College Liberal Bias: Prt 3

Well these past two weeks have proved a great time for me to bring up the liberal bias on college campuses. I first wrote about my experience between 2001 and 2007 in the college atmosphere. The follow up was about a professor that used an assignment for students to attack Palin under his own agenda. He later changed to to a critique of any candidate.

We now find out that there was a professor, at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, that was awarding to college credits for students that would go out and volunteer and campaign for the Obama campaign. What is obviously insinuated is that any campaigning for the McCain ticket would not be rewarded.

This was pulled due to violation of ethical laws by the University when it received media attention.

Liberal Bias? go figure...

You can read more about this HERE

Obama/William Ayers 08'!

Barack Obama has addressed his association with William Ayers, an unrepenent terrorist that has bombed the Pentagon and police headquarters here in the US, only slightly in his 19+ month run for the presidential office. When asked about Ayers the campaign says that Obama was "only 8 years old when these horrible things happened" and that Ayers is "Just a guy who lives in the neighorhood".

Records show otherwise however. These records can be found at the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago pertaining to Obama's association with William Ayers and the CAC board that they served on together.

Explained in this WSJ article, written by Stanley Kurtz, Obama has much more dealings than his campaign would lead you to believe.

I think conservatives are a little annoyed that reporters have asked more questions concerning Palin's daughter in the past two weeks than of Obama's associations in the last 19+ months of his campaign. I mean this is unbelievable.

Would it be alright for my child to be friends with Bin Laden when they grow up? "Oh that happened so long ago, I wasn't even born, how can I be held accountable for that!?"

WRONG!

No, radical associations, especially those of terrorists, do not change and do not diminish over time. You want to talk about someone keeping the worst company and showing their horrible sense of decision making.

This just blows my mind.

The Blame Game

With the economy the way it is right now and the financial mess we are neck deep in, politicians seem to want to point their fingers across the aisle to gain a vantage point in the upcoming election season.

The truth is, if you were in office at any point in time since the early 90's you should be pointing the finger at yourself. Republicans and Democrats alike can each provide examples of how it is the other sides fault, and you know what? They are both right. They are all a bunch of weasels and we are sitting here trying to vote in the least weasely of the choices. I think I don't stand alone when I say that it makes me sick to my stomach thinking about how the "We the people...." has been tarnished.

That all being said, the financial crisis didn't just happen. John McCain and the Bush administration have put out concerns and warnings prior to this, since 2001. I am sure some Democrats have too but the fact of the matter is that because of the BS shinannigans on each side, voting against the opposing party just to vote against, they have all screwed around too long and got the tax payers involved.

Sure, Wall Street got greedy and took advantage of a lot of things but Washington let them do it and paid, in return, for campaigns.

The Glenn Beck program found a list of times when the Bush administration had warned of an impending financial crisis. I am not a complete Bush supporter BUT these are note worthy:

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
* "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
* Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Education Criticism Timing Couldn't Have Been Better On My Part

Well wouldn't you know that a couple days after my post on the biased of professors seeping out into the curriculum a professor proves my point.

Professor, Andrew Hallam, asked students to undermine and provide criticism of Sarah Palin during the Republican National Convention for his English class.

When students stepped forward to oppose him and the assignment, the professor opened the debate to the class and had a bombardment of liberal students+Professor vs. four or five opposing.

I would also like to note that a liberal blogger, Andrea Zak, whom I have contact with, has provided me a great article on Obama as a professor. The article talks about how it was hard to nail Obama on bias because he fairly presented both sides and then had the class debate it out. I have great respect for this and, to be honest, would have loved to have Obama as a professor. He is a fantastic presenter and would be an interesting teacher. The fact that he taught with both sides greatly impressed me BUT that does not detract from the criticism of why I don't think he should be president.

So when it comes to education, thumbs up to you Senator Obama and a big thumbs down to you Professor Hallam.

Palin Gets a Nod from Bill Clinton

There have been a lot of attacks on Sarah Palin the past couple weeks. Some, like the bridge to nowhere argument, should be answered. Others, like her daughter's pregnancy and her own Down Syndrome baby, should be left alone. The difference? Politics vs Personal life.

In my previous post I noted that a top Hillary Clinton fund raiser has moved across the aisle with her vote to Senator McCain. Yesterday Bill Clinton had a few things to say about Sarah Palin.

Saying that Palin was a"good choice" for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket. "People look at her, and they say, 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married,'" he said.

You can read more of what he said at: CNN

In other news, Katie Couric finally takes a jab at the other side and asks Joe Biden about the Obama commercial being critical of McCain's computer skills here:



My thoughts are this, Joe Biden and McCain are on the same wave length and are apparently friends from across aisles so it was not the intention of Biden himself but he doesn't run the campaign.

When it comes to Clinton, people will say that he is bitter that Hillary did not win. Check. They will say that he is setting her up for a 2012 presidential election. Check. My answer is simply, so what? It was a bitter battle between Clinton and Obama and because of the stubborness of Hillary not wanting to be the VP and from Obama not wanting the Clinton Baggage anyway, well things are the way they are.

One thing is for sure, with the way the polls are right now, Barack is not a happy camper.

Glenn Beck Interviews Lynn Forester de Rothschild....Top Hillary Fund-Raiser

Another great interview on the Glenn Beck program that I had to post. This time coming from a top fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, Lynn Forester, who is now supporting John McCain. You must have heard about it in the news...right?? Probably not.


September 18, 2008 - 13:01 ET

Lynn Forester de Rothschild

GLENN: Lynn Rothschild is with us now. Hello, Lynn, how are you?

ROTHSCHILD: I'm fine, Glenn. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You know, I read the quote from you back in, I think it was June. You're a baroness, aren't you?

ROTHSCHILD: No. No, I'm not. I am a girl from New Jersey.

GLENN: Come on.

ROTHSCHILD: Middle class family. I made my own fortune and I married a wonderful man who is from a very prominent European family.

GLENN: Yes. He's a baron, right? So when I read this back in June that you were saying you thought Barack Obama was an elitist, I thought that was hysterical coming from somebody with the last name Rothschild.

ROTHSCHILD: You know, we get so lost in labels, it is really sad in this country. You know, I do have that title. I have lived the American dream.

GLENN: I know. I'm

ROTHSCHILD: It's not about me.

GLENN: I know. I'm giving you

ROTHSCHILD: Don't attack the messenger.

GLENN: I don't mean to attack you. Honestly I found it very, very funny and I'm just joking with you.

ROTHSCHILD: You are not alone, including my children.

GLENN: I want to ask you, because I thank you for speaking out. You're not coming over to the Republican side. You are who you are and you describe yourself as a progressive, right?

ROTHSCHILD: I do.

GLENN: I understand Progressives, at least the early, you know, last century progressive, as a party that was really pushing socialism and I think that's where Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they have gone way left. Where do you separate yourself?

ROTHSCHILD: Well, I okay. We have a different idea of progressive. To me, what I mean by being a progressive is that I want to live in a country and a society that tries to bring along everyone in it, a society that lifts the boats for all people. That is not a left wing ideology. That's the American dream. I live the American dream. I grew up in a middle class family and now I have the life that is a dream.

GLENN: Right.

ROTHSCHILD: And that's why I want the right person in the White House, somebody who will preserve that for my children and my children's children.

GLENN: And you're saying now because you were a big Hillary supporter. You were a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Did you tell her you were going to come out against Barack Obama?

ROTHSCHILD: No, of course I didn't. Of course I didn't. I said it publicly, because what I said is what you led with. Is I said in the New York Times in June that I love my country more than my party and I'm going to vote for the person who I trust most to do the right thing for ordinary Americans.

GLENN: You know, I tell you, Lynn, I saw the Country First slogan from John McCain and it dawned on me how right that was when I realized you can hope for change, but I don't even know what that means. The change people want is someone putting their country first, not themselves and not their party.

ROTHSCHILD: Absolutely. And if you look at Barack Obama, when has he ever done anything that wasn't completely in his own best interests. Barack Obama earmarked more than $830 million to pet projects, including I might say $1 million to his wife's employer, including the Bridge to Nowhere. He also voted for the Bush energy plan that was a huge giveaway to the oil company. Because where does Barack Obama get his money? From oil companies. And all of that really upsets me as a Democrat. As a Democrat I feel about the Democratic party the way you did about the Republican party. I think they have left their values behind. I am a centrist Democrat. I want a strong growth economy, I want strong foreign policy. Most of all, I want a party that works for people from the family that I came from, regardless of my name. Don't forget where I came from, you know, Glenn.

GLENN: No, I tell you, Lynn, I disagree with so much of Bill Clinton's policies, but Bill Clinton, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Barack Obama. It is a radical, radical change, a Barack Obama presidency, from what we even are as a country. Agree or disagree?

ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I totally agree. Barack Obama only became the nominee by running against the Clinton legacy. And the question is what part didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity. Bill Clinton won because people understood that he spent every waking hour thinking about how to make their lives better, and we have lost that as a party. The Democratic party is so up to their eyeballs in vested interests. Look at what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden ushered the bankruptcy bill through congress. Even Ariana Huffington from the left said that it was a morally corrupt bill. It hurt the working class so badly. And in this economic crisis, there are going to be people who are not going to be able to pay their bills and will not have protection of bankruptcy law because Joe Biden ushered it through to help the credit card companies that are located in Delaware. That is wrong.

GLENN: So Lynn, how first of all, are you even going to be welcome in the Democratic party? Because who's running the Democratic party right now? They're listening to people who I believe are so vitriolic like Keith Olbermann that will force you to shut up and sit down. That's not the American way. But look what they've done to Joe Lieberman. I mean, you're done when you disagree with

ROTHSCHILD: I don't care. I don't care. You know what? I've got to do the right thing. This is an issue of conscience for me. Claire McCaskill was just attacking me on Fox and Friends and attacking, like you starred, attacking me because I'm Lady de Rothschild.

GLENN: Wait, wait, Lynn, I wasn't attacking you. I was joking.

ROTHSCHILD: I am about as rah, rah American, as normal a person as you can get.

GLENN: I apologize that you have misunderstood my joke. I was not attacking you. Sincerely, I may disagree with your policies but I respect you. That's the only reason why I'm having you on. I respect you for having the courage to stand against the machine that both parties have created, and I really, truly believe until Republicans stop being Republicans and start being Americans and until Democrats stop being Democrats and look and say, "Wait a minute, where are these parties taking us," the only way we're going to survive is when people like you stand up.

ROTHSCHILD: Well, from your mouth to God's ears, I am so much on your side, and you have to say then that John McCain is your man. Look at how he stood up to George Bush. He was the most critical person on the execution of the war in Iraq. He voted against the Bush energy plan. He pushed immigration through with Ted Kennedy because he thought Ted Kennedy had a better idea than George Bush. He

GLENN: Who do you who else like you, is there anybody else, is there anybody that is going to stand up? I've wondered this. When I watch what's happening in congress, is there anyone that's willing to stand up against Nancy Pelosi? Is there anyone else of authority that you think is going to stand up and say, I mean, honestly?

ROTHSCHILD: Well, look. What I think is going to happen, when Barack Obama loses, all of these people who pushed him over the finish line to make him the nominee, led by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean against the wishes of 18 million people are going to have a wake up call. And if the Democratic party does not start exercising and living by the values that it claims to have, it's going to continue to lose.

GLENN: Lynn, may I ask you a question. I said this right after Hillary didn't really endorse Barack Obama at the convention and I

ROTHSCHILD: Now, that's not fair. She really did. And you know what, they're going to try to put Barack Obama's loss on Hillary Clinton.

GLENN: No, no.

ROTHSCHILD: And that will be a gross injustice and it's total sexism, by the way. Hillary Clinton it is. It is.

GLENN: May I finish what I said?

ROTHSCHILD: No.

GLENN: Here's what I said. She did what she had to do as a good little foot soldier, but I don't believe that she wants him to win. I don't believe I believe that she will win Barack to quote, when Barack loses, she will then step into the power vacuum in the Democratic party and say, "It's because you moved too far left and I told you this before." She did the bare minimum to be able to be a good Democrat but not she has no credibility if she hoists up the flag and says, vote Barack Obama, he's the savior of the universe. Because she's going to have to come out and say, you moved too far left.

ROTHSCHILD: Look, no one has done more for a candidate than Hillary Clinton has. Remember Ted Kennedy did not endorse Jimmy Carter and nobody said that he was not a good Democrat. So it is grossly, it really is grossly unfair to put this on Hillary. She is working for him. You know, of course we know from looking at her, she is a centrist and the Clintons are centrists. They govern from the center. You know, NAFTA came through, work fair came through. We created not we he, Bill Clinton created millions of jobs by his policy of being in the center, and the left hates them for it, and it's payback time.

GLENN: Yes.

ROTHSCHILD: And that's why I am not feeling at all guilty about not voting Democrat in this election. I'm happy with John McCain.

GLENN: Lynn Forester de Rothschild, thank you so much for being on the program.

ROTHSCHILD: It's great to talk to you. It's an honor.

GLENN: Good to talk to you, thanks. All right. Bye bye.

The Law Was Broken And Jailtime Is In Order For These Hackers

This is getting to be ridiculous. It may seem harmless to hack into Palin's personal e-mail because it is, most likely, harmless family banter back and forth BUT it is a federal crime none the less. I already know that liberals think this is okay and I know what the excuses are going to be. Liberals are going to say that Palin was conducting business matters over her personal e-mail account when she shouldn't have been, the question then is, would anyone know that prior to hacking into her e-mail? There is where the argument should be taking place, is it alright for anyone to have access to ANYONE else's e-mail? The answer is no.

I refuse to find the website and look at the e-mails, I refuse to post links to the site that contains them, I refuse to post them here and I will absolutely delete any comments containing those links because I have a degree of respect for people. I would take the same position if it were Obama himself. This is outrageous. You might as well walk right over to your neighbor's house, open their mailbox and start tearing apart their bills and other mail. If you go to visit the sites that contain this information I have no respect for you either.

As long as I am talking about Obama and e-mail though, it does raise an interesting question in my mind that has actually been burning there for a while.

Obama, at one point in time, said "I can no more disown my pastor (Rev. Wright) than I could disown the black community". Well, Obama did disown him, after comments he had made that directly reflected previous comments he had made. No change. The polls showed he needed to do it, so he did. Apparently this pastor, Rev. Wright, was supposed to deliver a speech at Obama's announcement to run over a year ago but was told by a campaign person (Obama apparently didn't even have the respect to do it himself) told Wright that they were going to cancel his appearance on the stage after Obama had gone out.

I only give this back story because Wright has all but disappeared from the news since Obama denounced him and it shouldn't have. It is a direct reflection of his choices and the people he surrounds himself with, especially his ideals on Black Liberation Theology.

So, let's say that this "Hacker Group" was bipartisan (haha) and would hack into Obama's e-mail. Would we find e-mails to Wright revealing a still friendly relationship that was being held over until after the election? Not only do I think it is entirely possible but also a given. I would even think phone records could prove that, so I wouldn't need those e-mails.

The point is, I hope Obama doesn't have his e-mail hacked into, even if this information were to surface from it. I can't wait to hear what people who disagree with me have to say because it would be the most moronic statements ever.

Interview with the writer of The Case Against Barack Obama...David Freddoso

This is the transcript of the interview of David Freddoso, author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama. It aired yesterday on the Glenn Beck Radio program and is something that should be paid attention to.

Keep in mind that the grammar is not very well laid out because it picks out the exact speech patterns of people cutting themselves off and mid-sentence switches.

Enjoy these lovely details on Obama....

September 17, 2008 - 13:10 ET

The Case Against Barack Obama

GLENN: We have David Freddoso on. He is the author of a book, The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. He is a reporter for the National Review Online. WGN in Chicago getting heat for having him on. The Obama campaign does not want this man on. There's another guest that they had on that they also went through the roof and just did everything they could to scare WGN into not having these guests on. Why? What is it that the Obama campaign doesn't want? They say smears. David Freddoso is somebody that, believe me, I have had on my program and on my program, to get it on CNN, it better be right. If you're a conservative, it better be right. David Freddoso is somebody that we have checked out ourself to make sure what he's saying is right, and let's go to the abortion thing. I played the ad. It's a 527 now against Barack Obama that says please, Barack Obama, please don't allow babies to die from botched abortions. That's a pretty outrageous claim.

David, where does that claim come from? What is this story?

FREDDOSO: Well, this is the story of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and it goes back to a hospital in the southwest suburbs of Chicago called Christ Hospital where they were performing on a regular basis induced labor abortions and these are late second, early third trimester abortions in which the drugs are given to the mother to induce violent labor and the baby is usually killed in the contractions and comes out. But about 15 to 20% of the time this produces a a live baby is born, I should say. And sometimes the babies will live just for a few minutes, sometimes for several hours. But this hospital was not giving any thought to medical treatment for them when they survived and could have potentially lived on and saved in incubator under whatever sort of medical technology we have to keep premature babies alive. They were simply shelving them and

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I just, I don't care how you feel about abortion. If you think abortion is a right, you know, a woman's right to choose, et cetera, et cetera, fine. I disagree with you. We're going now to a step of partial birth abortion. Now people are not for partial birth abortion. The vast majority of people. They are pro choice but they are saying you can't take the baby and have them birthed all the way except for the head and then suck the brains out while the head is still in the mother. That is a that is a step way beyond. And Republicans and Democrats agree on that. This is something further than that. This is a baby that survives an abortion and is living outside of the mother, is now just neglected and dies from neglect. Right or wrong, David?

FREDDOSO: This is what yeah, that is exactly what was happening and, in fact, that fact isn't even in dispute. What is in dispute is exactly what condition that they were being left to die in. According to the nurse, Jill Stanek whom I interviewed for the kids against Barack Obama, they were one of the places they would put these babies to die while they were struggling is the utility closet where medical waste goes. According to the hospital they were putting them into comfort rooms where they would just simply leave them to die with a blanket or something. So that was the practice. And the attorney general of Illinois told Jill Stanek, this nurse, that this was not violating the law, that they couldn't do anything about it and, you know, all protestations to the contrary, there wasn't any law protecting these babies because the attorney general of Illinois wasn't you know, he absolutely said, you know, no, you would need a new law if you wanted to do this.

GLENN: David, why couldn't you, why couldn't the doctor just kill the baby once the baby was born?

FREDDOSO: Well, I mean, I would say that's murder. I mean, I'm also pro life.

GLENN: Got it. No, I'm not talking about your opinion. I'm talking about the law. It would indeed be murder if they would have killed the baby once the baby was born.

FREDDOSO: Well, of course, and even this practice itself strikes me as murder because you don't actually have to stab someone through the heart to commit murder.

GLENN: I understand that.

FREDDOSO: You can certainly leave them, there's such a thing as negligent homicide as well. But in any case, there wasn't a law protecting them and that was what they went to the Illinois legislature to do was to pass a law that would define anyone who is already born and alive as a person. And that would have made the laws of the State of Illinois apply to these premature babies.

GLENN: How did Barack Obama stop it?

FREDDOSO: Barack Obama was the only state senator to speak against this law and

GLENN: Sorry. Repeat that, please.

FREDDOSO: He was the only state senator to speak against this law on the floor of the Illinois Senate.

GLENN: Okay.

FREDDOSO: In all the times it came up, in fact, he was the only one to speak against it. And his speech that he gave is very interesting, and I've given it in full in Chapter 10 of The Case Against Barack Obama because the argument is basically this, that if we go and recognize premature babies born alive in what some people call a previable condition, although they were clearly living for a while, if we do this, then it might down the road affect the right to abortion. It might cause it might create some kind of

GLENN: Slippery slope that they always say doesn't exist.

FREDDOSO: I'm sorry?

GLENN: A slippery slope that liberals always say doesn't exist.

FREDDOSO: Exactly.

GLENN: He was using that argument.

FREDDOSO: And that was his argument was essentially a slippery slope argument. His argument on the floor, it had a few contradictions in it, didn't quite make sense. I mean, he used the word "Fetus" to describe a premature baby for a moment and then corrected himself.

GLENN: All right.

FREDDOSO: But, you know, by his argument you could also say that a premature baby who wasn't born in an abortion, who was just simply born premature. I have a friend who recently gave birth to a premature baby and by his argument you would have to question or deny their personhood as well, as though they are somehow less persons than babies carried nine months.

GLENN: So the first time did he sign the bill?

FREDDOSO: The first time he voted present on the bill, which is in the Illinois legislature is equivalent to no. And it was part of a strategy that he had devised with Planned Parenthood lobbyists.

GLENN: Stand by. Stand by. We're going to come get the rest of the story in just a second.

(OUT 11:42)

GLENN: I can tell you why Barack Obama did not want David Freddoso on WGN, because these are the most powerful arguments I have ever heard against Barack Obama. Well stated, well documented and so unbelievably damning. David, we are quickly running out of time. May I invite you for another hour tomorrow?

FREDDOSO: I would love to do it again tomorrow, absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. So let's finish the abortion story, please.

FREDDOSO: Yes. Senator Obama voted he voted present on that bill. It was part of a strategy that he devised, that he and some Planned Parenthood lobbyists had devised that basically everyone would vote present instead of voting no. And just to you know, it came up the following year; he did it again. The bill, by the way, it passed the state senate and died in the state house committee. In 2003, though, Democrats had taken over the state senate and Obama was now the chairman of the Senate health committee. And as chairman he presided as they made the reason that Obama has ever since said he voted against this bill in committee is that it didn't contain the same language that the federal board of live infants protection act contained. Sort of redundant protection against this law ever effecting the right to abortion. What he didn't realize, didn't or was misleading people about is that, in fact, in 2003 the bill that he voted against in his committee did contain that language, was exactly the same as the bill that had gone to the U.S. Senate floor, that Barbara Boxer had stood up and said, "I support this bill, everyone should vote for this bill." Obama voted against it and that puts him on the very fringes when it comes to issues of human life at its very beginning.

GLENN: So wait a minute. He is Barbara Boxer was on the other side of this issue?

FREDDOSO: Yes, that's right. Hillary Clinton was also on the other side. The vote was 98 0 and the two guys who weren't there to vote were pro life Republicans. So basically every abortion proponent in the United States Senate is more protective of human life in its early stages than Senator Obama.

GLENN: Say that again, please.

FREDDOSO: Every single abortion proponent in the United States Senate at the time they voted on this the roll call vote was in 2001 every single one is more protective of human life in its early stages and more respectful of human life in its early stages than is Senator Obama based on his voting record.

GLENN: Now, Barack Obama will say, no, that's not true, I wasn't I was of course for this. He seems to have an ever evolving but he does believe in evolution an ever evolving story on this.

FREDDOSO: Yes. Because at first his story for the next three years or actually four years was that it didn't contain the language if it had just contained the federal bill language, then he would have voted for it. In fact, it did contain that language and he voted against it. This year when National Right to Life found the records this is just a few weeks ago, found the records of the committee hearing and they found the bill was exactly the same and Obama voted against it in a party line vote in his committee, changed his explanation to say now the thing was there was already a law protecting these babies. And there is an old abortion statute on the books in Illinois and it's a bill that Obama has repeatedly argued that every element of it is unconstitutional. It was enjoined from in most of its aspects it was enjoined from enforcement precisely because of the Roe versus Wade decision. And the decision they clinged it to last as each part of it is being knocked down is a provision that would require a second doctor to be present when such an abortion is performed in order to save the baby that the first doctor is trying to kill. And that's something Obama has specifically argued is unconstitutional because it creates an undue burden on the woman and so that is basically, Senator Obama is grasping at straws when it comes to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He's making arguments now that don't make sense and arguments, by the way, that he was never making at the time when he voted against it.

GLENN: I would just like to point out to anybody who doesn't understand the rhetoric of politicians, I'm a recovering alcoholic. So I speak bullcrap for most of my life. So I speak it fluently. I can translate political speak into English. When anybody says that they are worried about that they want the condition of the mother's health, let's make sure that we have an exception for the mother's health, there has never once been a case where a doctor says, in the case of let's say partial birth abortion or where they are performing the abortion late term and they would birth the child, that it is better for the mother if they kill the baby. What they're talking about, there have been cases on mental health, yet her mental health matters if she has the baby, but they deny any kind of mental health stress if she has had the abortion. It doesn't make any sense. It is a game that they play. You cannot tell me that mainstream America you know, I'm not even going to say that. You cannot tell me that 98% of America, pro choice, pro life believe that we should leave a baby to die through neglect. There is no way to make the mental hurdles in your own head to say that this child should die from neglect, this fetus should die from neglect. There is no person within the sound of my voice of 98% of the population of this country that thinks that that is reasonable. This is the kind of guy that you have to understand you're dealing with. He's not somebody who's kind of on the left. He's not somebody who's kind of out of pace with the mainstream. This guy is as far left as you can get and this is just one example.

David, on tomorrow's program can you give us more examples of how incredibly out of step with the mainstream he is?

FREDDOSO: Oh, absolutely. Just about every issue you can find Obama taking stands during his career that are, you know, whether it's guns, babies, taxes and national security as well, stances that members of his own party think are completely wrong. He is the most liberal senator in the United States Senate for a reason, and I'm not the one saying it. That's National Journal, which is a highly respected $2,000 a year publication here in Washington.

GLENN: Tomorrow, tomorrow I would like to go a little bit into and I don't even know if you did this, David, but his mom, he always is saying "My mom from Kansas, my mom from Kansas, my mom." It's like I see Auntie Em every time he says "My mom from Kansas." His mom from Kansas was leftist as well. He's not coming from a background of people that are Auntie Em and, oh, quick, get into the root cellar. There is the roots of Barack Obama are from the left. Tomorrow can you go into a little bit of "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future" and just give me the absolutely best well documented cases that this guy's judgment on friends, if you take him at his word that, "Well, these guys aren't the people we know; well, I can't really answer for my friends or my family or whatever," that his judgment is off.

FREDDOSO: Oh, absolutely.

GLENN: And I don't believe it's his judgment. I believe he is choosing to surround himself with these people.

FREDDOSO: Well, right. And that's just the thing. You know, I have spoken with many people about this question of guilt by association. This isn't about guilt by association. This is about looking at the actual choices that Barack Obama has made in his life. And that's the best sort of gauge we can have. And if you give it the most charitable interpretation and we look at some of these relationships and that's the only conclusion you can come to is that his judgment in picking friends is rather suspect.

GLENN: Name of the book is The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate . The author is David Freddoso. He will join us again tomorrow and all of this will be available online at GlennBeck.com soon.




I will follow up with the second interview with David as soon as I receive that transcript as well.

I took myself off the baking sheet of students..and you can too!

College.

That word brings memories flooding back to me, 6 years worth of memories, just saying that makes me feel old even in my mid 20's. My first two years were at an art institute, which I find hilarious, because you would think that an art school would be full of liberal hippies with their "fight the power with the expression of art". Not so. Matter of fact, I was loosely interested in politics based on 9/11, my first year in college and heard no "chatter" on the political front. I was recently inspired to visit, once again, my experience due to a co-worker's son who has visited my site. Apparently he is feeling the political grind in college like I felt when I went on for my Bachelor's Degree at a University.

Liberals like to claim that Universities and the like are all fair and walk a delicate line when it comes to educating our youth. The truth is, they lead our children along the sideline of a minefield that contains no mines and scare them into not crossing over to have a look. My point is this, professors love the fact that they are in control of the classroom and can have the spotlight for a couple hours. Let them talk about politics and give them an even larger soap-box, well you can just imagine the empowerment. Over 70% of professors are liberal and I venture to say that statistic is even higher. I honestly don't care what your affiliation is as long as you present both sides, without bias, and let the students chose where they want to stand. Once again, the minefield expression, don't lead me along through your opinions telling me how evil the other side is without ever talking about the points or AT LEAST inviting a representative in to talk to us about their views.

Then again, I can't imagine either side playing fair in that situation. Let's face it, they would pick a member of the opposite side that has poor debating skills and even worse logic on the political ideals. So an even better solution? Leave politics out of it, period. Take the challenge of walking that (very fine) line and let those students decide.

As an example, I was sitting in a math class and halfway through the discussion the professor breaks out on a speech about how Bush is doing horrible at the moment. Great, now bottle up that emotion Prof, keep it inside and take it out on someone else who isn't paying to learn. My social welfare class was by far the worse though, I can't complain too much though since I knew just by the title it would be liberally biased. I can spout the whole curriculum for you right now, Liberals are the ones who do community service, we need universal healthcare, lower taxes for inner city, better treatment for older people and the republicans do nothing to help the cause. As a matter of fact, they are evil and do NO community service, are against healthcare, do things to raise taxes (laugh with me), and beat up old people (exaggeration). Out of an auditorium of about 200 students we had two people that spoke ALL the time. Try to argue with them and they would rudely cut you off and go on with their argument and throw in a little crying for some emotional appeal. This select group was comprised of an old long-grey haired hippy that constantly referred back to the Vietnam war an anorexic feminist liberal whom was OVER-emotional. Yes, I pointed out a few things about her but I think that is only fair since I couldn't point out anything in the class and get a word in with her rudeness of cutting me off.

At one point in time, a few weeks in, our professor (who strangely looked like Pelosi..eww) said that "we NEED to lower taxes on the american people, especially inner city families". Two weeks later she said "we NEED universal healthcare for all americans". I looked around the room to see if I was the only one confused and apparently I was. I raised my hand.

"Excuse me, I visit Canada every year for vacation and they have universal healthcare but their taxes are through the roof. About 16% sales tax and 50% income tax for those making $100,000 or more a year"

"Yes, so what is your point?"

"Well my point is that you just said two weeks ago that we need to lower taxes but in order to achieve all of these things you are talking about it would raise our taxes"

She started up with the same crap we have been hearing lately about how the rich deserve to pay more in taxes because they are evil blah blah blah. Meantime, I start looking around the room because my neck was feeling hot. Turns out I was getting half the auditorium of glaring stares and the other half were looking at me and around shaking their heads or scratching them because they just hear a DIFFERENT view and had to ponder it for a second. Holy moly we had a breakthrough. Hell, agree with me or not I AT LEAST got those kids to think and take a side.

One of my ex-girlfriends ended up at the University with me, good friend now but she was a sports nut in high school and had no anger issues. When she graduated from that school she was an anti-republican bitter feminist out for any march she could participate in.

My advice, if you are in school or you are heading to college and you were brought up on conservative principles OR ended up with those views on your own, bring a digital recorder to school. Keep those tests that base their answers on the professor's opinions and not FACT. Debate, a lot and ask hard questions during class to wake everyone else up. If that teacher marks down your grades for having a conflicting opinion, that just goes to show their intention for our future and you go straight to a higher authority with your tests and recordings and get their asses canned because that is NOT America and is nowhere near what we were founded on.

This is what it comes down to and I have said this before:

Do you want the future of America's teachers, engineers, scientists, architects, explorers, astronauts or anyone else to be a free-thinking, stance taking, open-minded individual? OR would you like them all to be presented ONE sided views and have them all come out as cookie cutter stamps of each other?

Candidate Comparison Chart

I received this in an e-mail and thought I would share it with the community since it is presented in an orderly fashion (click on to view full chart):



You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_obama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

Families are off-limits...

I love the fact that reporters are reporting on Obama saying to stop taking digs at the candidates families and then report on people's reactions to that comment based on what is going on with Sarah Palin's daughter...huh?

I think Obama, and I must commend him on this, did the right thing by immediately coming out and saying that family, especially children, are off limits in an election cycle. I think his reaction was quick and responsible.

Where I differ with Obama is on the basis of which family members are off limits. In a morning news interview, during a time Michelle Obama was being attacked frequently, Barack stated that they should not go after his wife and to leave her alone. The thing is, Michelle is putting herself in the spotlight and campaigning for Barack. As soon as you do that, you are open game to the media and the other side.

In the case of Sarah Palin, her daughter is NOT campaigning and making stump speeches for her mother. Nor is her husband whom is also being attacked. The second they start doing speeches for her, I will back down and say that they are fair game.

The interesting thing here is that while her husband was arrested on a DUI, when he was 22, the media seems to not mention that at around the same age Obama was frequently using drugs like cocaine.

One too many beers vs. cocaine...that's a hard one people.....

Make History....Vote

Maybe it was for political expediency that McCain picked Sarah Palin for his running mate but that doesn't diminish her experience or accomplishments in political or personal life.

Maybe Obama picked Biden for Political expediency but he had toget some more experience and foreign policy behind the democratic ticket.

Either way, we are about to have the first black president or the first female vice president in office. If you wanted to vote to make history this year and that was your only concern, things just got a little harder because now you have a choice for history and must do a little research to find which ticket fits you best.

Honestly, that may be the democratic ticket and I am fine with that as long as you understand what they stand for and have done your homework. I personally feel the majority of Obama supporters have NOT done their homework and that is what upsets me.

The fact is, when you walk out of that booth this November, you just made history.

God Bless America

Vote Republican..I dare you racist!

If we do not blow up the whole Middle East and take care of them all to insure that the terrorists are all dead, we will never be able to sleep at night. The terrorists will hide in our closets and beneath our beds and wait, wait for that opportune moment when you least expect it and attack you and your family and most likely will slaughter your favorite pet!

Does that paint the perfect picture for the way that democrats warn of the current administration's "fear mongering"? Using the war as a means to keep a republican administration in office for another 100 years? I guess that I use it as a very exaggerated example because the words of the left are usually just that, exaggerated. It is so easy for us to forget the events on 9/11 and dismiss them as something that will probably never happen again. Yet, these fear tactics, McCain's old age, his lack of computer expertise and of course his likeness to Bush are the pushing points of the democrat party.

Is it safe to assume that "fear mongering" is then below the democrats' strategy? I would say that the democrats are using the oldest fear tactic against the public and getting a taste of what it feels like to be told they are using the race card.

If the mainstream media would have done it's job from the beginning, bloggers that seek the truth behind Barack wouldn't seem so darn crazy but now they are so invested in him, if they would turn against him and reveal his past they would be seen as wrong all along. This all leads to the reason why I have been so upset lately with this election, there are so many issues that surround Obama and why you shouldn't vote for him, yet, when the press interviews people the only reason they can report on why people aren't voting is because of his skin color. How many words have I written on why Obama should not be elected? How many times have I steered clear of the false accusations of him being a muslim in disguise? These two points are all the media focus on to make anyone who doesn't support Obama either look crazy or racist. Is that not a fear tactic? Is there a real reason why we are not allowed to say Barack Hussein Obama yet are allowed to say Hillary Rodham Clinton? I will tell you now that I am unafraid of these liberal tactics to try and defend the shallow record of Barack Hussein Obama.

This recent Op Ed NYT piece illustrates my point on people being labeled racist for not voting Obama in '08. “We’ve been talking with staff in different parts of the Midwest,” he said, “and we’re all struggling to some extent with the problem of white workers who will not vote for Obama because of his color. There is no question about it. It’s a very powerful thing to get over for some folks.”

Well enough is enough and I am here to give you my guide of reasons not to vote for Obama (not including skin color):

1. Reverend Wright-Obama's pastor and friend. Says in order to understand Black Liberation Theology you must read the words of James Cones. Go do that and see the hate in his words.

2. William Ayers-American terrorist, tried to blow up the Pentagon and police headquarters. 3 others involved died in a bomb making accident. Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and has served on the same board as Obama, has held fund raisers for Obama AND Obama launched his campaign at Ayer's household. Recent pictures of Ayers show him stomping on the American flag and on 9/11/01 he was quoted as saying that he "wishes he had done more" when it came to his terrorism. The bombings may have happened when Obama was 8 years old but does that make it okay to be friends with him now?


3. Tony Rezko- Chicago slumlord now serving time, Rezko got Obama a sweetheart deal on his $1 million dollar+ home, saving Obama over $300,000. Rezko bought the adjacent lot at the same time.

4. Black Liberation Theology (according to James Cone)- Obama prayed in his car to God whether Trinity United Church of Christ and black liberation theology was right for him and wrote that in his book, he also reads it aloud in the audio version. James Cone says "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

5. Barack Hussein Obama's comments: "I have two daughters and I will teach them all I can but if they mess up, I don't want them punished with a baby!" or after throwing his own grandmother under the bus by saying that she is guilty of making racial comments that "made my head turn" he defended that statement by saying "what I meant is that she is a typical white person who..." and who can forget his comments behind closed doors with his elitist fundraisers talking about Pennsylvania country people "They are bitter americans who cling to their guns and religion with antipathy towards anyone not like them..."

6. Change- His spouting of "Change" is all well and good except when you bring on a VP pick that has been in the establishment for over 30 years! Longer, dare I say, than McCain. Then again if he had picked a new person I would be on his case about that person's lack of experience, at least I am honest enough to admit that, which leads me to Barack's...

7. Lack of experience- Barack was a community organizer, what the heck is that? He obviously didn't run the group itself as just an organizer. He was President of a Harvard Law committee, listen I will give points here for that because you would have to gain good grades for that. He is a senator, yes BUT he started running for president immediately after gaining this position and has since only served between 140-150 DAYS on the floor, which is at MOST 41% of a year??!? Not to mention that none of these constitute as executive experience (note: McCain and Biden also lack executive experience BUT Palin doesn't!)

8. Barack Hussein Obama considers Iran a tiny country that doesn't pose a threat- He later changed on this issue but to make such a statement requires little foreign affair experience if any at all.

9. Obama wants to take nuclear weapons off the table no matter what- During a time of war, especially with terrorists and the nations that hide these cowards, is it really proper to think, much less mention!, that you are willing to take these options off the table. Listen, if you are against them and you would never use that option as president I am fine with that but you NEVER reveal such motives to the enemy! He might as well have had Geraldo Rivera draw the whole plan out in sand again...

10. Negotiations with enemies without preconditions- This was a statement in regards to the president of Iran whom denies that the holocaust ever happened, vows to wipe Isreal off the map, labels America as "The great White Devil", says that there are no homosexuals in his country. This is also the government that supplies extremists with weaponry that is killing our troops in Iraq. If that is the case and Obama wants to negotiate as a president, I suggest sending him over there alone.

So get out there and educate your friends, as a matter of fact, when they are away from the internet ask them questions about Obama like "what EXACTLY does he mean by change?", "what are his policies?","what are Obama's accomplishments?","what is Obama's experience?" and here is a gem, "Obama says that he will not raise taxes for Universal healthcare, which taxes specifically is he talking about and does that include not introducing totally new taxes to the system that are outrageous?". These types of questions will reveal either who Obama is or the kinds of supporters he has...get out there and have some fun!