Obama Swings Iron Fist at Inconvenient Media

"I am Obama. I am The One!"

Obama reacts to inconvenient, non-submissive media...

Obama is not pleased...

Barack Obama will not tolerate those who don't agree with him, who don't submit to him.

Story here.

The Washington Times, N.Y. Post and Dallas Morning News -- three newspapers that recently endorsed John McCain -- have been kicked off Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plane in the final days of his campaign.

The Obama campaign informed The Washington Times Thursday evening of its decision, which came two days after The Times editorial page endorsed Senator John McCain over Mr. Obama. The Times editorial page runs independently of the news department. "This feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covering Senator Obama's campaign, traveling on his plane, and taking our turn in the reporters' pool, only to have our seat given away to someone else in the last days of the campaign," said Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon.

Also, Mary T. in the comments reacts:

O has banned any journalist from his plane whose paper endorsed McCain. He has threatend many TV stations if they run negative stories about him. If he is getting away with this as a candidate, what will he do as POTUS.

Could it be the end of the so called free press in the USA. A lot of those in the tank for O might get shock when they discover they have been used and are about to be abused or censored big time.

Plus...

Obama gets unhinged, loses his temper, becomes suddenly intolerant towards so-called "paparazzi" media following him. Hey, but isn't this the guy who wants attention in the first place?

Interesting... all of a sudden. Perhaps he has limited patience?

Obama, usually cool in public during a campaign that has turned him into the frontrunner for the White House, did not disguise his irritation when his surprise walk caused news photographers and camera crews to scramble for position on the sidewalk.

What would Obama do if he becomes President? With the election campaign over, will his behavior change?

How far will he go to silence his critics and others he considers "inconvenient"?

The Left, Radical Islam and Obama

Warning here.

ht: Canada Free Press

Emphasis mine.

The discussion of Islam, to the extent that is mentioned at all in the campaign, has mostly been limited to a rather inconclusive debate in the blogosphere as to whether Obama is a Muslim or not, and a more substantive, if suppressed by the mainstream media, discussion of Senator Obama’s questionable ties to radical Islamists and anti-Semites. The latter has provided more than enough empirical evidence to at least give a pause to a dispassionate observer as to Obama’s pious assertions of his dedication to the struggle against Islamic extremism and friendship for Israel. Without going into too much detail, these connections include well-documented close ties with Black Panther mentor-turned-radical Muslim and Wahhabi stooge, Khalid al-Mansour (nee Don Warden); Nation of Islam hate-spewing, anti-white racist, Louis Farakhan; Columbia professor and apologist of Palestinian terrorism, Rashid Khalidi; and last, but not least, Salam Ibrahim, an alleged Taliban sympathizer and chairman of the defunct Chicago Shariah-finance company Sunrise Equities, who appears to have absconded with $80 million of his clients’ funds.


What all of these unsavory men have in common, apart from friendship with and admiration for Barack Obama, is their passionate dislike for the United States and their virulent anti-Semitism. This may not prove that Obama himself is an Islamist, an anti-Semite or an anti-American, it but it does show that, throughout his career, he has willingly associated with, and been mentored by, people who are.

As much as this should be an issue of serious concern, the growing nexus between radical Islam and the Left is ultimately of much greater systemic consequence and one that goes far beyond current election considerations to present a palpable threat to the future of this country and Western civilization itself.

It is thus not a huge surprise that a radical Leftist like Barack Obama would find an enthusiastic reception in a party that itself has become socialist in everything but name. And like its fellow-socialist confreres in Europe and elsewhere, it is a party that implicitly rejects individual rights, the free market system and the Judeo-Christian moral order on which they are based in favor of socialist collectivism, multiculturalism and robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistributionism. More than anything else, it rejects the imperative to defend those sacrosanct American principles against enemies foreign and domestic, as enshrined in our Constitution, in favor of political correctness, utopian pacifism and appeasement of evil.

Read the whole thing.

And stop doing this:

Liberal Fascism Marches On In Free World: Australia Plans To Censor Internet

Australians to fall under authoritarian state thumb now?

This is disturbing. I just cannot believe it. And I find out about it on Halloween, to boot!

Scary. What the hell?!

Who's in charge in Australia anyway?

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Yeah, right. Protect freedom of expression and privacy rights by censoring everyone according to the dictates of none other than the state acting on behalf of corporations, "human rights" groups and God knows who else.

Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"

It'll be just like in China, in Iran... where there are no human rights whatsoever. It appears that now the Free World's human rights are being eroded by statists, big business, Far-Left "human rights groups" (c'mon, are they really about human rights if they're actually going to deny them?) and who else? Communists? Sexual extremists? Islamofascists? Fascistic atheists? Wealthy, hypersensitive, powerful, imposing, self-labelled "Progressive" elitists like George Soros, the Clintons, the Obamas? Who else is behind the curtain scheming to control the People via thought policing?

I'm reminded of Canada's "human rights" commissions. They were set up to merely mediate in matters of employment and housing in terms of ensuring that peoples' Charter rights were respected, period. But they've illegally, unconstitutionally gone far, far beyond that into the realm of literally forbidding individuals from expressing themselves in ways arbitrarily deemed inconvenient to some, plus their right to a fair trial is wholly ignored, plus they're fined thousands of dollars... this is the nature of the Trojan Horse of "Human Rights" "Protection".

It's a Nazi masquerading as Mother Theresa.

Saying they're "protecting human rights", the Liberal Fascists are no different than the Chinese Communist Party calling their authoritarian regime the "Peoples' Republic" or North Korea calling itself "Democratic".

You know, we CAN'T trust this sort of thing.

Don't believe the elites when they say, "It's for your own good that we'll control you, determine what you can and cannot do; we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the greater good; we believe it's better to spread the wealth...".

It's critical, therefore, that we ferociously oppose this attempted fascism and denial of our human rights by the elites. If we don't, then we'll lose our freedom of expression. I guarantee it; we're just about to step onto the top of the slippery slope; we must step away- far, far away from it NOW!

Sic semper tyrannis!

"Progressives" Manipulated Mentally Challenged To Vote Obama?

That would be nasty, reprehensible. This is what's supposed to be "progressive"?

SONORA, CA - The California Republican party is asking the secretary of state to investigate an organized voting campaign involving developmentally disabled adults in Tuolumne County.

As many as ten clients of the Thumbs Up! adult care center have already cast absentee ballots under the supervision of center director David Simerley, and nearly all of them were for Barack Obama.

(...)

"What kind of people would do this to somebody like that," asked Sam Rascon, who discovered his son had registered and voted only after seeing him with an Obama button last Thursday. "He wouldn't know one candidate from another."

News10 spoke to Michael Rascon at the Thumbs Up! center about the election. When asked which candidate he'd voted for, Rascon answered "the black man." He was unable to remember Obama's name.

I would certainly hope that self-labelled "Progressives" wouldn't do such a nasty, mean thing.

One can't help but wonder about this, especially in light of the shocking hatred we've seen expressed by self-labelled "Progressives" against Sarah Palin, who chose to have a baby who happens to have Down's Syndrome. Is this why "Progressives" hate Mrs. Palin so much, because she loves her son no matter what? Or is it because she's a Christian? Or is it because she's not a so-called "Progressive"? Why do they hate her so much? We don't know- they never said... they just express hatred, period. In fact, I doubt even they know why they're so full of hatred for Mrs. Palin, themselves. Such is the nature of mental affectation by influential, ironically trusted, others.

This is disturbing. It's a lot like what happened to many, many Germans under the Third Reich being manipulated by the Goebbels Big Lie propaganda campaign into simply hating Jewish people... Today's "Progressives" apparently haven't "progressed" as human beings beyond the guillible Germanfolk who were brainwashed by Hitler's incredibly evil ideology being propagated all over the place, everywhere they went... much like we see the brand-new, unknown, untested, mysterious, silver-tongued orator Barack Hussein Obama being propagated by the MSM to the American electorate as America's Savior or whatever equally unbelievable!

One can't help but wonder what kind of people comprise the visible movement self-labelled "Progressive" (meaning, in reality, socialists/communists). Are these people evil? Hateful? I ask because they express such shocking hatred, including the moron who lynched Mrs. Palin in effigy without explaining why on Earth he'd do such a horrible, shocking thing (Really, "It's Halloween" doesn't suffice!).

When I say "visible movement", I'm referring to those prominent "Progressive" folks we see and hear about in the mainstream media, including on the newsmedia, in sitcoms, dramas, movies, etc., as contrasted with ordinary folks who merely allow themselves to be told what to think/believe/how to vote by those de-facto opinion/propaganda-mongers. These opinion/propaganda-mongers include some of the more radical Leftists in the mainstream media (MSM) and amongst celebrities, like actors and talk-show hosts. We've especially been granted the pleasure of hearing the shocking hatred being spewed forth from the collagen-puffed lips of ditzy, wealthy celebrities who, we note, always fail to explain why they say such horrible things about Mrs. Palin.

One cannot avoid the conclusion: Progressives are prejudiced to the extent of being hateful, period!

I just hope the report of "Progressives" manipulating the mentally challenged into voting Obama isn't true. But if it is, they should be exposed and appropriately sanctioned under the law.

More Reports, Concerns About Obama's Ideologically Formative Past Revealed

Story here.

It's sure to unhinge the lurking, trolling zombie-looking, kool-aid swilling Obama followers... they're certain to attack the messenger as...

"Oh, I'm very sorry, buddy, but, you see, WND is not credible because it's not big-money, big-corporation mainstream media, as only mainstream media can ever be believed... what... Dan Rather? CBS? Fake document? Blogger exposed it all? No, no, noooooo! Shut up, you racist!"...

...(Note that MSMer Dan Rather's infamous, arrogant lie about Bush was debunked, but I have yet to see the Left debunk the inconvenient reports coming from the non-MSM, so I see no problem in passing on the reports, as fair's fair, and the MSM passes on all kinds of negative "information" about "right-wingers" which they don't prove but which voters take as if fact, so... fair's fair. Sure, on a few occassions, it turns out to be incorrect, but then again, guess what- it also sometimes turns out to be incorrect when the big-money MSM does the reporting! Is your brain feeling a little different right now? Hmm?)

The MSM also uses "sources" as their proof, even though they don't name them.

(Empasis mine)

HONOLULU, Hawaii – The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, WND has established.

A credible source, a well-known resident of Honolulu who spoke at length with WND on condition he not be named, disclosed that Davis was the source of drugs consumed by Obama. Davis was also the author of an autobiographical novel boasting of "swinging" and sex with minors, a copy of which WND obtained from Andrew Walden, a resident of the Hawaiian island of Hilo and publisher of the Hawaii Free Press.

This only adds to the long, long list of disturbing associations between Obama and disturbing extremists, associations which should be raising concerns more widely, but which the big-money mainstream media appears to be carefully suppressing for some reason, a reason which begs investigation to determine who's the driving force behind this suppression. After all, the American People have every right to the truth and every right to demand it...

There's also an account of the supposed moment at which Obama had first been made to believe that it's ok to be hateful as long as the color of one's skin is dark enough. Looks to me (and many others) like he still believes it. Couple this information with the inconvenient truth that Obama spent two whole decades attending a "church" pastored by a hateful, racist, anti-American extremist named Wright, only curtailing attendance for political optics after all the inconvenient commentary about such attendance and the hateful pastor.

It sounds as if Obama has been prejudiced by another person... and that he still harbors this prejudice, if one has read his autobiography, which experts have determinded, via handwriting analysis was actually written by Obama's good friend, the known terrorist Ayers...

Here's the disturbing incident, in which it's clear that this radical mentor Davis is said to instill racial hatred and xenophobia into young Barry:

Davis told Obama, "She understands that black people have a reason to hate."

In response, Obama said, "The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone."

You know, this is pretty much the same way which the disgusting, reprehensible "skinheads" become prejudiced- via being told prejudicial stuff, by folks with whom they'd become comfortable and up to whom they look for guidance, and would easily believe the prejudice-mongering. In this case it's said that he was essentially given guidance by a suspected Communist that he should be hateful just because he's, well, got darker skin than "the others". What's the difference? Prejudice is prejudice; racism is racism; hate is hate, no matter what one's skin color or whatever, and I reject that it can be rationalized, for to rationalize that which is evil is to rationalize, by extension, evil itself, and to do that will infinitely corrupt one's character. In a nutshell, intolerance and xenophobia is not acceptable in the least for anyone and should most definitely especially be openly, publicly, widely discussed in light of a person's seeking political power, and any suspicions that the person might be somehow prejudiced must necessarily be addressed, no matter whom the person might be, no matter what his or her skin color. To ignore such concerns in Obama's case would be no different from ignoring the concerns that were rightly raised and aired about David Duke, who most recently attended Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disgusting Holocaust-denial conference, by the way.

This information only adds to the questions being asked about the mysterious Obama, who appears set to take power over America and Americans, apparently on behalf of seen and unseen others... Yes, the irony of it is that the Democratic Party of which Obama is a member is the party that offshot as its murderous militant wing the dreaded Ku Klux Klan and which even now has a former Klan Grand Kleagle as a sitting Senator representing the Party... Like I say, the Left is a movement of bizarre, inexplicable, scary ironies and contraindications... how can anyone trust the Left, or any Leftists, then, like, say, the mysterious, relatively-unknown, Obama?

It reminds me of the time the reprehensible, disgusting, detestable David Duke tried to become President. Of course, in his case, the MSM had no problem calling him what he is and completely destroying any possibility of him achieving power, and the MSM was right to do that, although it's unfortunate that they refuse to consider the possibility in this case that the candidate in question today might be a racist, too.

The Telegraph of London reported in August that Davis and Stanley Dunham smoked marijuana together and that Obama was first introduced to Davis by Dunham in 1970, when Obama returned from Indonesia.

So what if back then Obama was a kid? Nothing stops kids from associating with and being influenced and prejudiced by older mentors, does it? I don't believe that it's valid, therefore, to dismiss revelations of past disturbing mentor-protege associations involving known or suspected extremists just because someone was a youth and not an adult. After all, although one certainly can, one doesn't automatically "grow out of" prejudices acquired during one's critical formative years. One can continue, for the rest of one's life, to harbor these prejudices deep down, living a normal life, and these deep-rooted prejudices can always be recalled and brought to the forefront without one even realizing it. In someone like the President of the most powerful nation on Earth, this is potentially dangerous. Hence the urgency of examination of one's past, particularly one's critical formative years, and of any mentors of questionable character, not to mention more recent statements and writings made by the person (many of which are disturbing yet unreported by the big-money Leftist MSM).

In other commentary, this time by David Kupelian (an astonishingly intelligent person whose striking ability to understand and explain the real world astonishes me), author of The Marketing of Evil, a shocking, fully-referenced, true expose of the whole radical Leftist movement, which I've personally read and fully recommend to everyone as an absolute must-read, we consider whether Barack Hussein Obama is a "Manchurian Candidate" (I recently watched the contmporary movie remake and understand what this means; I recommend acquiring the movie and watching it, too, before election day, although I now realize that the remake was heavily rewritten, obviously by contemporary Leftist Hollywood propaganda writers, going from having the entity behind the Candidate being the Communists to being a big corporation, and also using the Iraq conflict as a backdrop, so we'd be best advised to see the original movie as well.). Go here for the discussion.

After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.

So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:

(...)

In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Go ahead, read the rest. It's an absolute must-read!

DON'T DO THIS; DON'T BE IGNORANT. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT NOT TO.

Abortion Survivor Hits Back At Obama

Recently I did this post.

Now for a follow-up, as Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, has made another ad in response to the Obama campaign's hostile, lying response to her original ad asking Obama to support the human rights of people who are born alive despite an attempt to murder them prior to birth.



One cannot help but wonder why Barack Hussein Obama is so hostile towards a woman whose rights he doesn't respect, as, as far as he's concerned, she shouldn't be alive in the first place.

I guess that when it comes to human rights, like the rest of the Left, Barack Hussein Obama picks and chooses according to the principle of convenience. This means that human beings who are deemed inconvenient by the Left are to be dealt with as deemed appropriate by same.

Kind of like the Nazis and the Chinese Communist Party... and like the big human-baby-slaughterhouse corporation "Planned Parenthood", which is racist and was founded by a Nazi, actually...

Yes, ironies abound aplenty here, but when it comes to the Left, irony is the rule rather than the exception...

Obama Would Radically Leftify Courts: Expert

Imagine an America in which a man like Barack Hussein Obama appoints judges based on their compatibility with his agenda, not based on their qualifications and record of doing their job as the U.S. Constitution mandates.

Barack Hussein Obama, if he becomes President of America, will stack the courts with leftist judges to impose his socialistic redistributive agenda, says a legal expert. (Read the whole thing!)

Indeed, those who understand how the real world has been working will understand that, yes, Obama will appoint radical left-wing extremist activists to be judges to make rulings, not based on the Constitution, not on law, not on justice... but based on what he calls "empathy".

"Empathy" is open to interpretation, of course. It could mean anything. Which suits Obama and his socialist comrades just fine, naturally, as they know they can use the word for whatever purpose they see fit.

I'd say that when Obama says "empathy", it means adherence. Adherence to the agenda of the Left, of which Obama would be but a puppet, as opposed to being a leader for all Americans, a leader who does his job as mandated by the Constitution of the United States, period.

What will happen with a radically leftified judicial system in America... will be even more extreme than we've already seen; that is the agenda of Obama, no doubt. I'd hold up the City of San Francisco as an example of what we can see more of... all across America, should Americans make the wrong choice on November 4th and unknowingly make their socialist enemy's puppet their "leader" (de-facto dictator, actually).

You know, speaking of judges and judgement, this is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone of Obama's infamous failure of judgement in choosing his associations.

Below is a graphic representation of just a few examples of Obama's poor judgement:


Barack Hussein Obama demonstrated his "judgement" in his having chosen, amongst others, these... infamous people.

How can Americans ever, therefore, believe that Obama would have any better judgement when it comes time to choose judges? They can't.

Americans don't want a President who would use his personally-selected judges to impose his radical, hidden agenda upon them. It would require bypassing Congress and the Senate; it would be... undemocratic!

SLAPPER Kinsella Continues War Against Levant's Inconvenient Fair Commentary

Scary, nasty guy and Liberal Party propaganda hitman Warren Kinsella, above, and in closeup. Looks like a pleasant, amicable, easy-to-get-along-with, non-hateful fellow, doesn't he? Yep. Mr. Nice, Mr. Non-Hateful, indeed.

Story here. I noticed that in Kinsella's Statement of Claim against Levant, Kinsella doesn't claim that the statements Levant made about him are false. He doesn't deny working for the entity Levant stated he works for. Guess it's true, then, that he works for the entity which Levant so criticizes. Therefore, Levant opined about Kinsella's working for the entity. Guess it struck a sore spot for Kinsella, an inconvenient opinion, some Charter-protected fair comment, which Kinsella nevertheless seeks to silence with a SLAPP suit (Cue the violins!). It's hypocritical of Warren Kinsella alleging that Ezra Levant intended to injure him somehow with his opinion of Kinsella. That it's hypocritical of Kinsella is my fair comment based on my observations of Kinsella's own public behavior and expressions regarding others over the years. And this fair comment is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Just as Kinsella apparently, to me, believes that his opinion that all sorts of innocent folks he's accused of being nasty things such as "racists" and "haters" is protected by the Charter as well. But it appears (Warren, please note that I said "appears", so stay cool, bro; don't blow another gasket) to me that he believes that he should be protected by the Charter but Levant shouldn't. And this is an opinion that I doubt would be ignored by a judge, or by the Canadian People.

Warren again, above left, with a t-shirt rendering commentary about the President of the United States. What does the bottom line say, "terrorist"? Wonder how Warren would feel if someone called him a terrorist? Oh, that's right- ok to call George Bush (or Stephen Harper, just wait 'til Warren goes after him next) whatever you want, but don't dare say anything not-nice about Warren Kinsella, because Warren Kinsella is obviously somehow specially exempt from having to suffer inconvenient, Charter-protected, fair commentary and opinion of others about him based on his behavior! No idea who the other guy is, but he has a weird expression on his face... guess Warren likes being with people who make weird faces like he does.

Why is it supposedly ok for Warren Kinsella to render such commentary, but it's not ok for them to merely issue fair commentary/opinion/criticism based on his behavior?

Since the Nineties, I've witnessed this man on TV, he with a gravely serious countenance, rendering what I believe to be (hey, Warren, please note my indication that this is a statement of belief, not that I allege it as fact, before you get all unhinged and accuse me of making statements that are libellous as opposed to mere opinion of your behavior, like Mr. Levant rendered, mind you; so don't make a fool of yourself) all kinds of outrageous, absurdly, totally false, defamatory, politically and reputationally injurious opinions especially against politicians of conservative orientation, once, most infamously of all, even mocking a Mr. Stockwell Day's religious beliefs, using a stuffed purple dinosaur he brought to a TV studio to be used as a prop. I believe that many folks would consider this behavior to be "hateful". A "Hate crime", it could very well be considered. And a very obviously (he brought the prop to a TV studio in a gym bag with the obvious intent to display it to emphasize his mocking disdain for a person's religious beliefs) premeditated one at that. No doubt the stunt was intended to harm Mr. Day's electoral prospects, for that was (and appears will be again) Mr. Kinsella's job as Liberal Party propaganda hitman.

What a hypocrite. He thinks it's ok to attack others, no doubt, rendering intentionally hurtful opinion using wording to make it sound as if it's fact and I observe that he does it with arrogant, entitlist impunity.

But when others render fair commentary/opinion about him, he can't stand it and seeks to shut them up by taking them to court or at least threatening to, but never following through. He'll call people "racist" without proof, but if anyone were to call him "racist" in precisely the same manner in which he does it to others, he may sue or threaten to sue. What an... asshole of astonishing hypocrisy. And I understand, that, as he indicated in a recent blog post on his website, he's going back to work for the Liberal Party to "render opinion" against the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. What can we expect, then, of a man like Kinsella, in this role? More of the same? Mocking the religious beliefs of JudeoChristians? Calling people "racist" without offering proof? This guy, in my opinion, is scary, scary, scary.

No one need take any lessons, nor criticism from the Grand Ayatollah of Hypocrisy. Otherwise, all sinners would then have to take lessons and criticism from the Devil...

And the Liberal Party is going to be using him as a propagandist, as a political hitman of sorts, to try to make the Canadian Electorate think bad things about the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper. Right? Or what's he going to do for the Liberals, bring them coffee?

The Liberals can have him. He will be yet another liability for them.

ht: Jonathan Kay of the National Post, and National Newswatch.

Majority Says Cut Spending To Avoid Deficit: Poll

Story here.

ht: National Newswatch

An overwhelming majority of Canadians say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should slash the federal budget to balance the books, according to a new poll for Canwest News Service and Global National.

Only a handful say Mr. Flaherty should raise taxes to meet any shortfalls as government revenues shrink because of the slowing economy. And just 43 per cent of those surveyed by Ipsos Reid say it's all right with them if Mr. Flaherty decided to run a budget deficit to get the country through a rough economic patch.

John Wright, Ipsos Reid's senior vice-president, said his firm's polling data on consumer confidence and job anxiety indicate that Canadians are not yet seized with any urgency about the economy and do not feel that the economic slowdown has turned into a crisis requiring extreme measures.

"I think there's a disconnect where people are saying it might get really bad, but it's not bad now and I don't think it'll hurt me," Mr. Wright said. "Which means that, so far as the checklist in how they see government proceeding on this front, we haven't reached the point where, yes, it's OK to do deficits. They're saying your checklist is to make sure there's no fat in the system."

Well, I'm part of that majority. There's still plenty (billions of dollars annually) of wasteful (useless Gun Registry, for example) and even harmful spending (HRCs, for example) spending that could be eliminated to more than avoid deficit and, in fact, enable the continuing paydown of the national debt!

This is the Conservative government's cue to cut wasteful spending. Something they should've done already anyway. They have to do it now, obviously!

Mr. Harper, tear down that wasteful wall of useless, harmful spending!

Obama Wants Supreme Court To Impose Redistributive Socialism

Story here. ht: Drudge Report

Obama, talking about the civil rights movement and Supreme Court, says: "I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order [and] as long as I could pay for it I would be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

Calling it one of the "tragedies" of the movement, he added that there was "a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

(...)

"That is what change means for Barack the redistributor," the Republican said. "It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs."

For the Obamugabe camp's part, a spokesman says:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the interview as "a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months."

Yeah, right, sure, Mr. Burton... it's just another of the "smears and lies" propagated by the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Oh, yeah, you betcha! Yep, Hillary was right all along! Of bloody course!

That's the best the Obamugabe camp can come up with as an explanation of Barry-O's own spoken words: Another conspiracy theory that the "Righties are out to get them?" Boy, talk about paranoid delusions!

That's how they deal with the inconvenient truth about Obamugabe: They claim conspiracy; they simplistically, unprovingly allege "lies, smears"... Well, it's they who are lying and smearing, by lying about and smearing the Republicans as supposedly engaging in a conspiracy of "lies" and "smears"! Sorry, Obamugabites, but simply saying someone's lying doesn't mean that they are. It's not good enough to respond to the telling of inconvenient truths about your false prophet that they're "lying, smearing". If calling someone a liar makes them a liar, then it'd be enough to call the IPCC a liar to disprove their claim that we're destroying the planet with our use of energy.

It doesn't take a frickin' genius to realize the obvious: Barack Hussein Obamugabe bin Biden is a frickin' socialist! A gosh-darned Marxist, fofecksake! The man wants to take Americans' hard-earned money away and redistribute it!