I’d ask “what is with the MSM,” but, we all know the answer: in da tank

Herewe have the McCain campaign’s execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism–a favorite pastime, as we’ve seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. I’ve never met Rashid Khalidi, but he is (a) Palestinian and therefore (b) a semite, so the charge of anti-semitism is fatuous. Khalidi is also a respected academic, the sort of person who is involved in foundation work that John McCain, for one, was willing to support financially. I’d say that if we have a bigot here, it’s Mr. Goldfarb who, if he’s intent on calling people antisemitic–or any other epithet–should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I’d also like to know on what basis CNN’s Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)

Oooh, we have the fun “neoconservative” word crop up, something I doubt the majority of Lefties can even define, and don’t you love the “accusations of anti-semitism?” We have been treated to a constant call of racism charges ever since Obama broke his promise about running for president to run for president. First they were against Camp Hillary and her supporters, now they are against Camp McCain and his supporters. Remember

• If Obama Loses: Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
• Veiled racism seen in new attacks on Obama
• Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree

And those are just a few of the hits. When Palin was hung in effigy, not a peep. If Barry is hung in effigy, Racism! If you bring up Bill Ayers? Racism. Bring up Jeremiah Wright? Racism. Pflagher? Racism. Call Barry a socialist? Racism. Everything is racistunless you prostrate yourself at the feet of Obama. I’m surprised Joe Klein didn’t deem that bringing up Khalidi was racist. But, it was “bigoted.”

Anyhow, Klein could have at least taken the 5 minutes it takes on the Internet to research Khalidi himself. According to Discover the Network

• Former PLO operative
• Has justified as legitimate Palestinian “resistance” that results in death of armed Israelis
• Rejects the possibility of a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Well, as a former member of the PLO, Khalidi certainly can’t be an anti-semite, right? Does that answer a bit of your question of how Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic, Joe? Why do Liberals members of the Credentialed Media have such a tough time doing research nowadays?

PS: Khalidi also fits right in to the mold of trotting out the “racism!” charge like other Leftists, as he did over the illegal immigration battle.

When Surrendie first heard this story late Thursday, he said “Mine! Mine! Mine!” And, since I usually avoid arguments with poo flingers, I said, “sure.” Raleigh N&O

Kay Hagan has filed a lawsuit against Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

The Democratic Senate candidate announced this afternoon that she will sue her Republican opponent and the Elizabeth Dole Committee over a television ad that criticizes her for attending a fundraiser hosted by the founder of an atheist group.

“In filing this suit, we’ve made clear that these kind of despicable tactics will not be tolerated, and our campaign is moving forward with the most important task at hand: defeating Elizabeth Dole, and giving North Carolina’s families a voice in the U.S. Senate that they’ve been sorely missing,” said Hagan spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan.

Surrendie is thrilled by how cool that is. Hagan has surrendered to the Barry way of doing things. Smear your opponents, lie about your own positions, then, if someone fights back, let your visceral response to be to investigate the lights out of them, and, file a lawsuit.

Now, to be clear, I do not think much of the Dole ad (below the fold), which, whether it is factual, stretches the truth, is false, is a waste of time and money, in my opinion. The whole atheism thing shouldn’t cause any contretemps for Hagan. People can be atheists, and shouldn’t be denigrated for that. It is their choice in our land of freedom. On the flip side, this has exposed not only this tremulous, friable Democrat candidate for high office, but, is a continuation of the Democrat playbook, and should give a big heads up over what the Obama presidency years will look like. And they will also be listening to the atheists would will force their agenda on others, rather then just live and let live.

Anyhow, Dole and her campaign say the ad is truthful. You decide.

So, what is happening in the world of ACORN? ACORN knew of fraudulent voter registration forms, ex-employee of Project Vote says

A former employee of an affiliate of ACORN testified Wednesday that the community group now in the national spotlight knew that most new voter registration forms it had gathered were fraudulent.

“Forty percent was OK,” said Anita Moncrief, referring to the number of bona fide registrations that officials at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now believed was acceptable.

Moncrief was the star witness Wednesday in a Commonwealth Court case brought by the state Republican Party and others who are asking a judge to step in and prevent voter fraud on Election Day.

For nearly two hours, Moncrief, 29, gave a scathing, though at times vague, assessment of ACORN and its efforts to go into battleground states and help mostly minorities and the poor register to vote for the first time.

The group, she said, barely trained its workers in how to register voters properly, and would fire employees if they did not meet a quota of 20 new voter applicants daily. And, if they were caught committing fraud, the group “threw them under the bus” as scapegoats to take all the legal blame, Moncrief said.

Prepare to have your life investigated and destroyed, Anita. That bus coming at ya is going to be like something out of a Mad Max movie. All while those on the Left will say “eh. No big deal.”

And, let’s connect the dots to Obama and his campaign on page 2

Moncrief also testified that, in November 2007, she was given a massive database of Barack Obama donors who had already reached the maximum that they are allowed to give to the Democratic presidential nominee. Her task was to cull it for potential donors who, though prohibited from giving any more to Obama, could give to ACORN.

Someone ought to tell Joe Biden about that. John Fund breaks down Obama’s connects to ACORN, for the Liberal Impaired.

Meanwhile, ACORN is being accused of interference with 2nd Amendment Rights in New Jersey. Sounds just like Obama. Cute, disingenuous commercials and speeches aside, Obama does want to curtail your gun rights. His votes and past talk on the subject speak volumes.

Woah! How did this end up not only in one of the main U.S. papers, but, on page A2? Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations. Rather innocuous headline, but, the story basically says Obama is playing games which, as has been said across the right-o-sphere many, many times, are allowing him to rake in millions and millions without any checks on the front to make sure the donations are real, are authorized, are from real people, and are from U.S. citizens

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

All in all, the WP does soft pedel the issue, mentioning a few problems, then mentioning that McCain has had a few problems with on-line donations, too (because fair and balanced, ie, responsible journalism, must be practiced when something looks bad for The One). Of course, how much of an affect this will have is unknown, since I have yet to see anyone on the Left, even those who call themselves moderates, decry this practice by the Obama campaign.

I was about to write, before I took a break in writing this post to get ready for work, “I suppose we wil find out about all the illegal contributions sometime in 2009 or 2010, which will be way too late, and the money will already have been spent,” but, based on the recent history of the Obama campaign and his supporters attempting to stop, and, in some cases, stopping conversation through intimidation tactics, lawsuits, threats, investigations in to peoples lives, etc and so on, I doubt there will be any investigation released.

Welcome to North Carolina

North Carolina voters are more likely than those in other states to cast ballots in national elections without making a choice for president.

Unlike many states, a straight-party vote in North Carolina does not cast a vote for president. A ballot expert says the split makes it more likely that voters, especially new voters, will leave their polling places failing, by mistake, to vote for president.

The split between presidential and straight-party votes has brought the state national attention this year because the margin between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is expected to be close, and North Carolina’s electoral votes would be a prize for either candidate.

And, you know what is coming next. If Senator Neophyte loses, he and his loyal minions will claim some sort of election fraud, hijinks, voter suppression. You know the story and playbook by now.

In an analysis of election returns, Justin Moore, who received a graduate degree in computer science at Duke University, found that 3.15 percent of voters in North Carolina didn’t vote for president in 2000, and 2.57 percent didn’t cast a presidential vote in 2004.

Percentages higher than 1.1 percent — the national, presidential-year average — indicate a flawed ballot design or other problem, said Lawrence Norden, director of the Voting Technology Assessment Project at the Brennan Center at New York University’s law school.

Let me explain something to seethers on the Left who always see this as election fraud: when you go to the voting place, you are given a pretty piece of paper which states that if you pick to vote the party line, that does not include the presidential candidate. This was explained by the people at the table who gave the ballots out, too.

Furthermore, it says it on the freakin’ ballot! If people cannot take the time to read the directions on the ballot, as well as on a pretty piece of paper, and verbally, then, quite frankly, they are too stupid to be voting for the position of dog catcher (which Obama doesn’t have the experience for, either), much less President. Of course, most of these same people don’t bother to take the time to learn about the candidates either, beyond empty platitudes. Which is why I despise GOTV and mass registrations. It turns elections into hand counting at a wet t-shirt contest.

To follow up on the story where several Ohio agencies did investigations into the background of Joe The Plumber, we get

Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.”

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Such information was not and cannot be publicly shared, she said. It is unclear if Wurzelbacher is involved in a child-support case. Reports state that he lives alone with a 13-year-old son.

“Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look” at them, Jones-Kelley said, citing a case where a lottery winner was found to owe past-due child support. “Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way.”

Ah. So they just do that on anyone who gets famous. Is she serious? Joe should file a lawsuit against her and the department for violating his civil rights and privacy. Maybe the ACLU of Ohio, or even the national office, would care to help? Interesting how it also seems to be Democrats who use government offices to check people out for the hell of it, eh?

Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland [who appointed Jones-Kelly this past January] is satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher, a spokesman said.

Did I forget to mention that Jones-Kelly is a maxed out Obama donor? Ace has the scoop on that. Nothing political in the investigation, though. Are Democrats taught to lie like that, or is it just natural?

After all the complaints about Sarah Palin not meeting the press (which, in my opinion, she should have right from the get go), what about Barry?

On Oct. 24, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and “not just call on my four favorite reporters.”

But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t held a full press conference — submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps — in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla.

The candidate often bemoans the media asking silly and superficial questions. The media isn’t focused on the important issues facing the nation, he complains.

On Saturday in Nevada, Obama sat for an exclusive interview with Mario Lopez, the actor who played “A.C. Slater” on “Saved by the Bell,” to air on the TV show “EXTRA!”

According to the promotional materials from “EXTRA!,” “Asked about the tragic news that (actress Jennifer) Hudson’s mother and brother were killed Friday in Chicago, Obama states, ‘Oh it was heartbreaking, in fact I’m still trying to get a phone number to call her at this tragic time. She is somebody who has campaigned for me, she also lives in my community. So, we’re really going to have to help her and pray for her and her family during this difficult time.’”

If Obama wins, it will be an interesting dynamic. The majority of the media will be thrilled to have a Democrat in office, but, if you want to really tick of the 4th Estate, don’t hold press conferences and do not allow tough questions. Somehow, I get the feeling that the relationship between the media and The One will not be cozy. Certainly won’t be like it is with Bush, who has seemed to say “why bother?”

Anyhow, what of the tough questions, Mr. Obama?

One would think that with a title like Obama Avoids Partisan Rhetoric, Focuses on Unity, the Washington Post would have a flowery “gee, ain’t he just swell!” article to follow the headline up. The flowery part is there, but, it subtlety makes the point that Barack H. Obama is not Mr. Unity

On Barack Obama’s march through the red states, there is no inclination to examine the philosophical differences between the political parties.

There’s no point, he says. “We’re all in this together,” the Illinois Democrat assures the crowds who flock to his events, including one Sunday in the Colorado capital that drew between 75,000 and 100,000 supporters. “We don’t have the luxury of relying on the same political games and the same political tactics that are used every election to divide us . . . by who we are or what policies we support.”

And people are buying the kool aid in massive amounts. What, exactly, has Barack H. Obama done to bring everyone together? Can anyone name one thing he has done that crosses Party lines? That is acceptable to both Left and Right, even the closer to center Right? Anything? How does he work with those on the other side of the aisle, not withstanding his voting with the party line 97% of the time? Are there any of the “policies we support” that are acceptable to Republicans and Conservatives?

You know, at least with Kerry, I could find a few things that I liked. I thought his policy stance on the environment was wonderful, better the Dubya’s. Personally, I liked that Kerry was a beach kinda guy, and liked hockey. He may have been a bit pompous and elitist, but, at least he tried to connect with the inner sports guy, despite a few foul ups, such as the “Lambert Field” gaffe. But, with Obama, I can’t find anything. Like with Kerry, I have read all his policies. Cannot agree with anything. Can you? I can’t connect with Mr. Hope and Change on a personal level, because he seems divorced from modern day Americana. I’m not looking for a dynamic authoritarian leader, which seems to be what the Obamazombies want.

But, I digress

“Policies we support” might seem an important distinction as voters face this historic election, but it appears Obama would prefer the examination not extend beyond him and his Republican rival.

And, guess what, WP? You have contributed to this non-examination of Barack H. Obama, in what I call journalistic malpractice..

Yet, in his recent speeches in early-voting states that went for President Bush four years ago, Obama never mentions a future in which Democrats run Washington. Instead, he seeks to reassure voters that what comes after Nov. 4, if he is successful, will not be a revolution but more of a reconciliation.

“Together, we cannot fail,” he says. “Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save.”

Obama, in his short tenure in the Senate, has rarely crossed Democratic orthodoxy, and McCain says his opponent cannot point to a significant issue on which he disagrees with the Democratic congressional leadership.

Words, just words. It’s easy to talk the talk, but, Obama has never walked the walked, and, if he wins, will not walk the walk, either.

There is no “together,” though. People have different opinions. And, based on the thuggery by his campaign and his supporters, if you disagree with The One, you will be destroyed. Personally. Change you can be silenced by.

Yeah, pretty easy to guess. They even use a word that is verbotin in Liberal World in describing their hope for change

There are no “Obama 2008″ buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. “Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. “Please, God, let him win,” he added.

Is a UN official allowed to say “God?” I know that Allah is allowed, and Gaia, but, “God?”

Of course, it is no wonder the United Nations would prefer Obama. They love getting more and more money from the United States, particularly when the U.N. doesn’t have to say it came from the U.S. During Dem administrations, the money tends to go up, and let us not be unmindful of Barack’s “Global Poverty Act,” which will transfer, at a minimum, an extra $845 billion to the UN coffers. They love when they are able to use legitimate programs, such as the Oil For Food program, to enrich themselves, even if fraudulently. They like when people like the UN. And they love when America is humbled and laid low before the world.

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. “The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don’t worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else,” said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration.”

The UN is full of thugs, criminals, and countries that are dictatorships, many of them murderous. The UN Human Rights Councilis slightly better in membership then the previous Commission on Human Rights, but not by much. And, like in their own countries, they love to have control in the world. Multiculturalism is great, dialogue beyond reasonableness is supa!, and global warming as a means to control also rocks the vote

Speaking at a gathering of US environmental journalists last week, the chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that the news media has not done enough to communicate the severity of global warming.

Like the media hasn’t already lost all standards of objectivity.

LaborPains.org brings up a good point from the 3rd debate between Mitch McConnell and Bruce Lunsford

But when it came time for the candidates to pose questions directly to each other, we learned that Bruce Lunsford is more than willing to fight for the rights of terrorists but not Kentucky workers. It’s hard to believe, but unfortunately it’s true.

Lunsford has been an avid supporter of the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip workers of their right to a private vote when it came to the issue of unionization.

Guess who else is not only a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, but has promised to immediately sign the legislation if elected? That’s right, Barry!

Of course, Obama has been all over the map on the terrorist surveillence operations. First he was against it, then for it, then against it, then voted for the FISA bill which kept telecom immunity. If elected, where will he stand?