Do you remember Obama saying this while campaigning for the 2008 Presidential Election:

Actually, Obama repeated the promise to not raise taxes for those who made below $250,000, several times, including that famous encounter with Joe Wurzelbacher and Joe called him on it (and payed for daring to question “The One” from the Obamabots).

There are now doubts about him keeping this promise. Fox News reports:

The Obama administration once again is sparking speculation that the president may break a key campaign pledge, after he was quoted saying he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on those making less than $250,000.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that President Obama made the comment in an interview discussing ways to rein in the soaring federal deficit.

Agnostic about raising taxes on us, meaning Obama will “vote present” to deflect blame for allowing this to happen?

He’s also recently stated:

“The reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation. Math is not partisan,” Obama told reporters Tuesday during a surprise press conference.

Gosh, he sure can speak a line of crap!

Mr. President, our fiscal challenge is subject to interpretation as your solution is more government, huge deficits and debt. The flip side to your interpretation is less government, no deficits and no more incurrence of debt… oh yeah, and tax cuts across the board, including both sides of the $250,000 threshold! Whenever government spending and taxes are cut, the economy prospers!

Mr. President, we will hold your feet to the fire if you break your promises!

Obama released his budget for the upcoming year and it’s a doozy at $3.8 trillion and increases the deficit to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion! This isn’t good for Americans and will further encroach upon our financial freedoms and saddles ours and future generations in debt.

Betsy McCaughey from Investors.com brought up this point about the rate of government spending as of late:

The $3.8 trillion dollar federal budget that President Obama announced Monday is another bruising blow to American freedom. Government is growing beyond the consent of the governed.

In 2008, government spent 38% of everything produced in the U.S. (gross domestic product) and last year the figure shot above 40%, perhaps as high as 43% though the numbers are still being crunched.

When government spends so much, less is left for people to spend as they choose. Only once before in American history did government spending cross that 40% threshold — to wage World War II. Nothing today justifies a similar confiscation of nearly half of people’s resources.

Amazingly, though the 40% mark is being crossed, politicians continue to propose costly programs that you will have to pay for with the fruits of your labor. No matter who your employer is, you’re actually toiling for the politicians. They’re not public servants. They’re making you a servant. How much more freedom are you willing to give up?

Betsy McCaughey really puts Obama’s budget in historical perspective.

Some of us saw this coming.

You all remember when Joe Wurzelbacher (aka, Joe the Plumber) questioned Obama about his proposed tax plan. Obama went on to “lecture” Joe on his tax plan and ended up stating “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Obama will certainly be “spreading the wealth” with this proposed “budget” of his and it shows that he’s going to plow ahead and do what he wants to do, regardless of the ramifications that his actions will have on businesses and working people. Obama has repeatedly shown his disdain for the regular working class folks that make up the back-bone of America.

Remember this moment in his campaign, when Obama mocked Joe?

The above moment really clued me into Obama’s mindset. He could give a crap what we working stiffs, the ones whose taxes are paying the bills, think and the long-term damage his spending and economic policies will have on our country!

The annual Presidential State of the Union Speech is today and I’ve been perusing articles on the subject. I came across this one, from Christopher Buckley (the late William F. Buckley’s son), “The Audacity of Oops”, that was posted on the Daily Beast. It’s a satire piece on a sneak preview into Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Speech. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Frankly, the economy is not what it should be, which is why the state of the union is a 9.8 instead of a perfect 10.

I called in the smart folks in my administration, many of them educated at Harvard, and I put it to them directly. I said, “Is this my fault?” And to a person they said, “No, sir! No way!”

I said to them, “Well then, whose fault is it?” And they said, “It’s the bankers, Mr. President. The scum-sucking, stimulus money-accepting, bonus-awarding, self-regarding swine who inhabit the street of shame and infamy, the harlot’s den known as Wall Street.”

I said to them, “And what are we going to do about them? We can’t hang them all. We don’t have enough rope. And anyway, rope is expensive and I’m trying to cut the deficit. Ideas, people. I want ideas.”

So tonight I can announce to you, my fellow Americans, the creation of a bipartisan commission to study how to kill the bankers in an efficient and hemp-sensitive manner.

That’s quite the statement, coming from a man who posted this during the 2008 Presidential Election, Sorry, Dad, I’m Voting for Obama:

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

As a conservative who couldn’t vote for John McCain, Christopher Buckley has sure changed his tune about Obama, hasn’t he!

On the flip side of the political spectrum, there’s Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, a liberal and avowed Obama sycophant who had this to say over this past weekend:

Wow, can you tell us how you really feel, Evan! This coming from a guy who proclaimed Obama’s god-like qualities not that long ago:

The change in attitude of conservative, Christopher Buckley and liberal, Evan Thomas towards Obama is quite striking, don’t you think?

It’s the same thing that happened last week when the people of Massachusetts, spurred on by independent swing votes, elected Republican Scott Brown for the Senate seat that’s been occupied by the Democrats since 1952 and 47 years by patron saint of Obamacare, Teddy Kennedy.

People across the political spectrum are seeing what “hopey changey” is really all about and they’re rejecting it.

It’s called Obama buyers remorse!

I bet he’ll try talking his way out of it in his State of the Union Speech! Count how many times he says “I” and “me”…

By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

For nearly three months since the election, we have been warned by President Obama, his staff, and the media not to burden him with unreal expectations that no mere mortal could meet.

But why then consciously borrow from Abraham Lincoln’s speeches? And why re-create Lincoln’s historic train ride to his inauguration—especially by flying back from Washington to Illinois to then return to D.C. by slow-moving railcar? Lincoln took the train because it was the only feasible way to get to Washington in 1861, not to copy the grand arrival of some earlier American savior.

Candidate Obama once adopted a presidential-like seal. He held a mass rally at Berlin’s Victory Column (after his request for the more dramatic Brandenburg Gate was refused).

He adopted Greek temple sets at the Democratic convention. And like Zeus on Mt. Olympus, he talked about making the planet cool and the oceans recede.

And now he’s capped all that by warning us to lower our expectations!

But if Obama deliberately takes on the trappings of a messiah, why shouldn’t we expect messianic solutions?

The alterations in positions during Obama’s pre-presidency were praised as “flexible“ and “bipartisan.” Perhaps. But Obama did not adjust on just an issue or two. Instead, he went whole hog.

It would be difficult to find a single major policy position that he hasn’t backtracked somewhat on, especially on matters of foreign policy and the war against terror. Yet throughout the campaign, Obama and the media argued that the manner in which Bush waged the war against terror was harmful to the republic. So, were Bush’s polices wrong then, but suddenly right now?

Successfully having it both ways has been evident again on matters of his appointments. Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by running as a Washington outsider who promised new hope and radical change—and anything other than more Bush or Clinton.

Then he imported much of the old Clinton team for governance—Rahm Emanuel, Leon Panetta, John Podesta, Larry Summers, Hillary herself, and a score of others—to put a far more articulate and hip veneer on George Bush’s current foreign policy. The Obama team has drafted more old-style former congressional insiders than any administration in memory.

What is going on here? Apparently, Obama accepts that the country is both still center-right and yet eager for a nontraditional national spokesman—glib, young, cool, and able to charm a hostile world that is often hypocritical toward and envious of America.

In times of economic uncertainty and war, once Obama moved toward the center voters could see him as a trans-racial healer who offered vague change, made them feel good about themselves, and—unlike John McCain—was the antithesis of the stodgy old white guy, George Bush.

But Obama’s hard-left base had promoted Obama the liberal activist for different reasons. They want much more of a state role in the economy, while making American society, at home and abroad, look a lot more European.

So to satisfy both left and center constituencies, Obama seems to stick with the status quo on major issues while offering symbolic gestures and low-profile appointments to radical environmentalists, gay and minority activists, open-borders reformers, and labor unionists.

In return, progressives will stick with Obama for a while, on the assumption that he alone can carefully prep and hypnotize the country to soon accept a more left-wing agenda.

And when anyone seems to object to this off-putting balancing act, Obama returns to soaring rhetoric to soothe away the acrimony the way he once did with the Rev. Wright mess last spring.

This triangulation may or may not work at home. Yet abroad it is a different story, where one cannot vote present or charm tough guys and thugs who do not always appreciate flexibility—and may interpret it as weakness to be exploited.

The Iranians prefer to talk, talk, and talk—while they get the bomb. Vladimir Putin wants consensus and dialogue—about re-establishing a right-wing version of the Soviet Empire. China loans us trillions to buy its goods—with the idea that it will soon leverage our financial policy. Europe wants to be courted while expecting America to both lead and be criticized for leading. The Palestinians for now want Israel gone from the West Bank and Gaza—and, at a not-so-future date, gone, period.

The much-maligned George Bush handled all these characters with often unambiguous, if inelegant, talk, and a no-nonsense toughness. If Obama, in contrast, feels he can offer them vague hope-and-change great-expectations rhetoric, and make himself agreeable to the world abroad in the manner he did so to us at home—well, then, lots of luck!

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

As we close out a disastrous 2008, a year in which Western
Civilization essentially suffered a nervous breakdown,
conservatives now must turn to two fundamental goals. First, we
must stop the destructive policy initiatives of the Obama
Administration and the liberal left now ruling in Washington
(first prediction for 2009: the loony, far left Congress will
consistently make the ultraliberal Obama Administration look
moderate by comparison). Secondly, we must lay the foundation for
our political comeback. Here is what we must do to achieve these
goals:

Return to the Grassroots

First and most important is to build up mighty, grassroots
networks across the country. This is something that
conservatives must do, not Republicans, who need to work
on their own grassroots party network. Conservatives have become
too good lately in lecturing Republicans on what they must do. We
need to lead by building a powerful political movement, and the
Republicans will then naturally follow.

The radical, liberal-left agenda is tailor made for generating
grassroots firestorms in opposition. Included in that agenda is
national legislation to remove all state restrictions on
abortion, all parental notification, waiting periods, informed
consent, and partial birth abortion restrictions. Instead we are
slated for taxpayer funding for abortion on demand. Another beaut
is national legislation to remove all state protections of gun
rights, such as conceal and carry permits. Then there is the
federal takeover of health care, the federal shutdown of proven,
reliable energy production, global warming regulation to shut
down what is left of the economy, the “fairness” doctrine to shut
down talk radio, and national legislation to take away workers’
rights to a secret ballot election to determine whether they will
be forced into a union in their workplace. That last item also
includes forcing union contracts on businesses, small, medium and
large, in place of the current system of free negotiation.

And we haven’t even gotten to tax increases yet. Nor the trillion
dollar deficit Obama will propose in his first budget, which will
increase federal spending to the highest levels in peacetime in
U.S. history, by far.

Conservatives don’t need to wait for national leadership. Just
start an activist grassroots network in your own locality. This
consists most fundamentally in gathering lists of names, phone
numbers, and emails of those in your area who will take political
action to fight on one or more of the above issues, and others
that will arise (Senator Patrick Leahy’s court packing plan, for
example). Political action means first and foremost
communicating, to neighbors, family and friends,
privately and publicly. Public communication is pursued through
media outlets (letters to the editor, press releases,
commentaries for local papers, complaints to the media by phone
or in writing, induced media coverage), public forums and
meetings (showing up with signs, loud protests, and speaking
where that is allowed), contacts with elected officials (by
phone, email, or in person), and public protests by the activist
group itself.

The group’s leadership would communicate with members through
newsletters and action alerts, informing them about the issues,
and about what is going on in Washington. This would be enhanced
by meetings primarily involving attractive social gatherings at
least once a month, which will build the spirit and cohesiveness
of the network. An informative speaker at such events would help.

During campaign season, such groups would grow into fundraising
networks, sources of campaign volunteers, and get out the vote
drives, for candidates that support the group’s views. Don’t be
shy about participating in politics. That is your right which
many have fought and died for. The Left is not shy.

Most people are politically inactive except for showing up to
vote, or maybe providing campaign contributions. So even a group
of 20 active members is a political force. You can form such
groups out of your existing social network, including friends
from your church or even your union. But don’t try to formally
affiliate with your church or union, or ask them for permission
to form your own group by contacting people you know. Also, don’t
pick a name for the group that suggests radical, inflammatory,
revolution. The style should be moderate, informational,
competent, professional. The substance should be vintage Reagan.

Conservative leaders must organize state, regional, and even
national networks of such local groups, reaching into every
congressional district in the country. State, regional or
national conferences would add to the punch. This grassroots
organizing should be in addition to existing organizations
dedicated to pro-life, gun rights, and taxpayer issues, which are
all to the good, but more is needed.

Conservative politics and issues will not revive until we return
to the people and build a mighty grassroots force.

Communications Networks

Successful politics is all about communicating the message.
Because most of the media has now turned to the left, and is
controlled by the Democrat party, this is a special challenge for
conservatives. The numerous conservative think tanks,
publications, and talk radio shows are the foundation for
success, and the main reason we are not about to go into a long
period of left-wing, Democrat dominance like the New Deal. But
more is needed.

The grassroots networks discussed above would help greatly with
the communications challenge. Conservative think tanks should
look to communicate in part through these networks. Conservative
intellectuals should look to tour the country speaking to such
groups.

But there needs to be an additional, special focus. There are
about 80 congressional swing districts now mostly represented by
Democrats, especially Democrats who campaigned as conservatives
to defeat incumbent Republicans. A special communications network
needs to be set up for these districts. Local newspapers, radio
stations, TV news people, local talk show hosts need to be
identified for each such district. They then need to be targeted
for commentary submissions, interviews with conservative policy
experts, local speaking engagements by such experts, etc. These
districts should also be a special focus for grassroots
organizing.

Facts and analysis on the key contested issues in Washington
should be poured into these districts. But most important would
be how the supposedly conservative local congressional
representative is voting in Washington, what bills he or she is
sponsoring, what he or she is saying in Washington and elsewhere
out of the district.

Any conservative organization can take the lead in identifying
the local media contacts in these districts, and then making that
network available to other conservative organizations. In fact,
any think tank or other conservative organization can set up its
own op-ed columnist syndicate to compete with the Copley News
Service, Knight-Ridder, and other columnist distributors.
Ideally, the organization would develop relationships with op-ed
page editors across the country, including at the local papers in
the key congressional districts, as well as at major newspapers
nationwide. A well-known, big name conservative affiliated with
the organization could tour these newspapers to help establish
and solidify such contacts.

The Tax Opportunity

The central promise of the Obama campaign was to cut taxes for
the bottom 95% of income earners. Obama stated in one of the
debates that if you were in the bottom 95%, “your taxes will go
down, not up.” Conservatives must now enforce that campaign
promise.

The minute Obama or anyone else in Congress proposes to raise
taxes on anyone in the bottom 95%, conservatives must explode,
calling on Obama’s own campaign promise in opposition. This is
key to stopping massive expansions of big government, because the
government is not going to get much additional revenue trying to
tax the top 5% even more. It is also the key for a conservative
comeback.

Undoubtedly, some on the left will argue that everyone breaks
their campaign promises. Conservatives would be foolish to let
them get away with this. Such an argument would effectively take
our democracy away from us, for how can we tell who to vote for
except through what the candidates say and promise during their
campaigns? How can we vote for the policies we want if candidates
can just dismiss what they said once elected? George Bush Sr. was
voted out of office because he broke his pledge not to raise
taxes. Conservatives must now try to do the same to Obama, and
the liberal-left congressional majorities.

And we do not need to be shy about what constitutes a tax
increase. An individual mandate requiring workers to buy health
insurance, which Obama explicitly opposed during the election, is
a tax increase on the bottom 95%. So is a carbon tax or cap and
trade global warming regulation that would directly raise the
price of energy and its use, including electricity, gas, and
maybe cars. In fact, global warming regulation is another factor
that will be powerful in bringing down the Obama Administration
and the liberal-left majorities, with its high costs and
disastrous economic effects. Conservatives need to be alert to
pounce on this as well.

What we need to avoid on taxes, and other issues across the
board, is the strategy of the smart surrender, giving in to
policies we oppose in order to make them less bad. Too many
conservatives are arguing now for adoption of a carbon tax to
fight global warming, and to shift our economy from oil, gas and
coal use, with the new tax revenues to be offset by tax cuts
elsewhere. This ultraliberal Congress is not going to offset any
new tax with other tax cuts. Wave a dollar in front of the noses
of this band of pirates and thieves, and they will immediately
spend two. We need to fight and win, not lose by falling for less
bad defeats. Indeed, the more brilliant we are in achieving these
less bad defeats, the longer the liberals will dominate in
office.

Global warming and the carbon tax are perfect examples of the
biggest problem with the strategy of the smart surrender. The
intellectual and political tides are already turning against the
big lie of global warming. Even the lefty European public is
showing now that it is not willing to bear any significant cost
for this fairy tale. That will be so much more true for the
American public, even more so with the weak economy. But if we
spend our resources focusing on smart surrenders on this issue,
we will get the surrender just when victory is at hand.

Socialized Medicine

The biggest threat conservatives face from the now ruling liberal
left is a new, massive, overwhelming entitlement in the form of
national health insurance. Once such a giveaway is adopted, it
will be very difficult to reverse, more so than the rest of the
Obama liberal-left agenda. This will mean not only massively
higher taxes and spending. It will mean also the destruction of
our health care system, as investment in both human and physical
capital, meaning the best in doctors and surgeons, as well as new
high tech medicine, medical equipment, and drug therapies, is
driven away by big government control squeezing out profits and
opportunities for economic gain in health care.

Conservatives must focus all their energies on this battle, which
is the one we are now most likely to lose. The key
vulnerabilities include taxes, given that a real, new health care
entitlement will require a massive increase in taxes on working
people, violating Obama’s campaign promises. The other big
vulnerability is precisely the disastrous effect of such a system
on health care quality. The loss ultimately of all consumer
freedom and control over health care to the government and its
rationing schemes was a powerful argument as well in stopping
Hillary’s health-care takeover.

The Positive Agenda

Of course, conservatives will need a positive agenda as well,
besides just opposing what Obama and the left want to do. But we
don’t need a lot of new ideas here. Our substantive agenda is
intellectually well developed and sound. And a lot of the
supposed new ideas for conservatives we are hearing about these
days are not good.

The fundamental theme for conservatives is freedom and
prosperity, including the freedom for those who believe in
traditional religious and moral values to live their lives in
accordance with those values. For long-term political success,
the emphasis needs to be on economic growth, because that is what
moves conservative political support from the mid-40s toward 60%,
enough for a governing majority.

The agenda includes tax cuts consistent with these themes. We
should counter the Obama tax plan based on redistributive tax
credits with a middle class tax cut based on reducing tax rates,
which is what creates real incentives for economic growth. The
middle class 25% federal income tax rate should be reduced to
15%, which would leave 90% of workers with a 15% flat tax (some
with an even lower rate).

The outdated and uncompetitive federal corporate rate of 35%
should be reduced at least to 25%, if not the 19% recently
adopted by Germany and Canada, or the highly successful 12.5%
rate adopted by Ireland. The top individual income tax rate
should be reduced to 25% as well. Capital gains tax rates should
be half these individual rates, if not reduced all the way to
zero, as capital gains involves double taxation.

Even better would be an innovative flat tax reform designed for
maximum political appeal, not revenue neutral but a net tax cut.
The long-term agenda also includes eventually phasing out the
payroll tax with the benefits now financed instead through
personal investment and insurance accounts.

We already have developed alternatives that will provide the
safety net for health care the public demands, without a
government takeover of the entire system. An intellectual and
political backlash is just beginning to sprout against the costly
global warming fairy tale, and conservatives should ride that
tidal wave, rather than cave in to the fallacy now. Conservatives
should also aggressively promote production of all forms of
energy, including drilling for oil and natural gas, and extensive
building of new nuclear power plants, to provide low cost,
reliable energy supplies. This will promote economic growth, and
benefit consumers with lower prices. On the union power grab
through national card check legislation, conservatives should
ride the backlash as well by promoting the positive ideal of all
workers being free to choose individually whether they want to
join a union or not (national right to work). I believe union
overreaching now will make this appealing and just ideal
politically popular.

Fighting with passion and insight, we can knock the Left from
their perch in two years, and return to power in four.

This is a column on awards for the year’s worst reporting. You will read what an expert panel determined to be the most outrageous quotes of the mainstream liberal media for 2008.

I think you will find them amusing for openers. But they have significance far beyond their considerable entertainment value. The quotes that follow show you how extreme the biased, dishonest and fraudulent journalism of the mainstream media has become. The media monitors that I have confidence in agree that bias during the past presidential campaigns reached new extremes far beyond anything of recent memory. The easiest way to quickly appreciate what the mainstream liberal media is putting out is to let these media outlets convict themselves out of their own pens and mouths. I think you will find these notable quotes convincing beyond measure.

But again, the significance of the quotes goes far beyond that of entertaining and documenting how the mainstream media has gone far beyond any reasonable and rational boundaries. An appreciation of this media output shows exactly how dangerous this reporting and editorializing has become. It goes beyond rational boundaries and truly demonstrates that liberalism is a mental disorder. Read some of these quotations and ask yourself whether a journalist, even a bad one, could say some of these things in his right mind. I submit the answer is no.

Finally, these notable quotables have significance in driving home the need for action to alert the public to the dangerous consequences of relying on the mainstream media. To do so, assures that the public and policymakers will likely be coming up with solutions that don’t make sense as they are tailored to fit a world that exists only in the demented mentality of the reporters and editors that make up the mainstream media. This kind of reporting, if accepted, will lead to a losing war against terror and an economic recovery plan that will make a bad situation worse.

The Media Research Center, one of our best media monitors, came up with this list of outrageous quotations for its 21st Annual Awards for the Year’s (2008) Worst Reporting. A panel of 44 distinguished judges determined the recipients of the awards. Among those judges were Midge Decter, author; Barry Farber, radio talk show host; Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media, another important media monitor; Marvin Olasky, editor of World magazine; Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist, whose work appears in The Bulletin; and Walter E. Williams, economics professor and syndicated columnist, whose work appears in The Bulletin.

We’ll start with the “Quote of the Year” as determined by the panel of judges. It involved an exchange between Chris Matthews, co-anchor on MSNBC, and Keith Olbermann, another MSNBC co-anchor:

Matthews: “I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My — I felt this thrill going up my leg I mean, I don’t have that too often.”

Olbermann: “Steady.”

Matthews: “No, seriously, it’s a dramatic event He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”

This is my case for liberalism as a mental disorder. You will note that even the loony liberal Mr. Olbermann, upon hearing the first part of Mr. Matthews comment, told him, “Steady.” Doesn’t that suggest that even his co-anchor Mr. Olbermann thought he was melting down? Mr. Matthews is silly enough himself to feel that thrill go up his leg, but he even assumes most people listening to Mr. Obama have a similar experience. I’d suggest that when Mr. Matthews gets his leg checked to see what is causing that “thrill” to go up his leg, he also get his head checked. What is even more frightening than this guy flying over the cuckoo nest is that he is now considering a run for the U.S. Senate out of Pennsylvania. We can easily handle his raving and ranting on MSNBC, but I shutter to think the kind of damage he could inflict as a U.S. senator.

To show you how keen the competition for the most outrageous quote of the year, consider one of the runner-ups. It is from a headline over a Nov. 6, 2008 Reuters dispatching claiming no liberal tilt in favor of Mr. Obama:

“Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race.”

That’s significant as it shows the media is not only biased beyond belief, and doesn’t have the slightest clue pointing to its own failure. A Pew Research poll found that an overwhelming majority of the pubic thought the media was routing for Mr. Obama. And a few of the mainstream media people, one from Time magazine and the other from the Washington Post, admitted the mainstream media was guilty of bias in the first degree.

I’d have my own nomination for quote of the year, because it shows that the far out ideas of the mainstream liberal media are. They are not only silly but also so silly that it causes them to come up with a picture of the world that is totally removed from reality. This is from MSNBC daytime anchor Alex Witt, commenting on the Mumbai massacre:

“There are many who had such an optimistic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There has been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new kind of administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampened down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.”

So Ms. Witt actually suggests that all would be sweetness and light because Mr. Obama was elected. This shows a profound lack of understanding of the threat of terrorism. This led Jason Maoz in his “Media Monitor” column in the Jewish Press to name this the most outrageous media quote of the year. He wrote, “But perhaps the most pathetic display of media bias (with not a little naiveté thrown in for good measure) comes from MSNBC daytime anchor Alex Witt, who in discussing the terrorists attacks in Mumbai exposed herself as a nitwit extraordinaire.”

In addition to the “Quote of the Year,” the Media Research Center gave awards in 16 other categories. Here are some of them:

The Obamagasm Award

Here it is from Nancy Gibbs writing the cover story for Time magazine on Nov. 17.

“Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope … Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin. Nor did he win in spite of it. He won because at a very dangerous moment in the life of a still young country, more people than have ever spoken before came together to try to save it. And that was a victory all its own.”

What’s remarkable is not just that a reporter for a major national magazine could write that sickly, saccharin hogwash but that it could get by a group of editors and actually get published. Yes, Time’s Messiah is also a “prince.”

One of the runner-ups isn’t too bad. It’s from David Gergen during live coverage of Mr. Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention:

“In many ways, it was less a speech than a symphony. It moved quickly. It had high tempo, at times inspiring. Then it became more intimate, slower, all along sort of interweaving a main theme about America’s promise, echoes of Lincoln, of King, even of Reagan, and of Kennedy… it was a masterpiece.”

It gets ridiculous as Gergen-types drown us in irrational, unbounded hyperbole over every burp out of Mr. Obama, always calling to mind Lincoln and King when not being passed off as the Prince and Messiah himself. Even Lincoln, one of the great masters of the English language, delivered speeches, not symphonies.

The Half-Baked Alaska Award For Pummeling

Here’s our friend, Chris Matthews again, sure to be found at the bottom of the journalistic garbage can, on MSNBC’s Hardball:

“The fact of the matter is, the comparison between her [Gov. Sarah Palin] and Hillary Clinton is the comparison between an igloo and the Empire State Building.” I’d describe Mr. Matthews, shifting his language a bit to informal English-English: The comparison between Mr. Matthews and a journalist is the comparison between a loo and the Empire State Building. For those less familiar with English-English, a loo in Britain is another name for a toilet.

If the same standards applied by the mainstream media to Mrs. Palin were applied to Caroline Kennedy and Vice President-elect Biden, both would have been laughed off the stage almost immediately. But the mainstream media transforms two jokers into aces, a remarkable card trick indeed.

The Constitutional Idiocy Award

I’d like to add this one category to the Media Research Centers catalog of losers. That’s because it involves a degree of idiocy even extreme for the New York Times. One of its columnists, Gail Collins, made this proposal earlier this year: “Thanksgiving is next week, and President Bush could make it a really special holiday by resigning. Seriously … Just to be on the safe side, the vice president ought to turn in his resignation first. (We’re desperate but not crazy.) Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become president until January 20. Obviously, she’d defer to her party’s incoming chief executive, and Barack Obama would begin governing.”

Ms. Collins says she is desperate but not crazy. I’d submit she is both desperate and crazy, as are her editors at the New York Times.

This mental disease apparently afflicts others at the Times and elsewhere. Some of the others coming up with proposals similar to Ms. Collins include Times columnist Thomas Friedman and former CBS anchor Dan Rather.

Let Us Fluff Your Pillow Award For Soft And Cuddly Interviews

Listen to Brian Williams impersonating a journalist doing an interview. Here’s the question he asked Michelle Obama in an interview shown on the Aug. 27 “Nightly News”:

“What of the attacks has busted through to you? What makes you angriest at John McCain, the Republican? What’s being said about your husband that you want to shout from the mountain tops is not true?”

What’s remarkable about that kind of questioning is not just its pathetic soft-ball nature, but that a leading national anchor like Brian Williams would be willing to fritter away his journalistic credibility by this kind of fluffy, cuddly interview. We were on the same news team at WCAU-TV before he went to NBC, and his new journalistic standards must have been picked up at the NBC network.

From Camelot To Obamalot Award

This is ABC’s David Wright on Nightline, Jan. 28:

“Today, the audacity of hope had its rendezvous with destiny. No mere endorsement this, more like a political anointment from the Kennedy’s, merging ideals from two different eras … Obama is now an adopted son of Camelot. His candidacy blessed not just by the Lion of the Senate, patriarch of the clan, but by JFK s daughter.”

Notice how every endorsement, every speech, and every move by Mr. Obama is elevated to some kind of supernatural event.

The John Murtha Award For Painting America As Racist

This is ABC’s Chris Cuomo to Barack Obama in a Dec. 27, 2007 interview on Good Morning America:

“What do you think the bigger obstacle is for you in becoming president, the Clinton campaign machine or America’s inherent racism?”

This is a typical hate-America strain found in the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. They often see America as racist, imperialist, and all the rest.

I think one of the runner-ups for the Murtha Award is even more outrageous as it plays the race card to silence criticism of Mr. Obama. It is from Associated Press writer Douglass K. Daniel, Oct. 5, 2008, referring to Mrs. Palin’s comment about Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist and his friend and close collaborator, Mr. Obama:

“Her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain may come to regret…Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee ‘palling around’ with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America.”

This is totally outrageous on many counts. Let me enumerate a few of them:

1. The attack was not un substantiated, but totally and absolutely substantiated on countless occasions. Mr. Obama began his campaign in Mr. Ayers’ home. His alter ego and chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, admitted that Messrs. Obama and Ayers were “friendly.” In addition, Messrs. Ayers and Obama closely collaborated in a project designed by Mr. Ayers to radicalize Chicago students. So simply to say Mr. Obama was palling around with terrorists (Mr. Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn) was an understatement of the total relationship.

2. There was no racial subtext. It was a simple statement of fact about terrorists who happen to be white and a candidate who happened to be black. The only one that played the race card during the campaign was none other than Barack Obama, but the mainstream media ignored that outrage.

3. Gov. Palin might have also added that Mr. Obama not only palled around with terrorists but also closely associated with hate-America types and bigots such as Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright and Father Michael Pfleger.

Admitting The Obvious Award

Here is something NBC reporter Lee Cowan wrote for a network advertising supplement that went into a newspaper supplement:

“When NBC News first assigned me to the Barack Obama campaign, I must confess my knees quaked a bit … I wondered if I was up to the job , I wondered if I could do justice to the campaign.”

MSNBC = Maudlin Sycophantic Nutty Blathering Chris (Matthews) Award

The Media Research Institute named one winner and four runner-ups in this category. It is not surprising that Chris Matthews was the recipient of all four awards. I think this runner-up best captures the sheer idiocy of Mr. Matthews. Here he comments on Mr. Obama’s speech on race relations:

“A speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln … What I personally view as the best speech ever given on race in he country … I think this is the kind of speech I think first-graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn … One of the great speeches in American history.”

As bad as these notable quotables are, they are only half the story. Even worse is what the mainstream media did not cover. The mainstream media simply ignored or downplayed any information that might be detrimental to the candidacy of Mr. Obama.

Whether you’re conservative or liberal, whether your Republican or Democrat, you want the truth and fair and balanced news and information. You are simply not going to get anything close to that from the mainstream media. So get involved in the battle against the mainstream media. One good way to start is by getting involved with and supporting media monitors such as the Media Research Center. You can get daily bias updates and the latest from the MRC by visiting its Web site — www.MRC.org. You can also sign up for a free e-mail newsletter of what’s notable quotable by going to its Web site at www.MRC.org/subscriptions.

You can also get valuable information from other media monitors such as www.AIM.org(Accuracy in Media), www.honestreporting.com and www.camera.org. The last two focus only on bias in Middle East Reporting. You can also lend support to a boycott of the New York Times by signing a petition at www.boycottnyt.com. That boycott has been organized by AIM.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

By BRENDAN MCGARRY
Chicago Sun Times

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey.

In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform.

”Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified.

Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the ”don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to survey responses and interviews.

Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss.

The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents.

The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama’s Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.

William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama.

The controversy began when a website called News and Commentary for Thinking People published a 48-page document that lists Miceli as the owner of the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.

Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama’s employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.

Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties to rehabilitate, notes the “Barack Book” website maintained by GOP.com.

WND asked for comment from Obama’s transition team and the Democratic National Committee but did not receive a response.

An attorney for convicted fundraiser Tony Rezko is listed as the owner and taxpayer for Barack Obama’s Chicago mansion, according to records obtained by WND.

William Miceli is a lawyer at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, which also formerly employed Obama.

The controversy began when a website called News and Commentary for Thinking People published a 48-page document that lists Miceli as the owner of the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood.

Miner, Barnhill & Galland was Obama’s employer when he did extensive legal work for Rezko, who awaits sentencing after he was convicted in June of fraud, money laundering and bribery-related counts.

Miceli, as a senior attorney at the firm, supervised Obama when the future president wrote letters on behalf of Rezko urging public authorities to award him new public properties to rehabilitate, notes the “Barack Book” website maintained by GOP.com.

WND asked for comment from Obama’s transition team and the Democratic National Committee but did not receive a response.

Investigative reporter Tim Novak at the Chicago Sun-Times has identified 15 building projects that Rezmar, Rezko’s development company, redeveloped while it was represented by Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland during Obama’s time at the firm.

The law firm changed its name when senior partner Allison Davis left to join Rezko in his schemes to take out loans on low-income housing projects. Several of the transactions remain under investigation, because the millions of dollars Rezko borrowed against the properties to make redevelopments are gone, while many of the properties remain boarded up and uninhabitable.

Following the Jan. 21 Democratic Party primary debate, Miceli told the Washington Post that he was Obama’s supervisor at the law firm, in response to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s charges Obama had worked for a Chicago slumlord, Rezko.

The Post said “Obama denied doing any legal work directly for Rezko or his companies,” contending Obama had done only “about five hours worth of work” on a joint real estate development project involving Rezko and a Chicago church group.

Miceli told the Post Obama “was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review.”

Miceli said Obama “did what he was told by the firm,” minimizing the importance of any work Obama admittedly did for the Rezko account.

WND confirmed the tax bill for the Obama home is mailed to Miceli, not to Obama or the Northern Trust account through which Obama has claimed the home was purchased.

Records from the Cook County Treasurer’s Office give the PIN number for the Obama property as 20-11-115-037-0000 and list Miceli as the person who receives Obama’s property tax invoice by mail.

Eric Herman, a spokesman for the Cook County assessor, confirmed to WND that the Treasurer’s Office records were correct and that Miceli did receive the Obama property tax invoice by mail.

Miceli did not return a call WND placed to him at Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

Herman told WND a second PIN number, 20-11-115-036-0000, identified the vacant lot next to the Obama mansion that was purchased by Rita Rezko, Tony Rezko’s wife.

Here, WND found conflicts between the tax records maintained by the Cook County Treasurer’s Office and the deed information maintained by the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

Rosslyn Whitlock, an Internet support specialist at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, confirmed to WND that the office has no information listed for the Obama home under the PIN number 20-11-115-037-0000, the number used by the Cook County Assessor’s office for property tax purposes.

Records at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds list Rita Rezko as the holder of the warranty deed for the vacant lot at 5050 S. Greenwood adjoining the Obama mansion, under the PIN number 20-11-115-036-0000.

WND was able to locate warranty information at the Cook County Recorder of Deeds , which Herman at the County Assessor’s office told WND was the “old PIN number” assigned to the Obama home at 5046 S. Greenwood Avenue, before the home was sold to Obama.

Neither spokesman could explain to WND the discrepancy in PIN numbers, nor why the Cook County Recorder of Deeds has no information filed under the new PIN number assigned to the property after the Obama purchase.

Records with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds under the PIN number 20-11-115-034-0000 indicate the mortgage is held by Northern Trust Company under trust number 10209, which Obama has indicated was the trust the Obama family used to purchase the home.

Meanwhile, that since arresting Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has taken new interest in Rezko’s involvement in the Obama mansion purchase.

WND also reported real estate credit analyst Kenneth Conner has filed a civil suit alleging he was wrongfully dismissed by Mutual Bank of Harvey for objecting to what he considered a fraudulent appraisal of the vacant lot. The appraisal was submitted by the Rezkos at an intentionally high figure, he claims, permitting them to borrow an additional $125,000 that amounted to a “political payoff” to Obama.

“Thank you, sir. It is an honor to be named your ‘‘Conservative of the Year.’”

That’s how Sarah Palin began her third interview this year with HUMAN EVENTS Political Editor John Gizzi. She spoke to Gizzi last April as the first of 16 Republicans he interviewed for HE’s “Veepstakes” election-year feature and then she sat down with him during the National Governors Association meeting in Philadelphia in July. The Alaska governor last week again spoke to Gizzi, this time about her historic candidacy as the Republican vice presidential nominee as well as about current issues and her future.

Veteran Republican political consultant Holly Robichaud, who had arranged the first “Veepstakes” interview between Palin and Gizzi, set up their latest exchange December 12.

Speaking from her office in Juneau, Gov Palin set the scene “It’s five below, not too cold to snow, which is nice, absolutely beautiful and white and crisp,” and then Gizzi began the interview with her:

GIZZI: Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss singled you out for praise after you campaigned for him and he won re-election in the run-off in Georgia earlier this month. What did you do that was so helpful to Sen. Chambliss, who won by a relatively large margin?

PALIN: Georgia was a blast. People were fired up to re-elect him. It certainly wasn’t me. It was him. When he was on stage, people were cheering. I think the rest of the country, those who were concerned about checks and balances in Washington, D.C., were very excited about the opportunity for me to help out a little bit there. And we made sure we did have those checks and balances that came with his re-election. I was very thankful he was re-elected, and very thankful for my state of Alaska. Saxby is pro-development and wants to make sure that our nation becomes energy independent. Alaska can help. As opposed to the positions his opponent had been taking, he can help us progress toward that end. His opponent [Democrat Jim Martin], I believe, would have worked to lock up more of Alaska.

GIZZI: In campaigning for Sen. Chambliss, you brought back a lot of conservatives who had been critical of him for voting for the Wall Street bailout [of financial institutions]. Would you have favored the Wall Street bailout and voted as Sen. Chambliss did?

PALIN: I would have done what the GOP [senators] did yesterday and said ‘no’ to additional bailout efforts of one industry [the automobile industry, whose proposed federal bailout was stopped in the Senate December 11]. Picking winners and losers in Washington, D.C., is a dangerous thing to do when you’re talking about a system that supposed to be based on free enterprise. When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions.

But back then, weeks ago, when that initial bailout [of financial institutions] was proposed, remember, it was considered at the time a rescue and not necessarily a bailout. Without having as much information as everyone has now, I did support that initial effort that was going to come from Congress. Of course, we saw [Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben] Bernanke and others appear to change the rules right away, it seemed like, after that initial rescue plan or bailout was given the green light, then everybody in the public, including me, started hearing that the rules were changing on where those dollars would go and what the criterion would be. Unfortunately, that leads to distrust of decisions our politicians make on our behalf and bureaucrats make on our behalf.

Now the situation has changed and I think the GOP did the right thing yesterday in saying, “Look, we still want more information before one industry — in this case, the auto industry — gets more taxpayer assistance until everybody knows what those dollars would be used for and how it will lead to success in this industry.”

GIZZI: So you stand with Sen. [Bob] Corker [Tenn.] and other Republicans who stopped the auto industry bailout in the Senate?

PALIN: I do. Once bitten, twice shy. We learned a lesson, at least being amenable — if not enthused — to the idea all those weeks ago to the first rescue plan. But then the rules changed quickly, and more information was revealed that perhaps Congress and the bureaucrats in the Treasury Department not having a good grasp on what the problem was and how taxpayer funds would solve any of the problems. That’s caused a lot of concern and caution on my part and the part of the Republican Party.

GIZZI: Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has spoken out against the bailout of states that [California] Gov. [Arnold] Schwarzenegger and other governors have called for. As a governor yourself and an active member of the National Governors Association, where do you stand on the bailout of states?

PALIN: Every state, like every community in the United States, comes to Congress with its list of infrastructure needs. Alaska is going to join every other state with a governor’s list. In fact, I’ve looked at every other governor’s list of infrastructure needs that’s presented to Congress. It’s up to Congress, because Congress holds the purse strings, to decide how some of those projects are going to be funded. Alaska’s projects are going to be in the nation’s best interests. They will be infrastructure that will build gas lines and build that infrastructure up that will lead to energy production to allow us to become energy independent. We aren’t asking for things like “Bridges to Nowhere.”

But, in speaking with Gov. Schwarzenegger about this, he has said it’s not his intention to ask for a bailout that is based on his state’s management decisions that have led to some problems in that state. In Alaska, we’re fortunate. We have a surplus. We have money put aside for the last few years, waiting for a ‘rainy day’ when the economy wasn’t as strong. We are in a good position, so we are not asking for, nor should we ask for, a bailout from the ‘feds.’ But we will, along with every other state, have our list of infrastructure projects and roads and very basic tools that will lead to energy production.

GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?

PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.

My own upbringing and what I am today — with my husband, in a blue-collar job that he has — allow me a great connection with the vast majority of Americans who live and work and are trying to raise our families.

GIZZI: What was the biggest mistake made in the ’08 campaign?

PALIN: The biggest mistake made was that I could have called more shots on this: the opportunities that were not seized to speak to more Americans via media. I was not allowed to do very many interviews, and the interviews that I did were not necessarily those I would have chosen. But I was so thankful to have the opportunity to run with John McCain that I was not going to argue with the strategy decisions that some of his people were making regarding the media contacts?

But if I would have been in charge, I would have wanted to speak to more reporters because that’s how you get your message out to the electorate.

GIZZI: And what was the most important lesson you learned from the campaign?

PALIN: The campaign was 99.9% amazing and invigorating and inspiring. But looking back, there were so many things that were outside of my control. I was in a campaign in which I did not know the people individually running the campaign. So I had to put my life, my career, my family, and my reputation in their hands. That’s kind of a scary thing to do when you don’t know the people you are working with.

Now I have all the faith in the world in Sen. McCain and his family. But some of the folks around him I did not know and so it was a kind of a risky thing for me to put my faith in the decisions they were making on my behalf.

As an administrator, as a chief executive of a state, I am not used to that. I am used to proving my abilities by calling the shots. Then I know the buck stops with me. I made the decisions, and I’m responsible. When others are making decisions for me, as they were in the campaign, and I am the one to live with the fallout from the decisions that were made on my behalf, that is something I am not very comfortable with.

GIZZI: Do you want to give me any names of people?

PALIN: No. But they’re folks who have done this before. Of course, I haven’t done this on a national level before.

But my reliance on seeking God’s direction in all that I do — that is good enough for me. And others who have a different worldview and different strategy on messaging and such, I would like to have the opportunity to prove to them that my gut instincts were going to be quite adequate.

GIZZI: Are you getting a lot of requests to speak around the country for candidates, as you did for Sen. Chambliss?

PALIN: I’m getting a lot of requests to speak. But right now my focus is on Alaska and a lot of the energy projects we are working on.

GIZZI: Who is your role model?

PALIN: Susan B. Anthony. I have great respect there for the history. She was a pro-life feminist and those things that she stood for, and she was so far ahead of her time. It amazes me.

GIZZI: You made it clear in our interviews earlier this year that you were not close to fellow Republicans Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young from your state, both of whom you said had a different vision of Alaska’s dealings with the federal government than you did. Were you pleased with the election of Democrat Mark Begich who defeated Stevens and with the re-election of Rep. Young?

PALIN: I met yesterday with Sen.-elect Begich to see that we are on the same page as we move forward as he starts his new job representing Alaska.

I thought that Sen. Stevens was going to be re-elected, and it was so close, and that if he were to step aside because he was convicted [on corruption charges], then I would get to appoint a Republican. So I was kind of surprised at the outcome there.

It is what it is, and I wish Sen. Begich well. We’ll work well together. He’s going to be in the majority party and that’s all the more reason for Mark Begich and me to work closely together. We will.

GIZZI: Will you run for higher office, such as the U.S. Senate from Alaska in 2010 [when more moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s seat is up]?

PALIN: That’s not in my sites. There’s so much to do as governor.

Read Ann Coulter’s EXCLUSIVE HUMAN EVENTS column, Sarah Palin: Conservative of the Year.

Attorney Orly Taitz who has active US Supreme Court legal action challenging Obama’s qualification to serve as President of the United States has posted the following on her blog http://drorly.blogspot.com/ . Those that favor US Constitutional principles are tightening the grip on Obama’s stonewalling public disclosure of his official birth certificate. This lawsuit and others are slowly nailing Obama”s “transparency” back-sliding to “sunlight”. He will comply it’s just a matter of time and effort…….we won’t give up….the US Constitution demands accountability.

I might mention, Dr. Taitz was an unknown to me until a few days ago. Her zeal to protect and defend the US Constitution at her own expense and courage to stand up, nearly alone, exposing herself to attacks sent me a message……..I have come to learn other highly credible law firms are also communicating with her and supporting her quest for Constitutional adherance by Barack Obama.

As you will recall I sent you a press release from Stephen Pidgeon mailto:attorney@stephenpidgeon.com yesterday which is associated with the blog entry…you can read it below Dr. Taitz’s blog entry……we might want to send Attorney Pidgeon a note of thanks and also those patriots who courageously stepped forward as plaintiffs to “protect and defend”.

I would also urge all military officers to again consider becoming plaintiffs on Dr. Taitz’s US Supreme Court action by completing the “consent” form I sent out a day or so ago. Our oath requires us to “protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”…nothing in our oath about “defending the President of the United States”. (Copy of Consent form below)

Motion for Subpoenes for Obama BC issued in WA state, case to be heard by the full court. BO announces vacation in HI

Flag this message Please read: Subpoena just requested by Broe v Reed: Obama just announced he is gonna vacation in Hawaii – You better get someone to watch him Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:58 AM

From: “Don Villars-110807″ Add sender to Contacts To: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, philjberg@obamacrimes.com Names and Designation of Persons Filing Motion

COMES NOW, James E. Broe, Kenneth R. Seal, Robert Baker, Mark Sussman, Stan Walter, Bill Wise, Andy Stevens, Ed Crawford, Jason Lagen, Louise Workman, Jocelyn Murcelli, Mike Murcelli and Kevin McDowell, by and through counsel of record Stephen Pidgeon, pursuant to RAP 17.3(a), the Rules of Discovery, CR 26-37, and CR 45 governing the issuance of subpoenas, and Move this Honorable Court for an order allowing the issuance of two subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining admissible evidence in this case, and expediting discovery pursuant to the proposed schedule.

Relief Requested

Plaintiffs seek an Order allowing plaintiffs expedited discovery by means of two subpoenas, one to be served on the Secretary of State of the State of Washington, to discover the following items: I) the Declaration of Candidacy of Barack Obama as filed in the State of Washington; 2) all records concerning the candidacy and disallowance of Socialist Worker’s Party candidate Frank Colero within the Secretary of State’s office; and one to be served upon the Director of the Department of Health in the State of Hawaii, to discover the following items: 3) the Birth Certificate of Barack Obama in Hawaii, and 4) all supporting documentation regarding the registration of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Plaintiffs seek an order which establishes the following schedule.Read more »[/quote]

Hawaii??

1. Plaintiffs are to serve the State of Hawaii Department of Health with a Subpoena in the form attached hereto as approved by the Court no later than the close of business on Monday, December 22, 2008, and responses shall be served upon Plaintiffs’ ‘counsel. no later than the close of business on December 28, 2008.

OK THIS IS WHERE IT GETS FUUUNNNY:

OBAMA HAS ANNOUNCED PLANS TO VACATION IN HAWAII !!

Posted by Orly Taitz, DDS Esq. at 6:48 AM 7 comments Links to this post

http://decalogosintl.org/?p=75
Date Set For Broe v. Reed

December 10, 2008

Contact: Stephen Pidgeon, Attorney at Law, P.S.
Tel: (425) 605-4774 Fax: (425) 818-5371
Email: attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.

Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.

On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.

“The issue of standing seems to be behind us,” said Stephen Pidgeon, counsel for the plaintiffs. “What remains is to establish the duty of the Secretary of State, under Article III, Sections 4 and 17 of the Washington constitution, under RCW 29A.04.230 which names the Secretary as the state’s chief of elections, and under relevant administrative codes which also require the Secretary to act.”

Pidgeon goes on to say that “each candidate that stands in a primary election must make a declaration of candidacy, stating that ‘at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.’ The Secretary of State has a constitutionally imposed duty to determine if the candidate is telling the truth.”

Mail or Email to Orly Taitz dr_taitz@yahoo.com

DATE: __________

Attn. Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a PETITION FOR A DECLAROTARY JUDGMENT THAT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT of the U.S.., nor TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the ARMED FORCES, in that I am/was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall), and therefore when serving as an active member of the military, I would be unable to follow any orders given by a Constitutionally unqualified Commander In Chief, since by doing so I would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing acts of treason.

TYPED NAME or Signature: ______________________

FULL NAME:

ADDRESS:

TEL. #: FAX. #:

EMAIL:

POSITION IN THE MILITARY/RANK/DATES SERVED/STATUS:

OCCUPATION:

ACHIEVEMENTS:

Attorney Taitz would like to file in California by Wednesday, December 17th, so that this lawsuit can eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) before the joint session of Congress can officially count and certify the Electoral College votes of December 15th 2008 on or about January 6th, 2009

As Attorney Orly Taitz is performing this service for her country Pro Bono, any amount that you can contribute will be most helpful. (Orly has already done two RT ‘redeye’s’ to Washington DC this week alone: National Press Club on December 8th (WTP Obama Citizenship Challenge – National Press Club, DC Dec 8 2008, and filing another ‘BHO is Unqualified’ case before the SCOTUS).

Orly Taitz, Esq.
26302 La Paz, Ste. 211
Mission Viejo, CA 92691