was found that on the subject of welfare and related issues, liberal experts were quoted 75 percent of the time, conservatives 22 percent. On consumer issues, the liberal-conservative ratio was 63 percent to 22 percent. On environmental issues, the ratio was 79 percent to 18 percent. And regarding nuclear energy, the ratio was 77 percent to 20 percent.[48]

Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies. Instances like former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair’s premeditated fabrications and plagiarisms are rare. Rather, media bias is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.”

By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Bernard Goldberg explains:
“No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.”[49]

And why does it come so naturally? According to Goldberg: “A lot of newspeople…got into journalism in the first place so they could change the world and make it a better place,” and to use their position as reporters as a platform from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.”[50]

Expanding upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said, “Increasingly, journalists see themselves as society’s designated saviors,”[51] whose mission is to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.”[52] Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do. Save the world.”[53]

Bernard Goldberg asks some vitally important questions about the degree to which media bias affects the content and the tenor of the news Americans receive. The answers are self-evident:

 

Do we really think that if the media elites…were overwhelmingly social conservatives instead of liberals…that the evening newscasts would fundamentally be the same? Sure, they’d still cover tornadoes and plane crashes pretty much the same way, but do we really think they’d cover abortion and affirmative action and gay rights the same way? Or would their conservatism, reinforced by their surroundings, their friends and neighbors…influence how they see the world and how they report the news?[54]

 

Had Sarah Palin, rather than Joe Biden, made any of the previously cited gaffes, errors, or dire predictions, the news media would have depicted her – even more thoroughly than they already have – as an incompetent moron, a ticking time-bomb, and everything else in between. This is to say nothing of how the late-night TV comics, who have had a field day poking fun at Palin and McCain, would have reacted. A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs actually counted the number of jokes which Jay Leno and David Letterman told about the four major candidates during the five weeks immediately following McCain’s announcement that Palin would be his running mate. The totals: 180 jokes about Palin and 106 about McCain, compared to 16 jokes about Biden and 26 about Obama.[55]

Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about the distortion our media have unleashed on the American public and the disabling impact it has on national discourse.


 

[1] Summaries and analyses of most of the research cited in this article can be accessed from the Media Research Center, which does an outstanding job of documenting media bias and its many ramifications.

[2] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS; Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, as published in the National Federation for Decency’s Journal; Indiana University journalism professors David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 newspaper, magazine, television, and radio journalists; Stanley Rothman and Amy Black’s 1995 study of the media elite.

[3] Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.

[4] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.; Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study, Op. cit.

[5] Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters from 30 major publications.

[6] Stanley Rothman and Amy Black’s 1995 study of the media elite.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.; David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.; Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists from newspapers, television, magazines, radio, and Internet; Pew Research Center’s 2008 survey of 222 journalists and news executives.

[14] Pew Research Center / Council on Foreign Relations 2005 study of 72 top journalists.

[15] Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.

[16] 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich, titled “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.”

[17] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] California State University survey of reporters from the 50 largest U.S. newspapers.

[22] Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.

[23] U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents.

[24] Ibid.

[25] 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.

[26] U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents, Op. cit.

[27] New York Times columnist John Tierney’s 2004 survey of 153 campaign journalists covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.

[28] University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide.

[29] MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman’s study of the campaign contributions of 144 journalists.

[30] William Tate’s July 2008 report in Investor’s Business Daily.

[31] Bernard Goldberg, Bias (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002), p. 32.

[32] Ibid., p. 121.

[33] Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters, Op. cit.

[34] David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.

[35] American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes nationwide.

[36] Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public.

[37] Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.

[38] David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1982-83 study of more than 1,000 reporters, executives, and staffers nationwide.

[39] David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.

[40] 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.

[41] American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey, Op. cit.

[42] Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public, Op. cit.

[43] Pew Research Center 2004 poll of 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets.

[44] University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide, Op. cit.

[45] Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists, Op. cit.

[46] Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets.

[47] Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, “A Measure of Media Bias,” 2004.

[48] Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power Brokers (New York: Hastings House, 1990).

[49] Bernard Goldberg, Bias, p. 13.

[50] Ibid., p. 68.

[51] Ibid., p. 69.

[52] Ibid., p. 71.

[53] Ibid., p. 213.

[54] Ibid., pp. 119-120.

[55] Jennifer Lawinski, “Late-Night Comics Skewer Republicans 7-to-1, Study Finds,” Fox News (October 16, 2008).

Partager cet article
Repost0
31 octobre 2008 5 31 /10 /octobre /2008 18:59

This Is the Khalidi Obama Embraced

Shocking video from a Rashid Khalidi lecture shows why the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama.


Many others have surmised that the Los Angeles Times is running interference for Barack Obama, declining not just to provide the tape of the Rashid Khalidi goodbye event which Obama attended in 2003, but a complete transcript. It is reasonable to ask what could have been so bad about the event. What could possibly have been so objectionable about the speeches or proceedings that might concern voters at this late date?

Well, the original Times report gives us only the sketchiest account. But now we have a video of a complete Khalidi lecture from June 2007. It is quite an eye-opener.

Viewers curious about the views of the man whom in 2003 Obama gave a “warm embrace” (physically or verbally?) should skip to the fifty-minute mark on the video tape. You see, Khalidi tells us, the U.S. is repeating the same error of the Cold War in pursuing its war against Islamic terrorists. According to Khalidi it is the same “blind, foolish, reductionism.” And the U.S. policy is designed according to Khalidi to “get Palestinians to destroy one another.” And on it goes.

His view of Israel? It is worse than “apartheid.” Continue to the end of the tape when he is asked about the massive Israeli media conspiracy headed by none other than Mortimer Zuckerman. He doesn’t quite buy into that, but his description of American Jews who control the money and votes to manipulate Congress sounds an awful lot like Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israeli Lobby.” Or General Tony McPeak for that matter.

So it would be very interesting to see precisely what Khalidi said in Obama’s presence four years earlier. Was the rhetoric above the sort of language which preceded the warm words of praise from Barack Obama? The specifics matter, the context is crucial.

Obama claims he was never present for the anti-American and anti-Israeli rants of Reverend Wright. But he was there for a tribute to Khalidi, and voters should have the right to know if he sat impassively when Israel was vilified or if he seemed concerned when, as the Times tells us, “a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel.” (According to the Times, “If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”)  Did he seem concerned when “One speaker likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been ‘blinded by ideology’”? We don’t know. The Times won’t tell us.

But we should know. Obama has presented a certain face to the voters and we should see if it matches up to the face he showed others before he imagined anyone outside his circle of like-minded comrades might take particular notice.

On PJTV: Roger Simon interviews Ben Shapiro, one of those demonstrating outside the LA Times demanding release of the Obama/Khalidi video.


Partager cet article
Repost0
30 octobre 2008 4 30 /10 /octobre /2008 23:59

Après avoir mis la main sur les opérations de Lehman USA, Barclays prend le contrôle de Lehman Israël.

Lehman était implanté en Israël depuis plus de 40 ans et disposait d’une réputation solide. Lehman Israël était devenu le n°1 dans le secteur des fusions & acquisitions sur le territoire israélien.

Barclays Capital, filiale du 2nd groupe bancaire britannique, va donc acquérir les activités Lehman en Israël. La banque Barclays avait des opérations en Israël par le passé, mais avait quitté le pays en 1993.

Les équipes de Lehman Israel étaient composées d’environ 70 personnes qui s’étaient vues notifier leur licenciement le fameux “black Sunday” du 14 septembre 2008. Lehman Israël fonctionnait donc indépendamment depuis 1 mois, et attisait les convoitises. La mise en faillite de Lehman, la plus grosse erreur du Secrétaire au Trésor Hank Paulson, avait précipité les marchés boursiers de la planète dans les abysses.

Parmi les grandes opérations gérées par Lehman Israël, on retrouve dernièrement le rachat pour 7,6 milliards de $ de Barr Pharmaceuticals par le leader mondial des médicaments génériques, l’Israélien TEVA.

Len Rosen, Directeur de Lehman Israel confirme avoir réalisé l’essentiel des grandes opérations de fusions en Israël, dont 3 des 4 plus grandes de l’Histoire d’Israël.—

Partager cet article
Repost0
30 octobre 2008 4 30 /10 /octobre /2008 23:32

Ex-CIA Expert: Obama Took Millions in Illegal Foreign Donations




A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

Rustmann and his investigative team expressed “high suspicions” that 118 donors flagged as “red” were not U.S. citizens.

“That’s all we can say for certain, because it’s difficult to prove citizenship with no database that lists citizens,” Rustmann said.

Typical is Victor A. of Lagos, Nigeria, who gave $500 to the campaign in May. In the FEC database, his address is listed as Ikoyi, NA. But a closer look at the actual itemized receipts filed by the campaign shows that he declared his address as 9e Awori Street Dolphin Estate, Lagos, Nigeria.

That apparently slipped by the eagle eyes of the Obama campaign’s finance team.

A survey of the Obama donor base returns 8,794 donations from individuals who gave their state as “NA.” They included donors from Bangalore, India; London; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Lagos, Nigeria; and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Thousands more gave state abbreviations that, combined with the city addresses they listed, clearly referred to foreign countries. Examples include IT (Italy), FR (France), GR (Greece), NZ (New Zealand), JP (Japan), GA (Gaza).

Another 2,372 donors gave their state of residence as “ZZ,” with cities including Moscow, Barcelona, Beirut, London, Lausanne, Singapore, Hagatna, Gunma-Ken, Buelach, Shanghai, Geneva, Prague, Aichi-Gun, Kiev, Hong Kong, and others.

The Obama campaign claims that these donors with overseas addresses are Americans living abroad, but there is no way of knowing that for certain because the campaign has not systematically required proof of citizenship from overseas donors.

The pace of foreign donations and other questionable fundraising practices has increased during the past few weeks, even as Obama campaign spokesmen say they have closed loopholes on their Web site and changed the credit-card authorization procedures that have allowed such donations. The Federal Election Commission had flagged 16,639 potential foreign donations as of Oct. 21 that brought in $5,249,263.96 to the campaign.

Take the case of Jo Jacquet, who gave $23,065 to Obama in 23 separate contributions last month. CTC found three people with variations of the name “Jo Anna Jacquet” who had U.S. addresses and Social Security numbers. It is not clear whether this specific Obama donor is a U.S. citizen.

“Jo Jacquet” made all of her contributions on two days, alternating between $5 and $2,300 charges to a credit card.

On all of the donations, she gave her employer as “DFDFGDFG,” and her profession as “DFGDFGDFGHFGH.” None of this attracted the suspicions of the Obama campaign or of Chase Paymentech, the company that processes the Obama campaign’s credit card donations.

The FEC requested that the Obama campaign re-attribute or re-designate all of the money from “Jo Jacquet” that went beyond the $4,600 limit but did not require that it be refunded. Under campaign finance rules, the campaign can shift this money into the “Obama Victory” account, a joint fundraising committee with much higher individual limits that it operates with the Democratic National Committee.

One apparent reason for the unusual number of foreign donors who may not hold U.S. citizenship is the fact the Obama campaign turned off the security features most merchants demand for customers when doing online transactions, such as verifying the card number against the cardholder’s name and billing address.

Another major loophole is the apparent widespread use of gift cards, which notoriously have been used for money-laundering purposes, especially in places such as Russia and Ukraine, industry security analysts tell Newsmax.

Newsmax asked James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, who was responsible for taking the unusual step of deactivating the Address Verification Service recommended by VISA USA on the Obama Web site. Such security features can be deactivated by the processing company, or at the request of the merchant, in this case, Obama for America.

Wester said that Paymentech was “not going to be issuing a statement at this time.”

VISA USA has a series of verification tools it recommends to online merchants to prevent online credit card fraud and to guarantee the security of personal credit-card information.

“Fraudsters have been known to test credit card numbers by making online donations to charitable organizations,” a credit-card industry insider told Newsmax, on condition of anonymity.

In fact, by operating as a “high-risk merchant,” the Obama campaign could put both its donors and Chase Paymentech at risk, he said.

“A legitimate online merchant or charity would call in the Secret Service or the FBI” if it saw the high fraud rates that have appeared on the Obama campaign Web site.

“If they are not taking basic security safeguards to prevent such obvious online fraud as you have found, then how can any donor have confidence that they will protect credit card information? But if cash flow is the name of the game, it doesn’t matter as long as they get the money up-front and get the job done. They can pay the fines later,” he added.

Following are a few of the individuals the Newsmax/CTC International investigation found of overseas donors. To demonstrate its compliance with FEC regulations, the Obama campaign should request proof that these individuals are, indeed, U.S. citizens;

  • Nasser Z. of 187 Blvd Bineau in Paris-France, “NA,” made seven donations totaling $785. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship. But on Nasser’s personal blog, he states that he is of Algerian origin and lives between Paris and Dubai. He also notes that he is not registered to vote in the United States and hints that he may be an adviser to the Obama campaign on Arab relations.
  • Salem H. gave $200 to the campaign in March 2008, listing a London address. He said he worked as a salesman for “Anaka,” No information was found either on Haffar or his company indicating U.S. citizenship.
  • Essomba H. made 11 donations totaling $265. Essomba gave an address in Lyon, “NA,” and said he was unemployed but working for “Association,” the French equivalent of a community organizer. CTC found that Essomba actually worked for PDT Associates Afrikespace et Oyenga, which showed him as living in Lyon, France. His personal blog states, "I'm a Cameroonian living in France” and notes that he is not registered to vote.
  • Gedewon (or Gideon) G. made 32 donations totaling $1,095. Although he lists his employer as “Filtom Design Services” and his residence as Toronto, Canada, CTC could find no company with that name. Gedewon frequently posts blogs to a Web site for expatriate Eritreans, where he often promotes Obama.
  • Mahamane M. gave $500 to the campaign and listed his address as Niamey, the capitol of the central African state of Niger. He listed his occupation as managing director of C.N.U.T. Niger. The Public Transport Users Council, CNUT is affiliated with the prime minister’s office. In an interview, Mahamane said he is particularly interested in developing transportation resources that will help bring Niger’s extensive uranium resources to market.
  • Gilles M. lives in Zurich and claims to be “founder and senior consultant” of 4?ME (sic) Image Consulting. Gilles made three donations to the campaign for a total of $240.39. The campaign found him suspicious enough to return one of them in July, but kept the rest. Under FEC rules, that will bring Gilles back into the shadows, since his aggregate contributions now total less than $200.
  • Stamen S. of Sofia, Bulgaria, lists his profession as “Mployer” and his employer as "Employer." He has made ten donations totaling $170. CTC found no record indicating U.S. citizenship.
  • Francis B. . of La Creche, France, made three donations totaling $200. He is reported as being a medicine physician at Hospital-Niort and is listed. CTC found no verifiable record of U.S. citizenship.
  • Pedro M.,. who said he was a salesman for Intermundo in Prague, made two donations for a total of $900. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
  • Sandeep M., . an investment manager at Clariden Leu, Kuesnacht, in Zurich, Switzerland, gave the maximum $2,300 allowed per election. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
  • Marissa M., . a nurse living in Guatemala City, gave eight $25 donations. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.
  • Somine L. . declared that she worked at the French Ministry of Culture in Paris, and donated $100. CTC found no verifiable record indicating U.S. citizenship.

Although CTC had no way of accurately evaluating the real amount of foreign donations based on the survey they did for Newsmax, Rustmann said he believe that the anecdotal evidence was clear.

“In my opinion, from what I have seen here, millions of dollars came from illegal donations, because the Obama campaign did little to vet the donors,” Rustmann said.

An earlier Newsmax estimate, based on the unusual occurrence of unrounded contributions, which fundraising experts attributed to foreign currency donations, concluded that as much as $63 million could have come from foreign sources.

A veteran investigator with the Criminal Investigative Division of the U.S. Secret Service told Newsmax on Monday that most of the donor fraud Newsmax has identified could fly under the radar of federal investigators, unless the feds received a complaint from a victim of identify fraud.

Identify fraud certainly appeared to be the case when it came to the $174,800 donated in September in the name of Manchester, Mo., resident, Mary T. Biskup. A retired insurance manager, Biksup told The Washington Post that she never gave the money to the Obama campaign, and had checked her credit-card statements and couldn’t find any trace of a charge to her account.

“We're not out a penny," Biskup said. "I gather that someone has hacked into something using other people's credit cards and putting my name on it."

The credit-card industry often covers up identify fraud, such as apparently occurred with Biskup. Credit-card companies would rather swallow losses and chargebacks than admit to consumers that criminals have cracked their security systems, insiders tell Newsmax.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 octobre 2008 3 29 /10 /octobre /2008 23:57
Version imprimable
Obama courtise une communauté arabe de plus en plus acquise à sa cause

http://www.wabayn.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2244&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=9
Version imprimable
29-10-2008
Dans toute élection, chaque voix compte car, comme dit le proverbe québécois, "on ne fait pas d’élection avec des prières".

Le candidat démocrate, Barack Obama l’a bien compris à une semaine de l’élection présidentielle du 4 novembre prochain. Et pour cause. Il est allé courtiser la communauté Arabo-américaine à travers un enregistrement vidéo lors d’une téléconférence mardi à Washington et postée immédiatement sur le fameux site Youtube.

D’emblée, le candidat démocrate s’est dit "tellement heureux" du soutien des Arabes américains. "La diversité de l’Amérique est une source de force et votre communauté a tellement contribué à faire de l’Amérique un grand pays", a déclaré un Obama en costume cravate et souriant.

Un clin d’œil pour cette communauté même si elle ne représente qu’un petit pourcentage mais qui pourrait faire la différence le jour J. Les Arabes- Américains au Michigan par exemple représentent à peu près 5 pc de l’électorat de cet Etat, contre 2 pc en Virginie et dans l’Ohio.

Dans sa brève allocution, le candidat démocrate est allé droit au but en faisant siennes les préoccupations des arabes à commencer par l’inévitable et épineuse question irakienne. Là-dessus, Obama promet sans ambages qu’une fois élu, les GIs devront boucler leurs valises et rentrer illico at home.

"Nous connaissons tous les coûts de la guerre en Irak, une guerre à laquelle je me suis opposé dès le début et à une époque où c’était impopulaire d’agir ainsi ", a-t-il dit, avant d’affirmer: "Je commencerai alors à rappeler nos troupes immédiatement".

Il s’est, au passage, engagé à aider les irakiens déplacés à rentrer chez eux et à accorder le droit d’asile à tous ceux qui craindraient pour leur vie à cause de leur lien direct ou indirect avec les Etats-Unis. Nul doute qu’ils seront nombreux.

Les mauvaises langues diront peut être que ce genre de discours est destiné à une consommation arabe. Mais la vérité est que le candidat démocrate, que certains partisans membres du parti de l’Eléphant n’ont pas hésité à surnommer "Barack Hussein Obama", a toujours crié urbi et orbi que les Etats-Unis s’étaient trompés de destination et d’objectif en envahissant l’Irak, s’attirant ainsi les foudres des républicains ou du moins ceux inspirés par leur candidat John Mccain.

Cet ancien vétéran de la guerre du Vietnam n’a pas caché, tout au long de sa campagne, son opposition à tout retrait américain d’Irak et son ambition d’en découdre même avec les voisins de ce pays, en particulier l’Iran.

Sur ce point, Obama, toujours conséquent avec lui-même, a déclaré dans son allocution, que sa politique étrangère "inclurait une diplomatie forte et de principe avec les voisins de l’Irak", allusion au dialogue avec ce que l’Administration Bush qualifie d’"Axe du mal".
Il s’est également engagé à soutenir un "Liban fort et sécurisé vivant en paix avec ses voisins" et à oeuvrer pour mettre fin au conflit israélo-palestinien et à réaliser l’objectif de deux Etats vivant côte à côte en paix et en sécurité.

"Ceci est important pour les Arabes-américains, pour les juifs-américains et pour moi-même", a affirmé le candidat démocrate car, selon lui, "si nous voulons que l’Amérique soit un phare moral pour le monde, nous devons donner le meilleur exemple ici, chez nous".

Obama s’est en outre engagé à bannir "le système du profiling racial" qui vise surtout les personnes d’origine arabe, appliqué dans les aéroports notamment, et dénoncé par les militants des droits de l’homme.

Le candidat démocrate a conclu en s’adressant à la classe moyenne lui promettant des réductions d’impôts, un autre clin d’œil aux Arabes-américains qui, si l’on en croit les sondages le lui rendent si bien.

En effet, selon un sondage publié mardi à Washington par Zogby International pour le compte de l’Arab American Institute, l’avance de Barack Obama sur son rival John McCain a presque doublé depuis septembre dernier.

Le sondage montre par ailleurs que l’économie constitue l’une des préoccupations majeures de cette communauté dont les deux tiers, selon Zogby International, sont affectés par la crise économique actuelle.

Ainsi, si l’élection présidentielle devait se tenir aujourd’hui, Barack Obama serait crédité de 68 pc d’intentions de vote des Arabes-américains contre seulement 24 pc pour McCain et 7 pc pour le candidat Independent d’origine arabe, Ralph Nader.

Selon le Dr. James Zogby, Président de l’Arab American Institute, "une combinaison de facteurs montre non seulement une grande victoire pour Obama parmi les électeurs Arabes américains mais également une augmentation importante du nombre de ces derniers qui s’identifient à présent aux démocrates".

A titre de comparaison, en 2000, le vote Arabe- américain dans son ensemble était de 44 pc pour Bush, 38 pc pour Al Gore et 13 pc pour Nader, alors qu’en 2004, il était de 63 pc pour Kerry, 28 pc pour Bush et 8 pc pour Nader.

Le réalisateur grec Constantin Costa-Gavras disait bien que "la politique ne se résume pas au choix d’un candidat aux élections, c’est une manière de vivre". Pour les électeurs Arabes- américains, c’est la manière Obama qu’ils comptent choisir, contrairement au désormais fameux Joe le plombier qui, lui, a choisi la manière McCain-Palin, c’est du moins ce qu’il a annoncé lors d’une conférence de presse "tant attendue" mardi.

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 octobre 2008 3 29 /10 /octobre /2008 23:21
Obama's Mansion, Saddam's Money

by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
October 29, 2008
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5996

Send Comment RSS Share:    

Barack Obama appears to have personally benefited from funds originating in Saddam Hussein's regime. It's a complicated connection, but one that deserves the consideration of Americans voters.

Nadhmi Auchi (left) with Illinois' governor, Rod Blagojevich, in 2004.

Two similar figures, Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin S. "Tony" Rezko, served as the intermediaries. Both are Middle Eastern males of Catholic Christian heritage who left Baathist dictatorships for Western cities (Auchi from Iraq to London, Rezko from Syria to Chicago). Both became successful businessmen who hobnobbed with politicians and promoted Arab interests. Both have been convicted of taking kickbacks and both stand accused of other shady dealings.

Auchi, born in 1937, is the more successful. When young, he joined Saddam in the Baath Party. He founded his main financial instrument, the General Mediterranean Holding SA in 1979 – revealingly, while still in Iraq. A year later, he emigrated to the United Kingdom. GMHSA now describes itself as a diverse group of 120 companies with consolidated assets of over US$4.2 billion. The Sunday Times (London) recently estimated Auchi's personal wealth at £2.15 billion, making him the 27th richest person in Britain. He garnered many honors along the way.

On the dark side, a French court in 2003 convicted Auchi of taking kickbacks in the Elf Affair and handed down a suspended jail sentence and fine. One analyst, Hector Igbikiowubo, calls this "probably the biggest political and corporate sleaze scandal to hit a western democracy since World War II." Also in 2003, one of Auchi's firms was accused of taking part in a price-fixing cartel of prescription medicines. In 2004, a report by the Pentagon's International Armament and Technology Trade Directorate found "significant and credible evidence" that Auchi organized a conspiracy to offer bribes to win mobile telephone licenses in Iraq. He was barred from entering the United States in 2005.

Tony Rezko (left) with Illinois' junior senator, Barack Obama.

Rezko, born in 1955, arrived in the United States in 1974 to study civil engineering. After some work on road construction projects, he went into the fast-food business, then into real estate, with help from Auchi. His political involvement began in 1983 with a mayoral campaign, after which he acquired a taste for cultivating up-and-coming politicians, notably Obama and the current governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko too has extensive legal problems, starting with a June 2008 conviction on sixteen counts of taking kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with the State of Illinois. He also stands accused of evading Las Vegas gambling debts and using false information in the sale of his pizza businesses. In contrast to Auchi's wealth, Rezko is said to be over $50 million in debt.

In three steps, these corrupt businessmen tie the Democratic Party presidential candidate to the executed Iraqi tyrant:

  1. Saddam Hussein made use of Auchi: Auchi's fortune largely grew through his Iraq government connection, much of it sub rosa. In the 1980s, he procured Italian military ships. By 1993, the Italian banker Pierfrancesco Pacini Battaglia testified about Auchi bribing Iraqi officials for an Italian engineering company and called Auchi "one of the most important intermediaries in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries." Auchi is also a major shareholder in BNP Paribas, the French bank deeply implicated in the U.N.'s corrupt Iraq oil-for-food program.

  2. Auchi made use of Rezko: Rezko lobbied for Auchi to be allowed into the United States. A wholly-owned GMHSA subsidiary, Fintrade Services Inc., transferred a loan of $3.5 million on May 23, 2005 to Rezko.

  3. Rezko cultivated Obama: Rezko offered Barack Obama a job in 1990, which Obama declined. Still, Rezko persisted, hiring him for legal work and hosting in 2003 an early fundraiser that, writes David Mendell in Obama: From Promise to Power, proved "instrumental in providing Obama with seed money" for his nascent U.S. Senate campaign. Then, on June 15, 2005, just twenty-three days after receiving Auchi's $3.5 million, Rezko partnered with Obama in a real estate deal: while Rezko's wife paid the full asking price, $625,000, for an empty adjoining lot which they then improved, subdivided, and partially sold to Obama, Obama acquired a mansion for $1.65 million, $300,000 under the asking price.

Summing up: Barack Obama's house purchase depended on favors from Rezko, flush with a "loan" from Auchi, whose fortune derived in part from Saddam Hussein's favor.

When seen in the context of Obama's other dubious connections (Ayers, Davidson, Wright, Khalidi, et al.), this network is all the more alarming.


Oct. 29, 2008 update: WorldNetDaily.com has published an unsigned article, "Did Saddam bagman help Obama purchase mansion? Photo confirms Rezko financier in bed with late Iraqi tyrant," that asserts many new points salient to the Barack Obama-Saddam Hussein connection. Concerning Auchi, it asserts that:

  • Auchi and Saddam Hussein were cousins.

  • Auchi joined Saddam Hussein's regime as an official in the Ministry of Oil in 1967.

  • Auchi began bankrolling Rezko's real estate deals in the 1980s.

  • The 2004 Pentagon report quoted in my article also: (1) Called Auchi someone "who behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator and bag man." (2) Stated that "significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has engaged in unlawful activities," such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein." (3) Accused him of helping to "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."

The Obama mansion in the Kenwood district of Chicago.

Concerning Rezko:
  • Rezko personally toured with Obama the house that Obama bought and advised Obama on the negotiations to purchase the house.
  • In 2005, at the time of his empty lot purchase, Rezko was "virtually bankrupt."
  • Obama attended two events hosted by Rezko honoring Auchi in 2004, one at the Four Seasons Hotel and another at Rezko's house; Michelle Obama also attended the latter occasion.

Comment: These additional pieces of information significantly confirm my conclusion that Obama "personally benefited from funds originating in Saddam Hussein's regime."

Related Topics: Iraq, US politics

Partager cet article
Repost0
29 octobre 2008 3 29 /10 /octobre /2008 23:03

Obama Encouraged Risky Fannie, Freddie Loans



The John McCain campaign has issued a release pointing to a Wall Street Journal editorial questioning Barack Obama’s stance on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and subprime mortgages.

The editorial published on Wednesday notes that, during the Oct. 7 presidential debate, when John McCain said Obama had encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make risky loans, Obama replied that he “never promoted Fannie Mae.” He also stated: “Two years ago I said that we’ve got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.”

Obama said: “I wrote to [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.”

The Journal observed: “Mr. Obama's March 2007 letter included a stirring call to ‘assess options’ and boldly suggested that the two men ‘facilitate a serious conversation’ about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that ‘the relevant private sector entities and regulators’ might be able to provide ‘targeted responses.’ Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to ‘consider’ best practices in mortgage lending.

“Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn't move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can't repay them.”

In fact, Obama said in a September 2007 speech: “Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously couldn’t afford to.”

And he voted against a bill, which McCain co-sponsored, to reform the way Fannie and Freddie did business.

It also might be noted that two former Fannie Mae CEOs, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, have had roles in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Raines advised the campaign on housing matters, according to the Washington Post. He was paid $20 million by Fannie Mae in 2003 and left under a cloud of alleged corruption and illegal accounting.

Johnson helped Obama select his vice presidential running mate. Johnson received millions of dollars in hidden income from the corporation, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae.

Obama received more than $126,000 in political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and McCain declared at the debate that Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the government mortgage giants.

The Journal editorial concludes: “If Barack Obama wants to write any more letters, he should urge his colleagues in Washington to focus on the causes of this crisis, not the effects. Unlike Senators, Presidents are expected to solve problems, not merely write about them.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Partager cet article
Repost0
28 octobre 2008 2 28 /10 /octobre /2008 22:24
Joe the Plumber: 'Vote for Obama a vote for the death of Israel'

America's most famous plumber endorses John McCain for president, warns rival Barack Obama would make US a socialist nation

Photo: AFP
Wurzelbacher - 'Honestly scared for America' Photo: AFP
 
Photo: AFP
Race in final stretch Photo: AF


Associated Press

Published:  10.28.08, 22:43 / Israel News

'Joe the Plumber,' the small business aspirant and overnight media sensation, endorsed John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday and said Barack Obama would make America a socialist nation.

 

Problematic Endorsement
Larijani: Iran prefers Obama  / AFP
Iranian parliament speaker says his country is leaning towards Democratic candidate in US presidential election 'because he is more flexible and rational'
Full Story
The Ohio plumber, whose real name is Samuel Wurzelbacher, also agreed with a McCain supporter who asked him if he believed "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel."

 

"I'll go ahead and agree with you on that," Wurzelbacher told the man, retired Florida lawyer Stan Chapman who was visiting Ohio. He didn't elaborate on how Obama would be caustic for Israel.

 

  Wurzelbacher was joined at the rally by Rob Portman, a former Ohio congressman and budget director under President Bush, who said he disagreed with Chapman's assessment of Obama's foreign policy.

 

Wurzelbacher became famous after he was referred to constantly in the final presidential debate. McCain has been portraying the plumber as emblematic of people with concerns about Obama's tax plans.

 

Portman said an Obama administration would mean increased taxes on Social Security, dividends and small businesses.

 

"In the tough economic times that we're in, we shouldn't be raising taxes on anybody," said Portman, a McCain adviser.

 

'Out of Marx's mouth'
Wurzelbacher's first trip to the podium was without notes. He often apologized to reporters gathered in a flag store for talking from his gut. "I'm honestly scared for America," Wurzelbacher said.

 

He later said Obama would end the democracy that the US military had defended during wars. "I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a socialist society. ... If you look at spreading the wealth, that's honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth," Wurzelbacher said.
"No one can debate that. That's not my opinion. That's fact."

 

Wurzelbacher also said he had spoken with a lawyer about news reports that his state records had been accessed, perhaps illegally. The Ohio inspector general is investigating who or why accounts assigned to Attorney General Nancy Rogers' office, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department were used.

 

Wurzelbacher was scheduled to make stops in Dayton, Middletown, Milford and Cincinnati. The bus tour included guests billed as Mary the Flag Lady, Mike the Painter and Linda the Fitness Trainer.
Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

  • : Le blog de Gad
  • : Lessakele : déjouer les pièges de l'actualité Lessakele, verbe hébraïque qui signifie "déjouer" est un blog de commentaire libre d'une actualité disparate, visant à taquiner l'indépendance et l'esprit critique du lecteur et à lui prêter quelques clés de décrytage personnalisées.
  • Contact

Traducteur

English German Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch
Russian Polish Hebrew Czech Greek Hindi

Recherche

Magie de la langue hébraïque


A tous nos chers lecteurs.

 

Ne vous est-il jamais venu à l'esprit d'en savoir un peu plus sur le titre de ce blog ?

Puisque nous nous sommes aujourd'hui habillés de bleu, il conviendrait de rentrer plus a fond dans l'explication du mot lessakel.

En fait Lessakel n'est que la façon française de dire le mot léhasskil.

L'hébreu est une langue qui fonctionne en déclinant des racines.

Racines, bilitères, trilitères et quadrilitères.

La majorité d'entre elle sont trilitères.

Aussi Si Gad a souhaité appeler son site Lessakel, c'est parce qu'il souhaitait rendre hommage à l'intelligence.

Celle qui nous est demandée chaque jour.

La racine de l'intelligence est sé'hel שכל qui signifie l'intelligence pure.

De cette racine découlent plusieurs mots

Sé'hel > intelligence, esprit, raison, bon sens, prudence, mais aussi croiser

Léhasskil > Etre intelligent, cultivé, déjouer les pièges

Sé'hli > intelligent, mental, spirituel

Léhistakel > agir prudemment, être retenu et raisonnable, chercher à comprendre

Si'hloute > appréhension et compréhension

Haskala >  Instruction, culture, éducation

Lessa'hlen > rationaliser, intellectualiser

Heschkel > moralité

Si'htanout > rationalisme

Si'hloul > Amélioration, perfectionnement

 

Gageons que ce site puisse nous apporter quelques lumières.

Aschkel pour Lessakel.

 

 

Les news de blogs amis