Did Soros Pick the Plagiarist?
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | August 26, 2008
What the public has to understand―and the media are not making clear―is that Biden may be the strongest supporter of the United Nations in the entire Congress today.
The announcements from the left-wing Media Matters group get funnier all the time. The organization is complaining that some news outlets have accurately reported that Senator Joseph Biden, picked as Barack Obama’s running mate, was drummed out of the 1988 presidential race for plagiarism. Media Matters’ criticism of this truthful account is that Biden on some other occasions had given credit to the person he stole the words from―a British politician named Neil Kinnock.
“Media outlets reported allegations Biden plagiarized Kinnock, but not that he had previously credited him,” says the Media Matters headline. This is like saying that a convicted shoplifter paid for some items before and after he was caught stealing.
Why on earth was Biden using somebody else’s
words, in the context of describing his own upbringing, in the first place?
It wasn’t just a matter of using a few words.
You can see a striking comparison of the Biden and Kinnock speeches here. Ironically,
this website, devoted to the proper techniques of college writing, says that
plagiarism “can destroy a career.” It hasn’t destroyed Biden’s.
Rather than take the ridiculously absurd Media
Matters line, New York Times reporters Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny reported
that Biden “quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had
plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader
at the time” and that “Shortly afterward, he was found to have suffered two
aneurysms.”
Are they trying to imply that his brain problems
accounted for the plagiarism? That doesn’t make any sense because it was also
discovered that Biden had been found guilty of plagiarism in law school. But
the Times didn’t mention that. It also came out that Biden had lifted material
from a Bobby Kennedy speech.
Dan Balz of the Washington Post took a different
line. “Biden also will have his 1988 presidential
campaign and the charges of plagiarism that drove him from the race
resurrected, at least in these opening days as he is introduced as Obama’s
running mate. But that experience is long in the past and probably does not
present a significant problem,” he said.
On what basis does he make the
conclusion that it probably won’t be a significant problem? There is none. This
is simply the preference of the major media, which will do their best to make
sure it is not a significant problem. But when plagiarism happens in
journalism, it is supposed to be a big deal.
Taking a different tack, Fred
Barnes, a writer for The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel commentator, said
Biden had a “tendency
to exaggerate or embellish his accomplishments” but that his political career
“has flourished” since these incidents. He decided not even to use the word
plagiarism.
As children are sent off to school and parents
and teachers tell them that they are not supposed to cheat in their studies,
this is not an unimportant matter. How do you explain to your children that
they should be honest in their studies when somebody guilty of plagiarism is a
sitting member of the Senate and is running for vice-president? What does this
say about the character and integrity of the presidential nominee who picked
him? Obama must have figured that since the major media have failed to
seriously examine his background, they would be prepared to overlook or at
least minimize Biden’s history of plagiarism. It was a good bet.
This flawed nominee not only has a
history of plagiarism but a record of making noxious comments, such as
off-color remarks about people of color and congratulating Obama himself for
being physically “bright and clean.” No Republican senator could have survived
such a scandalous record of outrageous utterances.
A friend had a brief discussion with
Biden during a book signing in the spring at Rehoboth, Delaware.
Biden was autographing copies of Promises
to Keep, which examines his life and Senate career, including the plagiarism
incidents. This individual was greatly concerned about the role of George Soros
in financing the drug legalization movement but knew that Biden had been
generally supportive of the war on drugs. She asked for Biden’s help in
exposing Soros’s influence in the political process. He replied, “I’ve been
spending a lot of time with Soros lately.” That ended the discussion.
You don’t have to be a
conspiracy theorist to detect the hidden hand of George Soros in Obama’s Biden
pick.
The media pundits say that Biden has
good foreign policy credentials. But that assumes that Biden has ideas of his
own and is not “borrowing” them from somewhere else. Soros is probably the
source of many of them. He has financially supported Obama, Biden and other
Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee.
What the public has to understand―and
the media are not making clear―is that Biden may be the strongest supporter of the
United Nations in the entire Congress today. He even supports an International
Criminal Court. Plus, he helped ram Obama’s pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act and the
U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty through his Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The former was accomplished with no hearings and the latter with stacked
hearings.
Years ago, Biden wrote
an article for the Wall Street Journal (assuming that he actually wrote the
article) under the headline, “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” This
can only be understood by taking into account a pamphlet entitled, “NATO and
the New World Order,” written by
billionaire George Soros, a major funder of Democratic Party politicians,
including Biden, and the left-wing of the party. The Soros plan, which is
identical to Biden’s, is to make NATO,
once an anti-Communist alliance, into a military arm of the U.N.
As I have previously reported, back in 1993,
during hearings conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden
outlined the aggressive role that NATO was to play in Yugoslavia six
years later under the Clinton Administration. Biden said that “organizing for
collective security” meant “strengthening the U.N. by assigning to the Security
Council certain pre-designated military forces and facilities” and “converting
NATO into a military instrument for peacekeeping, and peacemaking, under U.N.
or CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe]
auspices.”
Referring to Senator Claiborne Pell,
then-chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who faithfully carried
a copy of the U.N. Charter in his pocket, Biden said, “I will never forget, it
must be 13, 14 years ago this man suggested to me that article 43 [of the U.N.
Charter] was not used appropriately, we did not understand it, the world did
not respond to it properly, and so on. And now he is sitting here giving me
credit for initiating some congressional activity relating to article 43.” This
is the part of the Charter referring to nation-states providing military
assistance to the U.N. through various agreements.
The future of NATO, which was transformed into
an offensive military alliance by President Clinton without the benefit of a
treaty, should be a big issue of this campaign. Expanding NATO has meant
committing the U.S. Armed Forces to the defense of countless more countries
around the globe, even though NATO doesn’t have the strength, will or resources
to defend them.
If NATO transformation and expansion had been undertaken
in strict consultation with Congress and a new treaty submitted and ratified,
that would be one thing. Instead, Clinton
accomplished this mostly through executive action. Some conservative senators
protested at the time, but eventually acceded to presidential power and started
voting for new NATO members.
Senator John McCain seems to share the
Soros-Biden “vision” of what NATO should be. He, like Obama, has called for the
U.S. to be actively involved in growing international alliances, whether NATO
or a proposed League of Democracies, that could get our Armed Forces involved
in a series of conflicts and civil wars around the world that have absolutely
nothing to do with U.S. national interests. Since NATO has proven to be
incapable of seriously fighting terrorism in Afghanistan
or even condemning Russia
for its invasion of Georgia,
the value of this 26-nation alliance, said to represent 900 million people, has
to be questioned.
Even if Georgia
had already joined NATO, does anybody seriously think NATO would have gone to
war against Russia?
The organization has become a paper tiger and substitute for the U.S. defending
its own national security interests. It is a bipartisan disaster that has held
out false hope to the freed peoples of the old Soviet republics.
In this context, it is significant that the
McCain campaign has produced a TV ad that shows Biden saying on the Daily Show
that “I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think
the country would be better off.”
Highlighting such a comment may make Biden look
foolish, as he continues attacking McCain during the campaign. But it will also
highlight the fact that there’s really not a dime’s worth of difference between
them on some critical foreign policy issues. It also makes McCain look foolish,
since he comes across as grateful for the kind words of a disgraced foreign
policy “thinker.”
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at
49 Comments
yes - kincaid sees the ‘hidden agenda’ everywhere.
the mere fact that he has to begin one of his paranoid rants with that statement says it all.
and cliff, the MSM does not report on these things because they’re SOLELY the product of paranoid delusions. there is nothing to report, other than your decaying state of mental health.
the only explanation i can come up with is that this is actually a parody site, and the joke is on the regular participants. when taken in that light, it becomes both enourmously hilarious, yet also tragic. i don’t think they are getting the jokes, or that they are the REAL target of them. i mean seriously, can anyone REALLY be as deluded as kincaid is and not be in a straightjacket, or at least in a padded room?
now try putting the hat on shiny side out - why do i have to keep reminding you of this?
faux ann:
Your padded cell is waiting. Inform yourself by looking at http://www.soros.org/grants/research/
Soros’ money is everywhere pushing the Leftist and One World agenda.
”... Well, actually, yes, you do—as conspiracy theorist extrordinaire Kincaid ably demonstrates. ”
So says Terry Krepel, hired by Media Matters (recipient of large Soros grants) to search out the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Nuts.”
so who do you think funds this little excersize in delusional paranoia?
gee, could it be billionaire richard mellon scaife?
he also gives to the ‘western journalism center’.
so you are, in part, sucking at the teat of someone that supports the killing of gays… how lovely.
y’all live in glass houses.
little paranoid homophobic commiephobic islamophobic houses made of glass.
which is fine - that way we can see right through you.
you people just refuse to accept that the interests of the neocon ultrawealthy are not your own,and you repeatedly vote against your own interests. it as delusional as it gets. someday you might wake up to that fact, but it will likelu be too late, and your children and their children will continue to pay the price for your own misguided actions.
or, as my theory may yet prove out… this site is actually a parody, and the joke has been on you all along.
Faux ann:
It’s almost comical how you ardent leftists so quickly resort to nothing more than name-calling and generally juvenile insults when confronted with the need to respond to a well-put, fact-based argument.
“Commiephobic?!” Why shouldn’t all Americans fight (not fear) those among us who want to pervert the principals on which our country was founded and turn it into another stifling communitarian morass?
Islamophobic!? Homophobic!? Where in anything Mr. Galt has written does he indicate a fear of either Muslims or homosexuals. (I don’t know the guy personally so maybe you have greater insight.)
Your characterization of neocons as “ultrawealthy” highlights your ignorance. The primary raison d’etre for the Neo-conservative movement was/is protection and advancement of the state of Israel. The the “neo” part of their moniker refers to the fact that, as American Jews, most of them had been supporters of the Democratic party, or at least more politically liberal than those of us who consider ourselves “conservative.” But, as we conservatives are the ones who recognize the need for a strong military to defend our myriad interests, it was to conservatives that the neo-cons looked to take action to achieve their goals. Whether or not we were right to allow them to steer our foreign policy in their direction is still an open question.
More imperative than rehashing what we already know about Sen Joe Biden, his plagerism and his support of the New World Order as dictated by George Soros, is tracing the source of Bidens considerable wealth. Born poor, never having held a high paying job, how has Biden managed to wax rich. Could his being one of the largest recipients in the Senate of Lobbying funds be the explaination?
More scratching in this area needs to be done.
JL
Janet,
An interesting comment/question in regards to Senator Biden’s wealth. Can we also explore Obama’s wealth? I often wondered how a young man coming from a one parent family of no real means, could attend Harvard, become a Senator, own a mansion and run for president…...Where did that path begin?
The Clinton’s were among the least wealthy to ever reside in the White house and are now worth in excess of $100 million. Amazing what wealth political involvements can generate. George Soros gives until it hurts. It’s going to hurt all of us when it’s time for him to be repaid. Or at least those of us who love our country as it is and don’t want it to become a socialist nation.
”... gee, could it be billionaire richard mellon scaife? he also gives to the ‘western journalism center’. so you are, in part, sucking at the teat of someone that supports the killing of gays… how lovely ...” - faux ann
Maybe you should look a little closer at the list of organizations Scaife has funded: many are libertarian or conservative, but others include Planned Parenthood, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
And where do you get the “supports killing of gays” canard?
That IP address at Sullivan’s is getting a real workout. It was a bit funny when the new commenter “ann coulter” made here quick posts yesterday morning on three different threads, but today’s rants are a different thing. While leftists may think the real Ann Coulter is a thorn in their sides, and it is not rocket science that they hate her guts, I do suspect she is really careful about the use of her name. Since it is common knowledge on this site that AIM is investigating the various manifestations of Sullivan, it will be interesting to know what IP address this new “ann coulter” goes back to.
Thank you John Galt, Richard, Janet Lehr and Loral, for commencing with REAL discussion on the latest researched article of Cliff Kincaid. The rant posts of the leftists before you, while surely expected since Soros’ and Obama’s minions have been trying to shut down this site while cowing, intimidating and threathening the mostly Conservative leaning posters, were only there to stop discussion at the onset without any evidence whatsoever that the charges of Kincaid were without merit.
In fact these leftists posters CAN be used as another source to verify the merit of the charges made in the Kincaid article. That they were the first to pounce, and pounced quickly, and nastily, says that Kincaid, to me, is speaking of matters that matter and the Obama/Soros minions know that, or at least have been told that by their masters/their handlers.
But I do suspect that using the “ann coulter” handle will come back to haunt them. Think of the zillions and zillions of handles they could use to cover up their true names, and using a beloved commentator of the Conservatives is the best they can do. I sure could be wrong, but I suspect Ann ain’t going to like it, and I’ll bet she has a battery of lawyers to impress that on these people, and if investigation brings this faux ann back to the people I suspect it will, we might have a whole new matter to bring to the attention of the voters?
Oh, and Cliff, while their minions slammed it in the first comments on this thread, on Saturday it was the first thing that went through my mind - that Soros had a hand in the pick of Biden. But then, we already know that the internal Democrat fight between the Soros clan and the Clintons is why Barack Hussein Obama is their nominee. The Clinton’s that mostly controlled the party lost to the Soros gang and they now effectively have the say.
Free thinking Americans know that Pelosi and Reid are really puppets of Soros, as even the Democrats in the past were not so stupid that they would so quickly elevate these two idiots to such power unless the power was not them but someone else behind the scenes controlling their strings. The usual power hierarchy was surely passed over in getting the least brightest to the highest posts, and equally, bright voters have to know that Obama is also just another useful idiot of Soros.
Unfortunately Soros thinks himself so slick and powerful that he does not need to vet his minions and the house of Soros cards is starting to fall down as the quirks of the idiots he can control are being shown in the sunlight. To get people you can control often it means you get people that are deeply flawed - and certainly Pelosi, Reid and Company are flawed, but Obama is going to become a nightmare, I suspect, before we vote in early November. Hussein Obama REALLY does have a severely flawed past.
“Obama REALLY does have a severely flawed past.”
Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rev. Wright, Antoin Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi
Keep these names in public view. No conspiracy theory here. BHO keeps bad - as in dangerous, criminal and corrupt - company.
“Soros’ money is everywhere pushing the Leftist and One World agenda. ”
He’s the only billionaire doing this, while the rest of them (like Mellon Scaife) are peddling the Right wing One world for the billionaires agenda.
Do you really believe in your demented mind that one man like Soros has the control over anything ? He might have influence, but the caricature of a “Dr Evil plotting the world destruction in his secret cave” the right try to make out of Soros is completely crazy.
But we wouldn’t expect less crazy from AIM, the proud competitor of the http://www.theonion.com
I would like to thank all the lefties for the comments today. I needed a good laugh.
I wonder if it was Richard Mellon Scaife (or might it have been T. Boone Pickens?) who picked Cliff Kincaid, the pulp fictionist, to “write” for A.I.M.?
I wonder what kind of grades Cliffy got during his school days - - and if he ever “plagiarized” on any of his “jounralism writing class” assignments in college?
Does anyone know if Mr. Kincaid ever wrote about Mr. G. W. Bush’s alcoholism or his arrest for theft during his Yale days?
“Dr Evil plotting the world destruction in his secret cave” - hypeman
Isn’t that how the Lefties used to caricature Rupert Murdoch (see also: “Tomorrow Never Dies”)?
Scaife-controlled foundations are not only major funders of AIM (more than $4 million since 1985) but have also given generously ($375,000 since 1999) to Kincaid’s other little operation, America’s Survival.
Source: mediatransparency.org
Terry K.
Who cares? I’m concerned about the men who want to run this country. I don’t think that has anything to do with AIM.
The difference Terry K is that Soros is working hard to destroy everything that made America great and push us further and further down the road to Socialist ruin, and the other side is working hard to keep that from happening. One wants to keep what has worked all these years of the American Republic, and the other wants what has never worked in World History and force-feed it down American’s throats, when all examples have proved this way does not work - Soros’ Socialism!
Julie, remember where we conversed, where they were not? Check it out!
ann coulter,
Since the neocon globalist philosophy is pretty much the same as the Democrat Party’s globalist philosophy, I would think that the target of your wrath would also be the latter.
As for being ‘ultra wealthy’, I would tend to include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Algore, and John Kerry Heinz in the mix.
As a Conservative, I’ve enjoyed the friendship of two openly homosexual co-workers from a previous company I worked for. However, I would have nothing to do with either one of them if I found out that they threw condoms at a Catholic church during a Gay Pride march or created sacrilegious works of ‘art’ that displayed a crucifix in urine.
That extreme fringe part of the homosexual community is what people on my side of the political isle have a problem with. Otherwise, most of us just feel “live and let live”.
Also, to me, it just seems immature to hijack the name of the real Ann Coulter in order to carry it around in your pocket like the way a Comanche would carry around the scalp of one of his slain enemies.
I don’t believe there any “ultrawealthy” politicians. Sure, people like the Kennedys, Clintons, Pelosi and Biden (to name just a few) have gotten filthy rich off of government “service” (and the Obamas certainly hope to do the same), but they still have to hustle for their lucre. The ultrawealthy - Gates, Allen, Buffet, some of the Wall, Mellon and Rockefeller heirs, Soros, Murdoch, a bunch of Saudis and the relatively unknown Nadhmi Auchi (UK’s 13th richest person) can play at politics as they wish, by buying the Obamas, Bidens and Clintons to do their bidding or simply contributing to a diverse collection of political players (such as AIM).
Of those who have come into the public eye, however, none is more dangerous to our country than the former Russian currency speculator, George Soros. The spotlight has to be kept on him continuously, and I thank Kincaid and his enterprises for helping to do so.
Michael Yon has an interesting take on both Obama and (ironically) Biden in a piece he wrote Aug. 19th:
QUOTE:
“However history finally judges him, President Bush will be remembered for two decisions. In 2003, he invaded Iraq. And in 2006, he did not surrender.
“Whether or not the first decision was right seems difficult to answer definitively without falling back onto ideological bias, partisan politics, or wishful thinking. Reasonable people likely will disagree about that decision for as long as the event is remembered. If Iraq falls apart or again becomes a tyrant state, then Bush was a brash, imperialistic President invading a sovereign nation without cause, who made things worse and spent lots of money and lives in doing so. If Iraq becomes a stable and prosperous nation even vaguely similar to the United Arab Emirates or Qatar, then most fair-minded people likely will judge Mr. Bush as a little-understood visionary who paid a moderate price to dramatically improve an important region of the world.
“But few reasonable people who have been paying attention can disagree that the second decision was correct. In January 2007, one prominent Senator predicted that the Surge would only deepen the sectarian conflict in Iraq. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there: In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
“Now it’s difficult to tell exactly what Senator Obama thinks about the Surge, for each remark he makes on the subject seems to veer in a different direction without ever actually going anywhere.”
END QUOTE
http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1819
Dave, pay particular attention to comment #43 on that article. Sorta blows the “no WMD” argument straight to hell, doesn’t it?
After reading a few of the comments that are from Liberal’s and others. If people don’t wake up and research out Obama & Biden and their true background. We will be in a One World ORDER. As far as I’m concern that’s fine because that means Christ is coming very soon.
I just relay on the LORD to make the decisions, he really knows everyones HEART & MIND. The LORD lifts up one and puts down another. Good, Bad, or Ugly.
People just Look UP that’s where your real answers come from and know where else.
S.F. in OR.
Richard:
Soros was known as the “man who nearly broke the Bank of England.”
re: Loral: Who cares?
I’m just pointing out who has bought and paid for Mr. Kincaid, since we were on the subject of who has bought and paid for whom and he’s a tad loath to discuss the issue. Knowledge is power, etc.
John Galt,
My bet is, that once we’re out of Iraq, the country will turn into chaos. The three factions there were fighting each other for many years and will continue fighting unless maybe if the country is carved up into three separate Arab nations. Even then, I see continued fighting, although maybe on a lesser scale.
O’Reilly, who’s been fairly supportive of the Administration’s claims of good progress with the ‘surge’, still claims that the current Iraqi government is utterly corrupt.
In response to whomever their is a book out titled: The Shadow Party…It’s all about Soros and it is really an eye opener about him and others and the orginations they all fund. But as most of us know it’s 90% Soros funded.
Look up! that’s where all our help is coming from.
SJ-OR
The book would be good but without it, it’s still easy to find out about Soros. Google will take you everywhere you need to go to find out about him and his political proteges’.
He is not even bothering to hide what he wants this country to become. After all, it isn’t his country so if it falls apart it isn’t his loss either.
“Dave, pay particular attention to comment #43 on that article. Sorta blows the “no WMD” argument straight to hell, doesn’t it?”
I’m not sure it does. Give me some time.
Just how did the surge work? I couldn’t be happier with the drop in the rate of attacks, but could someone explain the mechanism that made the surge a sucess? I do know that the number of displaced Iraqis doubled on the heels of the troop increase…was a vast migration based on religion the “plan”?
The surge worked because it gave Petraeus and Ordienero (sp?) the “muscle” to clear and hold areas and pull off the basic counterinsurgency tactic of “separating the fish (insurgents/terrorists) from the sea (the populace). The displacement actually reversed somewhat once various areas were cleared and kept safe with small units continuously patrolling.
The populace, seeing they were safe and the Americans weren’t leaving as they had in the past, started “ratting out” the miscreants. That lead to increased dismantling of the insurgent and terrorist cells.
There is an good series of analysis papers on the surge tactics and strategy on the Institute for the Study of War site ( http://www.understandingwar.org ). Look under the Iraq Project tab for the Iraq Reports.
I also recommended Lt. Col. Nagl’s book, “Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife” and Michael Yon’s blogs from the period ( michaelyon-online.com ).
A Suggestion
A fear has arisen in the African-American community. Recently, the FBI and Secret Service have had similar concerns. Worries center on the possible assassination of Obama.
Much racist hate mail and blogs has suggested cause for such apprehension. Now, the arrests of Shawn Adolf, Tharin Gartrell and Nathan Johnson, as well as the unrelated conviction of David Tuason, have pushed such issues into public awareness. I do NOT accuse AIM and its bloggers of any legal wrong doing. I DO suggest a measure of self-restraint.
Recent comments by Nana, Hansen, cowboyup6, Oscar Y. Harward, Julie O, JayMar, Jhn Blake and Tim contain the following references to Obama: “arrogant ass,” “American traitor,” “Osambama,” “a true closet muslim and marxist,” “dirtier than a pig in a mud puddle,” “Osama Obama,” “Barry’s Marxist promises,” “Barry Obama,” “Sheik Obama,” “anti-American,” “treasonous snake,” “creep” and “[not] a good American.” Other AIM bloggers have avoided such moronic insults but still have accused Obama of evil intentions and wicked associations.
Such comments enjoy First Amendment protection. None constitute actionable threats nor legal jeopardy. However, they contribute to paranoia and hatred. Thus, questions of moral responsibility arise.
Remember the atmosphere of conspiracy theories, vicious remarks, unfounded fears, accusations of treason etc. that surrounded people like Timothy McVeigh and others in the Militia Movement McVeigh and Nichols alone (it seems) acted on such imbecility. But the murders they committed were partially motivated by such “thinking.”
Those of you that do so have every right to express anti-Obama sentiments. You have the right to believe and vent to almost any statement in his regard. BUT I SUGGEST AWARENESS OF POSSIBLE RAMIFICATIONS. It is irresponsible to foment assassination fantasies in unstable minds. (Consider the shining example of Fred Miles.) It is more dangerous to inspire - however unintentionally - individuals prepared to act on such notions. ANY OF YOU ARE FREE TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS. But please, consider the possible consequences.
There are sensible ideological reasons to oppose Obama’s election. There are, in my opinion, more to support him for president. However, reason should prevail. Much of that appears on AIM descends into bizarre paranoid fantasies. If any harm - even if distantly related to such comments - should befall Obama, his wife and their two young daughters, that would raise the question of moral responsibility. The murder of outstanding African-Americans is well-known in our history. Our society is less racist than before. But the old poison festers here and there. What might result from such, after the first African-American’s major party nomination for president by a major party? I don’t think any of us want a contemporary imitator of James Earl Ray.
FOR LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY, CONSIDER THAT WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES - EVEN IF UNINTENDED
My country, the USA, is ceasing its existence, thanks to Soras, Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc., etc.. When the Obama/Biden Global Tax levied on the US citizens for a Global World under the auspices of the UN go into effect, those few who see the horrors eliminating US sovereignty will wake up to reality too late to retain the US as a nation unto itself. Goodbye my country.
BRIAN, I see that you have put the same “suggestion” on more than one thread on this site. You can find my answer to this at the thread -
Iraqi Billionaire Threathens Reporters Investigating Rezko Affair
It is typical of the liberal to cast the first stone, especially after the despicable words out of your mouth. Conservatives do not like to be told what is acceptable PC speech and what is NOT accepted PC speech - it is an authoritarian state that tells its people what to say and what not to say - and the typical Conservative will then deliberately use the NON PC language. See the other site for detail on what I think of this suggestion.
I really haven’t seen anything here that would be considered inciting hatred and I think we have a right and even an obligation to debate the leadership of our country. It is the way we learn and choose what’s best - hopefully.
One of my fears about Obama’s leadership is that due to this over-sensitivity and desire to blame, our Constitutional freedom of speech may be amended.
Brian is simply trying to stir up a little “White Guilt” among those of us opposing Obama. But I, for one, am not guilty of racism (or homophobia, whatever that is, or sexism. I am prejudiced against the Yankees, however.)
What we know of Obama and his wife is that: 1) they are dangerously far to the left of the political spectrum - farther left than any serious presidential candidate that I can think of; 2) in his very brief political career, Obama has closely associated with violent criminals (Ayers and Dohrn), criminally corrupt political players (Rezko and Auchi), black racists (Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakahn - sp?) and admitted Communists (Davis and ?); and 3) HE DOESN’T ACTUALLY KNOW ANYTHING!! He preaches “change” without telling us what he wants to change (other than the occupants of the White House, which will change in any case).
Are the Obamas “anti-American?” I actually don’t know. Barack Hussein Obama is the first Presidential candidate in our history about whom that question has been asked, and that’s reason enough to keep him far from the White House.
Dear Mr. Richard,
You sure don’t know much American history. The first presidential candidate to be subjected to such irrational abuse was Thomas Jefferson during the campaign of 1800. Did you ever read anything about the campaign of 1860? Lincoln was accused of being anti-American for his supposed opposition to that great American institution, slavery. (And contrary to what was claimed, Lincoln was not an Abolitionist.) How about the slogan James Blaine ran under in 1884 against Grover Cleveland; that Cleveland headed the party of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” (Note his argument that being a Catholic rendered any such person as unacceptable to be president.) Not only in 1928 but even in 1960, some anti-Catholics continued to insist that no Catholic could be a good American, that they would become the minions of the papacy.
So, to ignorantly claim that Obama is the first man to face such charges, then insist that the mere raising of them disqualifies him from being elected, is moronic in the extreme. To the best of my knowledge, Jefferson, Lincoln, Cleveland and Kennedy passed the “good American” test. And if Al Smith had become president instead of Herbert Hoover, things might have turned out better than they did. As for Obama, you are certainly free to reject him if you wish. But try to do so for sane reasons. And please remember what my blog was basically about. It was not an argument to vote for or against anyone. It was an argument about the consequences of words.
Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. HappyPick,
So you think our involvement in the Korean War was a very bad thing? That conflict resulted in “a Global Tax levied on the US citizens for a Global World under the auspices of the UN.” Note the huge increase in US government spending during 1950-53, compared to 1947-50. While the entire globe did not enter the conflict, countries from every continent sent troops under the UN mandate. There was no declaration of war by the Congress, not even an a priori Congressional authorization. Truman stated that the UN resolution involving Korea alone justified his use of executive order to send American troops into combat. Afterwards, Congress approved the president’s actions.
What a terrible series of events and decisions took place. How much happier all the Korean people would be today living united under the rule of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea! How tragic that the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il, cannot bestow his benevolence on the people of the Republic of Korea! How well they would eat for example…
Brian,
I don’t think there’s a need to worry about various negative descriptive comments directed at Obama in this forum leading to paranoia and hatred. They are pretty tame when compared to other instances such as Alec Baldwin calling for the stoning of Henry Hyde and his family on national TV, or news commentator Juliennne Malveaux showing her political disagreement with Clarence Thomas by wishing that he die of a heart attack from the Southern cooking his wife probably serves him for dinner (also on national TV), and Madonna viciously insulting Catholics worldwide by tying herself to a cross on stage and wearing a ‘crown of thorns’ to mock the Crucifixion.
I doubt anyone of those despicable morons are looking around their shoulders when they go outside.
It’s funny, with all this talk of Obama’s past associations, I just finished reading an article put out Brian,
I don’t think there’s a need to worry about various negative descriptive comments directed at Obama in this forum leading to paranoia and hatred. They are pretty tame when compared to other instances such as Alec Baldwin calling for the stoning of Henry Hyde and his family on national TV, or news commentator Juliennne Malveaux showing her political disagreement with Clarence Thomas by wishing that he die of a heart attack from the Southern cooking his wife probably serves him for dinner (also on national TV), and Madonna viciously insulting Catholics worldwide by tying herself to a cross on stage and wearing a ‘crown of thorns’ to mock the Crucifixion.
I doubt anyone of those despicable morons are looking around their shoulders when they go outside.
It’s funny, with all the talk of Obama’s past associations, I just got through reading an article from CNSNews.com
Here’s the first paragraph:
(CNSNews.com) - Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Ill. – where Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama worshipped for two decades – has received more than $1.5 million in federal tax money since 2003 through the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI), according to data provided to CNSNews.com by the White House and confirmed by Rebecca Neale, spokesperson for the FBCI
This is why the current Administration has been part of the problem all along.
Dear Mr. pizcaj,
I hope you don’t think I find such statements or actions by Baldwin, Madonna, Malveaux to be acceptable or laudable. Quite the opposite. But those people are not running for president nor are they likely to ever enjoy any political office, not even dog catcher. My concern for Obama’s safety is based on actual threats already made against him (and I don’t refer to those three meth heads) and the fact that he could (I think will) become the most powerful political leader on the planet. I want the election to be decided by the voters, not by bullets or bombs.
Brian,
I know you don’t support the actions and statements of those three clowns, however, even though they are not presidential candidates (thank God), they still are well-known public figures spitting out highly inflammatory rhetoric.
The resulting lack of retaliation from those of us on the Right, shows that we are a pretty benign bunch after all.
Can you imagine what would be left of any museum displaying Mohammed or the Quran covered in elephant dung?
What is wrong with you people? Why do you continue to respond to Brian Sullivan/ann coulter?
Whether or not Soros or Satan himself (almost idenitical) picked Biden as Obama’s VP the issue is the Dems now have two of the most arrogant, ultra-leftwing, loser liars on their ticket.
Can someone explain to me how anyone could support two people they already know are liars for president and VP when, if elected, they will make some serious decisions about the future of this country?
Wasn’t one of the criticism’s of those on the left of Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq that he lied to us about the existence of WMD’S?
So why is it fine for lefties to be known liars before elected but it is a great sin for conservatives to EVER lie?
The double standards and hypocrisy of leftists is mind-boggling.
Looking over this board I note the fact that Brian R. Sullivan seems to monopolize the debate and to have an answer to everyone’s comments. His long tedious discourse offers only the same old liberal crap. He pleads that he can’t express himself in anything less. However Strunk’s grammar manual reminds us of the importance of brevity. As I sit here at my computer at midnight I cannot help but wonder whether he has any life aside from his endless posts. He needs to take time out—- eat a banana, suck on an ice cream cone, help an old lady at a crossing, get a dog or cat. But give the conservative on this board a break from your long-winded nonsense!!!
Dear Mr. Audubon,
One time only, I will take you advice. My reply is short: no.
Dear Ms. Elaine,
The secret that is key to answering your questions lies in the real religious orientation of all (I say ALL!) Democrats, liberals, lefties, Marxists, Lovestone-ites, Anarchists, Capitalist Roaders, Communists, Socialists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, One-Worlders, Trotskyites, labor union leaders, card-carrying members of the ACLU, Right-Wing Deviationists, bleeding hearts, Revisionists, Maoists and the like. Despite appearances to the contrary, none are atheists or agnostics. NO, MOST OF THEM ARE WORSHIPPERS OF SATAN, THE PRINCE OF LIES! A few, however, are other fallen angels who take the shape of animals (like Milton depicts Lucifer in Book IV of Paradise Lost taking the form of a cormorant.) Such little demons appear to us as cats, dogs, gold fish, canaries, gerbils, ferrets and other pets. But that’s only a disguise. Their job is to direct the International Left-Wing Conspiracy. So, when you see someone walking a dog, they very well be a liberal under the power of Satan. For the love of all things holy, run up and kick the devil on a leash. Better yet, shoot the demon in dog form! Or, you can grab the leash, swing the pretend-animal around your head - hard with a Great Dane or St. Bernard, I admit - and strangle it.
Elaine: Soros and Satan are “almost identical”? What wit!
you compare what you call lies of Dems to GWB’s lying us into the war in which we are presently (quag)mired. You don’t see a difference?
“The double standards and hypocrisy of leftists is mind-boggling.”
I’m guessing it doesn’t take much to boogle your mind…
birdman (on Brian S)
“His long tedious discourse offers only the same old liberal crap.”
You don’t read too good, do ya?
Elaine,
Please don’t let the idiocy of these Liberals who try to tell you what you think and feel, prevent you from honoring your spirit and sticking with your choice.
If you re-read all they’ve said here, very little of it is even sensible. Me things they are running scared. (and should be!)
When you can’t see beyond your own nose, almost anything can swallow you up unnoticed. Careful fellows…..............glug glug glug
“If you re-read all they’ve said here, very little of it is even sensible.”
that’s certainly true of post # 46
Dear Ms./Mr./Mrs Loral,
What is it of which the Liberals are running scared? Please enlighten me.
August 26 at 7:00 pm | #1 | Link
Kicaid writes: “You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to detect the hidden hand of George Soros in Obama’s Biden pick.”
Well, actually, yes, you do—as conspiracy theorist extrordinaire Kincaid ably demonstrates.