Election ’08 Backgrounder

  

Financial Crisis | Iraq | Defense | Background & Character | Judges & Courts | Energy

 

FINANCIAL CRISIS

Quick Facts:

  • Democrats created the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them.
  • In 2006, McCain sponsored a bill to fix the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank and other Democrats successfully opposed it.
  • Obama was one of the highest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donations in Congress.

Related Editorials

 

IRAQ


Quick Facts:

  • When the U.S. was on the verge of losing in Iraq, McCain chose to stand and fight.  Obama chose retreat.
  • Even after the surge succeeded, Obama told ABC’s Terry Moran he would still oppose it if he had the chance to do it all over again.

Related Editorials

 

DEFENSE

Quick Facts:

  • Obama has promised to significantly cut defense spending, including saying “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
  • John McCain has vowed: “We must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses and superior conventional forces that are capable of defending the United States and our allies.”

Related Editorials

Obama Video: Watch Now

 

 

BACKGROUND & CHARACTER

Quick Facts:

  • Obama voted “present” 135 times as a state senator, and according to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, “gained a reputation for skipping tough votes.”
  • McCain has taken stances unpopular with his own party and/or the public on controversial issues, including immigration, campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, the Iraq War and more.

Related Editorials

 

 

JUDGES & COURTS


Quick Facts:

  • In a 2001 interview, Obama said he regretted that the Supreme Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
  • In the same interview, Obama criticized the Supreme Court because it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
  • Obama has focused on empathy, rather than legal reasoning and restraint, as his basis for appointing judges, saying, “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy…to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”
  • McCain opposes judicial activism, saying, “my nominees will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power.”

Related Editorials

Obama 2001 Interview: Listen Now

 

ENERGY


Quick Facts:

  • McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and is in favor of drilling in sectors of the Outer Continental Shelf.
  • Obama has refused to take a stand, saying only “we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix” and he will “look at” drilling offshore.

Related Editorials

»
McCain: The Energy Candidate

» McCain On Nukes: Yes We Can
» Breaking The Back Of High Oil

 

Posted in ABC, Abortion, Accountable America, ACLU, ACORN, Ahmadinejad, Al Gore, Alinsky, American Civil Liberties Union, American Fifth Column, American Friends of Peace Now, American values, anti-American, Anti-Semitic, anti-war movement, antisemitism, ANWR, ANWR oil, AP, AP/CNN, Associated Press, Atomic Islam, B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Barry Soetoro, Bill Ayers, Bill Clinton, Black Nationalism, border security, CBS, CBS evening news, CBS news, Charlie Rangel, CHAVEZ, Chavez-Castro, Christian Voices, christian vote, Cindy McCain, CNN muslim sympathizers, CNN pro islam, Congress, Credit Crunch, Democrat Communist Party, Democrat corruption, Democrat george soros, democrat half truth, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat polls, Democrat Presidential debate, democrat scandals, Democrat Shadow Government, democrat socialists, Democratic Corruption, Democratic majority, democratic morals, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats and drilling, Democrats and Earmarking, democrats and global Warming, democrats and illegal immigration, Democrats and Subprime mortgages, Democrats and talk radio, Earmarking, earmarks, Fairness Doctrine, Fannie Mae, Fatah, Freddie Mac, free speech, George Bush, George Soros, GOP, GOP leadership, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Hollywood liberals, Howard Dean, Hugo Chavez, human trafficking, Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran revolt, Iran threat, iraq, Iraq jihadists, Iraq Oil, Iraq surge, Iraq War, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic immigration, Israel, Israel Defense Forces, Israeli Jets, Jeremiah Wright, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Joe the Plumber, John Conyers, John Kerry, John McCain, John Murtha, Katie Couric, Keith Ellison, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, left-wing ideologues, Leftist Claptrap, Liberal Churches, liberal jihad, liberal media, McCain, McCain Palin, Mexican migrants, Michelle Obama, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Nancy Pelosi, nation of islam, Nazi Pelosi, NY Times, Obama, Obama Jackboots, Obama Tax Plan, Sarah Palin. Leave a Comment »

Top Ten Skeletons in the Left’s Closet

Top Ten Skeletons in the Left’s Closet

By Daniel J. Flynn
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/16/2008

When the Left writes its own history, the past gets rewritten to suit the needs of the present. This is why I wrote A Conservative History of the American Left, to conserve not only fascinating figures now forgotten but to retrieve from the memory hole all that the Left has tossed down it. What is the history of the American Left that leftists want you to forget?

10. Ayatollah Khomeini, Leftist Hero

Reflexive anti-Americanism initially moved the Left to embrace the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Mother Jones, for instance, in 1979 predicted that “if Khomeini or his followers take power” then “democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government” would follow. The Nation, Michel Foucault, and other pillars of the Left similarly projected their ideals upon Khomeini and company.

9. Manson Family Values

“I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV,” hippie guru Jerry Rubin professed. “His words and courage inspired us.” Weatherman hoisted “Charles Manson Power” banners, adopted a spread-fingered greeting to symbolize the fork with which the Manson murderers impaled a victim’s stomach, and even boasted a cell nicknamed “The Fork.” Weatherman matriarch Bernardine Dohrn infamously proclaimed: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”

8. Gay Activists Sue to Block AIDS Test

Today, homosexual activists blame Ronald Reagan and the clergy for the spread of AIDS. But in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense, citing civil-liberties concerns, actually sued the federal government to stop the AIDS test. Thankfully, they lost and scores of lives have been saved as a result.

7. Murder Chic

The easiest way to become a hero on the Left is to kill another human being. John Brown, the Molly Maguires, the Haymarket Square Bombers, Joe Hill, Huey Newton, and Mumia Abu-Jamal—murderers all—have been venerated by the Left in song and on screen. The people they murdered are not even an afterthought.

6. Jonestown Kool-Aid

Before orchestrating the murder/suicides 900+ people in Guyana, Jim Jones was the darling of the San Francisco Left. Huey Newton, Angela Davis, and Willie Brown embraced a man who killed more blacks than the KKK. Democrats Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Gerry Brown made campaign visits to the Peoples Temple’s “comrade leader.” The mayor of San Francisco even rewarded Jones for his activism by appointing him chairman of the city’s housing commission. “The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church,” The Nation reported in 1978. Unfortunately, as the years progressed, more Americans gulped down the Left’s Kool-Aid that Jones was of the religious Right and not an atheist leftist.  

5. Concentration Camps, American Style

A year before Hitler came to power in Germany, Margaret Sanger called for a vast system of concentration camps for the United States. The Planned Parenthood founder demanded “a stern and rigid policy of segregation or sterilization” for “dysgenic” Americans who “would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” The 1932 speech concluded that “fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense—defending the unborn against their own disabilities.”

4. Heaven on Earth

American intellectuals looked upon the hell on earth that was post-revolutionary Russia and saw a heaven on earth. The New Republic credited the Russian Revolution with providing “the most democratic franchise yet devised in our world,” while The Nation found that “the franchise is more democratic in Russia than in England or in the United States.” Lincoln Steffens marveled after a visit to the Soviet Union, “The revolution in Russia is to establish the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth.”

3. Eugenics

Even before the progressive era when most states instituted eugenics laws, the American Left had agitated for state controls over procreation. John Humphrey Noyes’ Bible Communists lamented that freedom of marital choice “leaves mating to be determined by a general scramble, without attempt at scientific direction” and devised the first eugenic experiment in the U.S.—“stirpiculture”—that produced dozens of children and prevented hundreds more. In Looking Backward, Edward Bellamy dreamed of “race purification” to “preserve and transmit the better types of the race, and let the inferior types drop out.” Other proponents included Margaret Sanger, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, who famously decreed in Buck v. Bell, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” State governments ultimately sterilized upwards of 60,000.

2. Assassinating Presidents

Three of the four presidential assassins have been left-wing radicals. Bible Communist Charles Guiteau murdered President Garfield, anarcho-communist Leon Czolgosz murdered President McKinley, and Soviet Communist Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy. Rather than own that history, the Left has invented conspiracy theories that absolve leftists from responsibility.

1. Nazi-Soviet Pact

The Left switched from pacifists to warmongers overnight once the Nazi attack upon the Communists dissolved the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Communist Party USA chief Earl Browder, who had dubbed WWII “the second imperialist war” during the pact, so thoroughly switched course when the Nazis attacked the Communists that he embraced conscription (after his opposition to it led to jail in WWI), endorsed a ‘no-strike’ pledge for labor unions (after encouraging strikes to impede the war effort), and kicked out Japanese Americans from the CP (after ostensibly championing civil rights). The Hollywood Anti-Nazi League ceased operations during the pact. The Communists’ New Masses panned the anti-Nazi Watch on the Rhine when it appeared as a play during the pact only to praise it when it appeared as a movie when Hitler and Stalin were again enemies.


Daniel J. Flynn is the author of Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas and A Conservative History of the American Left. He is also the editor of www.flynnfiles.com.

Harry Potter, Zionist agent

Harry Potter, Zionist agent

hpdhcover.jpg

Will those crafty Zionists stop at nothing?

“Iranian Daily: Harry Potter, Billion-Dollar Zionist Project,” from the MEMRI blog (thanks to WriterMom):

In an article, the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is identified with Iranian Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamenei, criticized Iran’s Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry for approving the distribution of the new book in the “Harry Potter” series.The paper said that “Harry Potter” was a Zionist project in which billions of dollars had been invested in order to disrupt the minds of young people.

Source: Kayhan, Iran, July 26, 2007

Meanwhile, speaking of crafty Zionists, I was struck by this passage from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows that Jihad Watch reader Wallhacker sent me. He says it’s on page 437 of the American edition and page 355 in the British/Canadian edition. Of course, J. K. Rowling has never heard of us or our little effort here, but as one of the only ones who tell the truth about what’s going on while nearly all the programmes are following You-Know-Who’s line, I couldn’t help but chuckle:

“Potterwatch, didn’t I tell that’s what it was called? The programme I keep trying to get on the radio, the only one tells the truth about what’s going on! Nearly all the programmes are following You-Know-Who’s line, all except Potterwatch. I really want to hear it, but it’s tricky tuning in…”

Left spews deadly venom over Tony Snow’s cancer

Left spews deadly venom over Tony Snow’s cancer
‘He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!’


Posted: March 28, 2007
4:07 a.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54911

Moments after White House Press Secretary Tony Snow’s new personal battle against cancer became public yesterday, a vicious assault was launched at left-leaning websites, with some message posters hoping for a swift death for the presidential spokesman.

“Under the heading of ‘What goes around comes around’, the cancer in Tony Snow is removing the cancer of Tony Snow from the national scene,” wrote TDoff on the D.C. gossip site Wonkette.com.

Omnilation wrote, “Dear Tony, I hate you. -God.”

A contributor called homofascist stated, “It is a bitch that I wouldn’t wish upon even a smarmy, evil f—face liar like Snow. Because really, isn’t he OUR smarmy, evil f—face liar?”

Some readers at HuffingtonPost.com reportedly said:

  • “Sure holding all that bulls**t in your gut would make anybody sick..!”
  • “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!” Beccawalton was among those calling for end to the venom-spewing:

    “Stop these mean-spirited and hypocritical posts. Just because you don’t like his politics (and I don’t, either), don’t revel in this. It’s inhuman and cruel. I’m not going to waste space to prove my liberal cred, just stop it!”

    And PghLori noted:

    “There are freakin’ idiots on both sides of the political divide, and here you’re looking at the lib side. Aside from the fact that it is just ignorant to make jokes about cancer, it’s also self-defeating, as [Rush] Limbaugh, [Sean] Hannity, etc. will refer to these postings as examples of hate-filled libs, just as they did with the Cheney board postings. Thanks a lot folks.”

    In fact, the verbal attack on Snow came exactly one month after a similar onslaught against Vice President Dick Cheney who survived an assassination attempt in Afghanistan.

    An example from the HuffingtonPost on Feb. 27 included:

    “Jesus Christ and General Jackson too, can’t the Taliban do anything right? They must know we would be so gratefull (sic) to them for such a remarkable achievement.”

    The HuffingtonPost is run by Arianna Huffington, who has described herself as “a former right-winger who has evolved into a compassionate and progressive populist.”

    A disclaimer on her site above the remarks about Tony Snow states “these comments are the personal opinions of the individuals posting them and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Huffington Post. We do not generate, solicit, or moderate user comments, but reserve the right to remove postings as we see fit.”

    Snow, 51, had his colon removed in 2005 and underwent six months of chemotherapy. Colleagues said his cancer has returned and spread to his liver and elsewhere, and that Snow told them he planned to fight the disease and return to his position.

    “He is not going to let this whip him, and he’s upbeat,” President Bush said. “And so my message to Tony is, ‘Stay strong; a lot of people love you and care for you and will pray for you.'”

  • var sc_project=1351862; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=12; var sc_security=”e1ac2d39″;


    Who Hates America?

    Who Hates America?
    By Michael Reagan
    FrontPageMagazine.com | March 19, 2007

    If you believe the media and the cry-baby left, the entire world hates the United States of America. I don’t believe that. The reality of it is they don’t hate us; they just love our money and wish they could get their hands on more of it. That’s all the rest of the world ever cared about.

    Sure, a lot of the French hate America, but they hate every nation that isn’t France.

    Lefties across the globe hate America because they are insanely jealous of our prosperity and our standard of living, but they are not anything like a majority.

    Ask yourself this: If America is so hateful, why does half the world want to come here to live in such a hateful country?

    If you really want to know who really hates America don’t look abroad. Look right here in the United States for the real hate-America crowd; look at the left-wing crazies who run the Democrat party.

    Think about it. America is at war. Tens of thousands of Americans in the armed forces are fighting that war, and more than three thousand of them gave their lives battling the terrorists sworn to destroy this nation.

    Yet aside from Osama bin Laden and his crew of merciless killers, the people most dedicated to seeing the United States defeated in a battle for the future of the world are the liberal Democrats now feebly trying to run the Congress.

    You really have to hate America and its people to lust after the defeat of your own country.

    Sure, they don’t come right out and say it. They cover their tracks by calling a headlong – and shameful — dash for the exits a “redeployment,” their way of saying cut and run. They say they fully support our troops, while they mutter about cutting the funding for them and leaving them defenseless far away from home.

    As the new strategy for winning the war in Iraq begins to take hold, they refuse to recognize any of the signs of progress. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the despicable John Murtha announce to the nation that we are losing the war, and moreover, can’t possibly win it.

    You really have to hate America to stand on the sidelines, root for an enemy triumph and do everything you can to make sure we lose a war.

    If you want to know who really hates America look at the Democrats who jumped on the media bandwagon to attack Walter Reed Army Medical Center charging that they have not given good medical care to our wounded troops coming back from a Iraq when they are fully aware that these wounded heroes have received the finest medical care ever a given to anyone, soldier or civilian, in the entire history of the world.

    Thousands of wounded members of our armed forces who would have died of their wounds in previous wars are alive today as a result of the medical care available at Walter Reed and other armed services hospitals.

    But what do we hear from the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Praise for the great care the Army and Navy have provided for the wounded and disabled? No.

    Instead we hear allegations that slyly suggest that the conditions in substandard living quarters are in actuality symptoms of poor medical care being given to our troops. That’s a flat-out lie, and you have to hate America to tell it.

    The fact of the matter is that those veterans forced to live in substandard quarters and receiving extraordinary medical care were victims, not of the Army, but of the federal bureaucracy which operates under rules and restrictions dictated by the Congress when it was under the control of the Democrats.

    Moreover it was the Congress which allowed Walter Reed medical center to be scheduled to shut down in 2010 — just three years from now — putting it in that category to deprive them of adequate funding.

    You really have to hate America to attack — for purely political reasons — a system of medical care that is saving huge numbers of Americans. They have no shame.

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

    Tides Foundation — Leftist funding fountain

    Tides Foundation
    P.O. Box 29903
    San Francisco, CA
    94129-0903

    Tides Center
    P.O. Box 29907
    San Francisco, CA
    94129-0907

    Phone :415-561-6400(F) 415-561-6300(C)
    Email :info@tides.org (F&C)
    URL :http://www.tides.org/ (F&C)
     
    Funder Profile:
    –>

    • Net Assets: Tides Foundation – $144,299,585 (2004); Tides Center – $36,696,785 (2004)
    • Grants Received: Tides Foundation – $71,164,955 (2004); Tides Center – $55,233,367 (2004)
    • Grants Awarded: Tides Foundation – $74,101,866 (2004); Tides Center – $10,017,642 (2004)

    Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.

    Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.

    If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no group in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.

    The Tides Foundation promotes a multitude of leftist social agendas, as evidenced by its assertion: “We strengthen community-based organizations and the progressive movement by providing an innovative and cost-effective framework for your philanthropy.” Among the crusades to which Tides contributes are: radical environmentalism; the “exclusion of humans from public and private wildlands”; the anti-war movement; anti-free trade campaigns; the banning of firearms ownership; abolition of the death penalty; the right to receive government-funded abortion-on-demand; and radical gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender advocacy.

    In recent years the Tides Foundation has strongly supported the National Lawyers Guild, the Council for American-Islamic Relations, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, and People For the American Way – the latter of which started as a Tides Foundation Project in 1981. Tides also runs a tax-exempt “alternative media source” called the Institute for Global Communications (IGC), a leading provider of Web technology to the radical left.

    Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tides formed a “9/11 Fund” to advocate a “peaceful national response.” Tides later replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was financed in large measure by the Open Society Institute of George Soros, who has donated more than $7 million to Tides over the years.

    Tides also set up a Peace Strategies Fund and an Iraq Peace Fund, the latter of which has granted money to such groups as MoveOn.org, the National Council of Churches, the Arab-American Action Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the pro-Castro groups United for Peace and Justice and Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition, Tides funds “A Better Way Project,” which coordinates the activities of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition/Keep America Safe Campaign.

    In the environmental realm, the Tides Foundation has recently made grants to such groups as the Ruckus Society, the Union of Concerned ScientistsGreenpeaceFriends of the Earth, the Environmental Working Group, Environmental Media Services, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, and the Wilderness Society. It also supports the California Wildlands Grassroots Project, an organization that advocates “permanent protection of intact wildlands on both public and private [emphasis added] lands” in that state.

    Tides and the organizations it supports interact closely with one another on a regular basis. For example, Drummond Pike sits on the Board of the Environmental Working Group along with David Fenton, founder of Fenton Communications.

    The Tides Foundation is a member organization of the International Human Rights Funders Group, a network of more than six-dozen grantmakers dedicated to finaning leftwing groups and causes.

    In 1979 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (These could be, for instance, farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation’s activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

    The Tides Center’s Board Chairman is Wade Rathke, who is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. Rathke, who serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union, is the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

    One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which has given Tides numerous six-figure grants.

    Between 1993 and 2003, at least 91 foundations made grants to the Tides Foundation. These included the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Arca Foundation; the AT&T Foundation; the Barbra Streisand Foundation; the Bauman Family FoundationBen and Jerry’s Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Blue Moon Fund; the Bullitt Foundation; the CarEth Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; Changemakers; the ChevronTexaco Foundation; the Columbia Foundation; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Energy Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Foundation for Deep Ecology; the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation; the Heinz Family Foundation; the Hoffman Foundation; the Homeland Foundation; the Howard Heinz Endowment; the J.M. Kaplan Fund; the James Irvine Foundation; the JEHT Foundation; the Jenifer Altman Foundation; the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the Lear Family Foundation; the Liberty Hill Foundation; the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the Nathan Cummings Foundation; the New World Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the Pew Charitable Trusts; the Ploughshares Fund; the Proteus Fund; the Public Welfare Foundation; the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; the Righteous Persons Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Roberts Foundation; the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy; the Stern Family Fund; the Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust; the Summit Charitable Foundation; the Surdna Foundation; the Threshold Foundation; the Turner Foundation; the Vanguard Public Foundation; the Verizon Foundation; the Vira I. Heinz Endowment; the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and the Woods Fund of Chicago.

    Surprisingly, the Tides Foundation and Tides Center also receive grants from the U.S. federal government. Between 1997 and 2001, these grants included the following: $395,219 from the Department of Interior; $3,350,431 from the Environmental Protection Agency; $3,487,040 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; $208,878 from the Department of Agriculture; $39,550 from the Department of Energy; $93,500 from the Small Business Administration; $10,986 from the Department of Health and Human Services; and $84,520 from the Centers for Disease Control U.S. Agency for International Development.

    Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court? — For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.

    Conservatives to Spike the Supreme Court?
    By Henry Mark Holzer
    FrontPageMagazine.com | October 31, 2006

    For several months we’ve been hearing the mantra that most Republican congressmen don’t deserve to be reelected because the party’s record in Congress is far from a conservative one, especially when one considers runaway spending, huge deficits, ignored scandals, successful filibusters, pro-terrorist legislation, and more.At the same time, we’ve heard sincere pleas from conservative leaders and commentators that, nevertheless, Republican voters should “hold their noses” and return GOP majorities, no matter how narrow, to the House and Senate.

    The principal justification given for what some consider to be a compromise with conservative values (but in reality is not), is that no matter how bad the Republican legislative performance has been, the Democrats are going to be far worse. For conservatives, that’s certainly true. Inevitably, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi domestic agenda will be disastrous, especially for the economy (e.g., rescinding tax cuts). Their foreign affairs policies will surely endanger national security (e.g., abruptly pulling the plug on Iraq).

    But even worse is that if Harry Reid becomes Senate majority leader, and if 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens leaves the bench (actuarially, a real possibility), conservatives can kiss goodbye – for at least two years and maybe longer – any chance of obtaining that one crucial seat on the Supreme Court which, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, could have a profound effect on both domestic and foreign policy for years to come.

    If this double whammy occurs – Reid running the Senate, and Stevens leaving the bench – there will be a battle for Stevens’s seat (and thus for the soul of the Court), that will make the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight of 15 years ago look like a walk in the park.

    Like the Thomas fight, the one to fill Stevens’s Supreme Court seat will be a battle that conservatives must win if they don’t want to see more decisions like the following – for which Stevens was largely responsible:

    • Upholding the McCain-Feingold law’s suppression of political speech;
    • Abolishing the death penalty for young killers;
    • Seizing private property for “public purposes” through eminent domain;
    • Approving the use of race as a criterion for higher education admissions;
    • Providing enemy combatants with habeas corpus, due process, and court access; and
    • Invalidating President Bush’s Guantanamo military tribunals.It is a cliché to observe that we live in perilous times. But cliché or not, the fact is that we do. Pakistan’s unstable government already has atomic weapons. Despotic North Korea may be close to having atomic weapons. The Iranian theocracy is feverishly seeking atomic weapons. Al-Qaeda is trying to buy or steal atomic weapons.

      The military and foreign policy implications of atomic proliferation are almost too scary to contemplate. They will present colossally important and difficult questions of constitutional law for the Supreme Court to resolve – such as in meeting atomic threats, how far the president’s Article II powers extend without consultation with Congress.

      Also on the table are other questions of presidential power, of congressional power, and – always – of judicial power, especially in America’s current battle with Islamic terrorists.

      Indeed, the preliminary judicial skirmishes in that battle – the Hamdi, Rasul, Padilla, and Hamdan cases, dealing with enemy combatants, habeas corpus, due process, access to courts, and military tribunals – have been just a warm up for what’s to come.

      Those cases presented questions of presidential power to wage war under Article II of the Constitution, and although the President won a few rounds, he lost a few as well. The cases also examined the power of Congress, and its constitutional role in modern, asymmetrical warfare. And some lawyers believe, with good reason, that the Court’s tilt in those four cases was, on balance, away from presidential power and in favor of Congressional power.

      Now, with the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, new constitutional questions have arisen, chief among them whether the “due process” that Congress has provided enemy combatants is adequate. While there are those of us who believe the Act provided too much – see

    “Khalid Sheik Mohammed is Not O.J. Simpson: Military Commissions Act of 2006” – not surprisingly, there are those like the ACLU who believe it provided too little, and that Islamic terrorist murderers should be treated with the kid gloves afforded defendants in the American criminal justice system.America’s national security has already suffered enough from Justice Stevens. We cannot afford another such appointment. Especially with national security constitutional questions such as warrantless surveillance still to be resolved.

    If Stevens leaves the bench in the next two years, even if the president wants to make quality appointments like his of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, George H.W. Bush’s of Justice Thomas, and Reagan’s of Justice Scalia, the president will be stymied if Harry Reid controls the Senate. Indeed, even if Reid doesn’t, the Republicans will need a majority leader who, unlike Bill Frist, has the spine to break an inevitable Democratic filibuster if the nominee is a strong conservative.

    That’s why this notion that conservatives should “punish” right-leaning leaders for their real and imagined shortcomings is akin not merely to political suicide, but invites at least one Supreme Court appointment that in national security cases like warrantless surveillance could tip the already closely balanced scales against the country’s war with Islamic terrorists and seriously endanger the survival of the United States.

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


    13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7 — Copy the text and email it to your friends

    by Mona Charen 13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7October 27, 2006 08:54 PM EST
    I can understand why Democrats are jazzed about November’s election. The polls combined with the fawning media (“Oh, please, Sen. Obama, let us kiss the hem of your garment!”) are giving them goose bumps such as they have not experienced since “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted in theaters.What I don’t understand is the seeming tepidness of so many Republicans. Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog. The world is not Topeka, Kansas (would that it were). A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States. Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II. On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800. This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized. But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:

    1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

    2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats — at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

    3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

    4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

    5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

    6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

    7) A.Q. Khan’s nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

    8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures.

    10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not — and no one likes it — we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.

    11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program.

    12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee.

    13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il’s nuclear test is “face to face talks.” That’s what the Clinton administration did for years. It worked out well, didn’t it? 

    Posted in defeat liberalism, democrat half truth, Democrat issues, democrat lies, democrat muslim, democrat scandals, democrat socialists, democratic media, democratic morals, Democratic Party, Democratic socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Democratic traitors, Democrats, Democrats & The Left, Democrats and AARP, democrats and CNN, democrats and illegal immigration, democrats and immigration, DEMOCRATS AND ISLAM, democrats and Korea, democrats and muliculturalism, democrats and the UN, Democrats being stupid, democrats cheating, extremists, fear of radical Islamists, get tough on islam, get tough on liberal media, get tough on liberals, get tough with democrats, Gitmo, Hollywood liberals, Hollywood wackos, Homeland Security, Illegal Immigration, Imams and Terrorism, immigrant vote, Immigration, immigration laws, In The News, Iran, iraq, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam sympathizers, Islam unrest, Islam's Founder, islamic death threats, Islamic immigration, Islamic lies, islamic recruiting, Islamic Schools, islamic taxi drivers, Islamic Women Rights, Islamist Web, Islamists, Islamofascism, Jewish leftists, Jihad, jihad ideology, Jihad watch, left-wing hatred for George W. Bush, Leftist Claptrap, Leftist parties, leftist universities, leftist wacko, leftists, leftwing billionaire George Soros, Liberal, Liberal and Left Wing Political Blogs, liberal bias, liberal Iraq media coverage, liberal media, liberal preachers, liberal professors, liberal Teachers, liberal universities, middle east, Middle East War, Middle Eastern affairs, Middle Eastern Realities, Muhammad, Mullahs, Multicultural youths, multiculturalism, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, muslim charities, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim immigration, Muslim integration, muslim schools, muslim sympathizers, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, NBC, New York Times, News, news leaks, Newsweek, Patriot Act. Leave a Comment »

    The difference between D’s and R’s —Read Michelle’s great piece And Viva La Difference

    A few weeks ago, while blogging on the road (always a somewhat risky thing to do), I glibly mentioned the possibility of sitting at home for the midterms over heated disagreement with the Bush administration on immigration. Many grass-roots conservatives have grievances with how the White House has handled a number of issues, from Harriet Miers to spending to Iraq.

    But we should not sit out the election. And grievances with the White House are no reason to give Nancy Pelosi the gavel. Congressional Republicans shouldn’t be blamed for Miers, the amnesty plan, etc.

    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006198.htm

    Liberal media allergic to American values

    Liberal media allergic to American values http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |By Michelle Malkin CNN founder Ted Turner opened his mouth this week at the National Press Club, and promptly demonstrated why America needs Fox News Channel now more than ever.
    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, Turner is still pouting about public displays of patriotism on American airwaves: “I mean, I just really wonder during the, during the last war, you know, what business did it have in the news sets to have the American flag flying in the background. Uh, I mean, it was like the news media covered the Iraq war, at least at the beginning of it, almost as like it was a football game with us versus them.”

    Funny, I can’t recall Turner getting his undergarments in a bunch when CNN chose Saddam Hussein’s side and former CNN executive Eason Jordan admitted the global news network had withheld reporting on Baathist atrocities in exchange for inside access and protection of its Baghdad staff. Recall Jordan’s confession published in the New York Times after America toppled Saddam’s regime in April 2003:

    “I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.”

    It’s fine and dandy for CNN to wave Saddam’s flag and carry his blood-stained water. But when Fox News sticks a two-postage-stamp-sized American flag on its screen? Only then will Ted Turner declare that journalism and reportorial objectivity have gone to hell.
    But Turner’s disdain for putting American citizenship above “citizen-of-the-world” preening isn’t peculiar. It’s the prevailing attitude in our newsrooms. Remember after the September 11 attacks when Stacey Woelfel, news director at KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., directed his staff to “leave the ribbons at home” in order to show viewers “that in no way are we influenced by the government in informing the public?” Or how about when ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told the Washington Post: “Especially in a time of national crisis, the most patriotic thing journalists can do is to remain as objective as possible.(W)e cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”
    Elite news editors shrug at their reporters’ highly politicized activities — from AIDS fund-raisers to pro-abortion rallies, environmental propaganda, and unhinged Bush-bashing (new case in point: New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse’s recent moonbatty screed at Harvard University assailing everything from Gitmo to the Mexican-U.S. border fence). But wear a flag pin? Heresy!

    When the New York Times blabs classified information about terrorism investigations and is reported to have tipped off FBI investigations of terror charity front groups, ethics mavens yawn. But when Fox News anchor Chris Wallace dares to broach President Clinton’s war on terror failures, the mainstream media caterwauling crescendoes. When Wallace is derided as a “monkey” for doing his job and Fox News head Roger Ailes’ weight is mocked, the civility police in our journalism schools shut their eyes and ears.

    When insipid New York Times columnists recycle mediocre columns into their umpteenth books, they score multiple book reviews and fawning magazine covers. When the number one cable talk host tops the best-seller list (again), crickets chirp. Bill O’Reilly’s latest book, “Culture Warrior,” is as much O’Reilly’s story of success as it is Fox News Channel’s. O’Reilly’s fight against America-snubbing “secular progressives” is also Roger Ailes’. When the New York Times disparaged O’Reilly’s war on the war on Christmas as a manufactured hoax, it was disparaging Fox News Channel’s decision to listen to its audience — and respond.

    The liberal media’s 10-year allergic reaction to Fox News is triggered by any remotely positive exposure to American values on American airwaves. Well, here’s to the next ten years of giving establishment journalism the hives. Keep Old Glory flying high . It’s driving Ted Turner mad.