China? North Korea? Russia?

September 30, 2008

Nope. Venice, California

 This is a choreographed psalm to the messiah.

Obamessiah.

Sung by exploited robotic children, age five to twelve.


Foreign nationals, suspicious unidentified donors, raise questions in Obama campaign

September 30, 2008

Why are they not being asked?

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret, according to a NewsMax report.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

For example, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency…”

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

NewsMax details the foreign nationals and dubious donors such as “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro.” There were 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, of Austin, Texas, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

Similarly, donor “Doodad Pro,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. Mr. Doodad Pro also listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

We recommend you read this entire article. Where is the mainstream media on this issue?

Where is the reliably left-leaning Arizona Republic?


Arizona’s own Alliance Defense Fund stands tall for First Amendment freedoms

September 30, 2008

First Amendment rights of pastors at issue

A church-state separation group filed complaints Monday with the Internal Revenue Service against six churches whose pastors either endorsed or made pointed comments about political candidates from their pulpits Sunday in defiance of federal tax law, according to an Associated Press report.

The Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed complaints Monday with the IRS about six pastors whose sermons were detailed in media reports.

This is the press release from the Alliance Defense Fund. Attorneys with the group say they are prepared to defend the First Amendment rights of pastors who engaged in free speech from the pulpit on Pulpit Freedom Sunday Sept. 28.

Here is the list of 31 pastors who participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The event is part of the ADF Pulpit Initiative (www.telladf.org/church), a legal effort designed to secure the First Amendment rights of pastors in the pulpit. A document explaining what the Pulpit Initiative is and is not is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WhatIsPI.pdf.

At stake is the tax exempt status accorded to religious institutions.

Conservative columnist Cal Thomas takes another perspective in his article, Pulpit Bullies.  Although disagreeing with the ADF, he makes cogent points as he reveals the distinct double standard in application of the law “in some African-American churches” without the pressure by the IRS, which many white conservative churches and institutions feel.” He cites Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, “as three of many examples.”

Thomas also provides historical background on the law restricting political language from the pulpit. Until 1954, election sermons could be heard on the first Sunday in November, or virtually any other time, without invoking the wrath of government. That changed when then-senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, with his own political motives for doing so, offered an amendment to restrict nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment passed and has been part of the IRS code ever since.


Marriage Amendment: Round two

September 29, 2008

Twenty words clarify marriage protections

For the second time in two years, Arizonans will be asked to modify the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Political insiders and a significant margin of the voting public regarded the measure as a solid winner when the ballot initiative was presented to voters in 2006. Twenty states had already approved similar measures and seven others joined them on election day. But nationally, Arizona alone failed to pass the measure.

In 2006, the proponents had Nathan Sproul directing the effort. His track record on “sure things” is not one to write home about.

A citizen’s initiative on the upcoming ballot, it clarifies marriage as between one man and one woman. Last time around with too much thrown into the mix, the measure worried a large number of heterosexual couples living together without benefit of marriage. Many were senior citizens, fearful of losing health and insurance benefits.

This proposition contains only 20 words, easily understood and classic in its simplicity. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. These few words are a necessary protection against a future liberal legislature or an activist judge, legislating from the bench.

Sonoran News provides a good analysis of the proposition. Read the comments of Mayor Phil Gordon and the few elected officials who oppose the measure. They join the ACLU, NOW, Arizona Transsexual Alliance, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats, Planned Parenthood, Arizona Human Rights Campaign and AFLCIO of Arizona.

We urge a Yes vote on Proposition 102.


Another “new look” for the daily newspaper

September 29, 2008

Less paper to read means more time for skipping through daisy fields

You’ll remember that some time ago the sages at the Arizona Republic alerted readers to the gift of time they were giving them. Seeing Red AZ called them out on the anorexic version of the Monday morning news then.

Today Randy Lovely, editor and vice president of news, announced another method of expanding their policy of less news in a full page summary of changes, titled Welcome to the Republic’s fresh new look. Other than AP feeds and their left-leaning editorial slants, real news has become a rare commodity. As pink slips have become more commonplace and buy-outs have persuaded the older, higher-paid employees to shuffle off, local reporting is basically reduced to a wide array of police reports, press releases and the Political Insider – which took a nose dive after Robbie Sherwood and Chip Scutari jumped the sinking ship.

For quite some time the paper has resorted to an editorial page game called You write the caption. If the wizards at the Republic think we are too busy to read the news that affects us, do they really think we have time to pen captions for photos, the majority of which take jabs at Republicans?

Lovely writes: Some of the changes are subtle, such as new, larger typography on the weather page, on the market summary package in Business and for box scores, standings and other statistics on the Sports pages. Other improvements are more sweeping, including an authoritative Calendar section on Thursdays that will serve as the definitive guide to the best in dining, movies and events, as well as a revamped Sunday Business section to provide more insights and expertise on the economy and the changing marketplace.

He omits any reference to the wider margins of blank space. But he is upfront about the fact that the type will be larger — another crafty means to take up space — the calendar will be “more sweeping,” we’ll get a “definitive guide” to dining and movies, along with a larger weather and sports format and two more puzzles. Throughout the week the paper intends to offer ideas on “taking care of yourself with guiltless splurges,” and will run a feature on “ways to give back to your community.”

They’ve even thoughtfully included a renovated obituary format, “that will make the notices easier to find, read and save.”

How much longer before they write their own?


Pelosi blasts Bush, praises Clinton prior to vote on bailout

September 29, 2008

Bailout flops

Pelosi: “$700 billion a staggering number but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country.”

The 228-205 vote to reject the bill came from both sides of the political aisle, as more than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats voted in opposition.

The Hill reports that House Republicans blamed a partisan speech from Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the failure of a massive Wall Street bailout measure.

“I do believe that we could have gotten there today had it not been for this partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said, adding that Pelosi “poisoned” the GOP conference.

Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va) held up a copy of Pelosi’s floor speech at a press conference and said she had “failed to listen and to lead” on the issue


The Republic does the expected

September 28, 2008

Democrats and illegal immigration get the nod

Yesterday’s Republic gave Page One coverage with a massive jump piece to Dan Saban. He is the opportunistic party switcher who decided he had a better chance of waging a challenge to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as a Democrat, fearing a wipe-out in a contested primary with the popular sheriff.

The headline, Saban faces uphill battle against Arpaio tells only part of the story. The rest of it features an assemblage of political consultants, lobbyists, university professors and communications specialists providing the problem-plagued Saban free expert advice on how to energize his campaign. Saban’s lackluster efforts have resulted in paltry contributions, the necessary fuel that runs any campaign.

Saban has stressed that he will not pursue the enforcement of illegals who have crossed our Southern border in violation of the law. His stated laxity in this regard makes him the choice for the open border editorialists at the left-leaning daily newspaper.

Today the daily editorially endorsed the candidacy of Tim Nelson, a longtime aide of Democrat Gov. Janet Napolitano. Nelson, a former ACLU lawyer, lacking prosecution experience, is challenging Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Thomas has provided legal leadership and cooperated with Sheriff Arpaio in the prosecution of the transporting “coyotes” and their illegal alien clients.

No surprise in either endorsement. The bias of the newspaper is evident in its support of illegal immigration, open border policies and amnesty for those who disregard the U. S. sovereignty and the rule of law.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 343 other followers