Who is Barack Obama?

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules" - Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals".



While the media is complicit in helping 0bama ridicule & mock Joe the Plumber, and Ohio government computers are being used to investigate Joe the Plumber for asking their candidate a question when the candidate showed up on his door, the blogosphere is doing the yeoman's work of vetting the still-unknown Democratic Presidential candidate:

From Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?:

Read it all.

These questions will never be asked by the MSM.

The investigative reporting done by Atlas Shrugs and COUNTLESS bloggers is the front line in this grass roots war against 0bama.

Would you know these the names of any of these people and/or their connections to 0bama if the complicit leftist media was the sole source for your election information?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Percy Sutton, Khalid al-Mansour, Raila Odinga, Tony Rezko, Michael Klonsky, Rashid Khalidi and Louis Farrakhan?

Heil, Maobama?

H/T Little Green Footballs and TD Blog...

Today we had the revelation that on January 18, 2001 then-State Senator Barack 0bama gave an interview to Chicago Public Radio expressing the following thoughts on the United States court system and civil rights:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest 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’d be okay.

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. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think 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 redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that... (cont'd)

... Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

On the heels of this blast from the past comes another extraordinary quote from the same interview:

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

If we are to believe the media, Senator 0bama is the clear-cut winner in Tuesday's election. Will this country actually elect someone who as President will be sworn to uphold the the United States Constitution which he sees as flawed & full of "negative constraints", but also apparently hates his country so much, the country that as President he will be sworn to protect, that he compared it to one of the most evil dictatorships in the past century?

---

Strange aside... ON THE SAME RECORDING ABOVE he compared America to Nazi Germany at the end of the Clinton Presidency, 2 days before George W Bush's inauguration.

Stranger still... one of his campaign posters has adopted a symbol of victory that is eerily similar to one used during Nazi Germany's genocidal reign:

Contrast & Compare:

Joe Biden. Unplugged, Deux.... and Unhinged?

An interview on October 23 of Senator Joe Biden by anchor Barbara West at the local TV station WFTV out of Orlando, Florida is getting a lot of attention. A LOT. Take a look:



Looks like this reporter did her homework.

More: Senator Biden was so incensed by the questioning he promptly cancelled a scheduled interview the station has with his wife, Jill.

And yet more: Then he sent the cavalry to deliver a letter: "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

Letter for you...

One Nation Under God...


Photo H/T: honorarydon

Indivisible?

I wrote this on my other home-away-from-home tonight. I'd been trying to find a way to communicate my thoughts to some people close to me without damaging our relationship. I hadn't been able to successfully pull my thoughts together to form any kind of cohesive narrative.

But we're in the last stretch and I have been reading and talking to a lot of political types. And I've been hearing this from fellow conservatives and Republicans:

“I’m having a very hard time reconciling the idea of voting for a faux conservative for President when there are real, honest to goodness conservatives running as 3rd party candidates. Sarah Palin is wonderful. It’s very unfortunate that she isn’t leading the ticket.”

Here's my answer:

I’ll tell you how I came to decide to enthusiastically support and vote for McCain/Palin. When Gov. Palin was named as the VP candidate the party had my vote locked up and a donation sent in as well. The honest-to-goodness conservative I was looking for in the election showed up and is now #2 on the Republican ticket. Early on I was a Duncan Hunter supporter who was going to refrain when I saw all the quasi-Republicans bouncing around as front-runner options.

BHO is a whole other candidate, one we’ve never seen the likes of in this country. Ever.

I think of how this country will be affected in a micro/macrocosm manner, but I’ll share some of my personal & practical reasonings. Please bear with me.

I don’t want to worship God our Lord or His son Jesus Christ in secret.

I don’t want my husband’s earnings (I’m a stay at home mom to 3, almost 4) taxed at an even higher rate than they currently are. I don’t believe the over/under $250K feint; I believe to “spread the wealth” we all will pay and those who benefit will be ones running the show.

I don’t want those taxes being used to pay for abortions from conception to birth thanks to 0bama/Boxer’s ‘Freedom of Choice Act (FoCA) which will overturn every single abortion restriction & law in the country including parental notification, informed consent, partial birth abortion, born alive medical care and “viability” limits.

I don’t want to be told I can no longer listen to Andrew Wilkow or Mark Levin or Rush or Laura Ingraham. Or post on the Free Republic.

I don’t want to fear for the freedom of my family because we wrote anti-0bama comments on this forum and other blogs and produced and shared truthful 0bama videos with everyone we could to keep him out.

I don’t want to fear for the lives of my family because murderers and sociopaths have the guns and I cannot.

I don’t want to have my little children being forced into BHO’s universal preschool system so they can be taught full and graphic and interactive sex education by the end of kindergarten.

I don’t want to have to teach my youngest children, in secret?, about a forgotten and forbidden document called The United States Constitution.

I don’t want to have the right to homeschool all of my children permanently taken away from me.

I don’t want to have my children taken away from me.

I don’t want to witness a holocaust in our own country where the likes of us anti-0bama citizens are forced into camps & eliminated because the Weathermen really do have a say in an 0bama future.

I don’t want our men & women in the military fighting foreign wars in the name of Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Maoism... instead of Freedom.

I don’t want terrorists & dictators left unchecked to kill & slaughter civilizations worldwide.

I don’t want to forgo doctor’s visits because by the time we can get an appointment, the problem is over & it’s worse or it’s too late.

I don’t want justices installed into every court in the country that are sympathetic to his vision and so legislate all the above evils onto us.

I don’t want to let this happen, so I will vote against it.

John McCain is manageable. Palin is #2, and she is no pinup merely there to pretty up the old man. I don’t think she gives anyone the impression she will sit idly by and not let her thoughts on matters be known.

BHO & his plans are completely incompatible to this country and unmanageable for anyone who opposes them. Should he win, and should his supporters & comrades continue to control Congress I fear what they will bring. Socialism’s disease, once let in to a country’s innerworkings, is nearly impossible to cure.

I am sorry this is so long. I love my country deeply. BHO and his wife do not. I fear if we do not fight back this threat, our world will change in ways that will be a lot more uncomfortable than we can imagine.

I’ve taken to realizing this is common sense: this IS good versus evil. In my opinion, BHO is not just a democrat or a liberal or a socialist or a marxist or fascist. He’s evil and he seeks a revolution that will destroy the ideals that make this country the greatest on earth.

His agenda is the ruin of this country, and if he is able to implement that agenda “conservative” will be a very uncomfortable designation from sea to shining sea.

I hope you understand why I wrote this out.

Best to you..

wptg: Barack Obama & Raila Odinga REDUX (Censorship attempt rebuffed!)

wptg on YouTube's original & terrifying "Barack Obama & Raila Odinga" video was finally pulled by YouTube as it neared the 350,000 views mark for a music copyright violation. It was only a matter of time. With the hits exploding and the video being called "the Video that Will Cost Obama the Election" his supporters were on a mission to shut it down.

But the truth can't be silenced so easily. It's back up again, with a new musical soundtrack if you will, and some new footage:

Barack Obama and the 2nd Amendment

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

versus

‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’
-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

Where do you stand?

---

What I believe in:

What Barack Obama believes in:

---

From the NRA, comes:



The mailer:

---

Current Debate:



In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the case of Parker v District of Columbia that D.C. laws that essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns within the District, were unconstitutional. Specifically residents of D.C. were denied their 2nd Amendment rights by laws that bar the registration of handguns by anyone except retired D.C. police officers; that bar the carrying of a pistol without a license, even within one's home; and that require that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled unless used for "lawful recreational purposes."

The Court found that in spite of the first part of the 2nd Amendment — that which refers to the militia — "the Second Amendment's premise is that guns would be kept by citizens for self-protection (and hunting)." The court acknowledged the history the militia played in the creation of the 2nd Amendment, but did not allow the militia to be sole measure to be viewed when looking at these laws restricting gun ownership and reasonable use. Parker, the court ruled, should be allowed to keep handguns in his home.



(Continued...) The case, filed as District of Columbia v Heller, was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, and was heard in March, 2008. At issue were two questions. The first, raised by the District, is whether the District is forbidden by the Second Amendment to ban the possession of handguns while allowing the possession of rifles and shotguns. The second, broader issue is raised by Heller (another of the original petitioners in the Parker case): whether the Second guarantees that guns, including handguns, can be kept in homes by law-abiding citizens. The Court decided that the issue it should hear is "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

The Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case at the end of its term in June, 2008. The Court, which found for Heller in a close 5-4 decision, wrote that the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, protect an individual right. While the court was careful to note that the case did not call into question any laws that regulate guns, it did state, unequivocally, that Heller and his fellow petitioners had a right to own guns in their home. The Court also ruled that while reasonable regulation may be permitted, the requirement that guns be locked and disassembled was not reasonable. The Court finally noted that its ruling affected only the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave. It is expected that the laws of other cities, like Chicago, will be challenged so that the Court can examine the applicability of the 2nd to the rest of the nation.

---

Until a comprehensive gun rights case is brought before SCOTUS that will affect the entire our entire nation and not just one "federal enclave", we can continue to have the rights given us by our Founding Fathers in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights attacked at every turn.

The fight continues.



I 2nd that.

Joe Biden. Unplugged.

(photo H/T Suitably Flip)

4/19/02: Obama, Ayers & Dohrn spoke at Chicago conference "Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?"

From the original conference website of The Center for Public Intellectuals & the University of Illinois-Chicago

Saturday, April 19th, 3:30pm-5pm: Bernardine Dorhn spoke as a member of the Keynote panel "Why do Ideas Matter?"

Sunday, April 20th, 2:15-3:45pm: William Ayers & Barack Obama speak as members of the panel "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis"

Seven months after 9/11. Seven months after William Ayers posed for photos dancing a jig & stomping on the American flag & made his now-notorious comments 'I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn are well-known violent radicals who were welcomed into the "intellectual" circle of Chicago & embraced by that community for their very radical view, especially those espousing revolution in education. Ayers, co-founder with Dorhn of the Weatherman Underground terrorist group was not just a speaker at this conference.


According to a letter written by Professor of Education & Scholar William H Schubert "The Bill Ayers I Know" and posted 10/11/08 on former SDS member & ex-head of the American Communist Party Michael Klonsky's blog: Ayers was one of the founding members of the board for the event's sponsor "The Center for Public Intellectuals", which later changed its name to "The Public Square".

Maoist Michael Klonsky's personal blog used to be posted on Barack Obama's own campaign website here until it was scrubbed.

Screen grab by Caosblog:

Klonsky himself was hand-picked by Ayers to run his Small Schools Workshop as a part of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Obama chaired. Klonsky's previous experience had been as a taxi driver in Florida and a distinguised and welcome guest to state dinners in Communist China.

More details reveal that Obama & Dohrn spoke on a previous UIC panel together in 1997 called "Should a child ever be called a 'Super' predator?".

---

...The interviewer told Ayers that we would just like to hear him say, "We were young. We made some mistakes. And we're sorry."

Ayers replied, "We were young... we made some mistakes...", and then he and Dohrn both laughingly said, "And we'd do it again!" Then they tossed in the comment that they wish they had done more.

"You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Weatherman Underground's plans for the future: Genocide & Re-education

Clip courtesy of wptg on YouTube:

"Undercover agent Larry Grathwohl discusses the Weather Underground's post-revolution governing plans for the United States. From the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide" (available in its entirety as a playlist on my homepage-- youtube.com/wptg. (Full) Video courtesy of user: Seahorse1776

wptg: The Video Trilogy: Obama, William Ayers...Weather Underground & ACORN

From wptg on YouTube comes the 3rd video in the stunning Obama/Ayers, Weather Underground and ACORN video series:

Barack Obama, William Ayers & ACORN:



Previous:

Part One:

The lowdown on ACORN:



Part Two:

The lowdown on The Weathermen: (William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn)

Watch them, share them, Digg them.

wptg: The lowdown on The Weatherman Underground (William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn)

and from TexasDarlin/TD Blog: Obama Logo = Weather Underground Logo?...

The Weather Underground Logo, via Wikipedia compared to BHO's logo:

---

Creepy.

Technorati Profile

Remembering the USS Cole... 8 years past

Eight years ago today the United States Navy Destroyer the U.S.S. Cole stopped to refuel in Aden harbor, Yemen. Two Al Qaida-linked terrorists loaded a speedboat with explosives and successfully detonated alongside the ship killing 17 sailors and injuring 47 others.

Then-President Clinton responded to the first words of the attack, making a brief statement in the White House Rose Garden:

WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First, as you know as, an explosion claimed the lives of at least four sailors on one of our U.S. vessels, the USS Cole, this morning. Many were injured. A number are still missing. They were simply doing their duty. The ship was refueling in a port in Yemen while en route to the Persian Gulf.

We are rushing medical assistance to the scene. And our prayers are with the families who have lost their loved ones or are all still awaiting news. If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable. If there intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly.

---

Profiles and pictures of the 17 victims taken from us eight years ago have been archived by CNN.

A video tribute to the U.S.S. Cole here:

---

Flopping Aces has an exceptional tribute up to mark this day that is worth every word printed. Coverage of the lessons learned, the mistakes made, and the lives lost awaits. Read it. Remember.



The above American flag was signed by loved ones & family members of terror attacks on our country and our flag, including the U.S.S. Cole.

Never Forget.

Remembering the Bali Bombings... 6 years past

October 12, 2002: 202 people are killed in a 3-prong terrorist car & suicide bombing attack by the al Qaida-linked Islamist group Jemaah Islamiyah on the island nation of Bali, Indonesia.

Of the 202 souls violently taken the majority were foreign nationals in their 20s and 30s enjoying a night out with friends and family. At least 22 countries lost sons & daughters in the attack, the largest single group being from Australia as Bali had long been a popular getaway for the country.

Then-Prime Minister John Howard addressed his mourning nation's victims and Parliament with the following speech on October 14, 2002:

For the rest of Australian history, 12 October 2002 will be counted as a day on which evil struck, with indiscriminate and indescribable savagery, young innocent Australians who were engaging in an understandable period of relaxation and whose innocence was palpable and whose death and injury we join the rest of the Australian community in marking and mourning today.

In many respects the word terrorism is too antiseptic an expression to describe what happened. It is too technical and too formal. What happened was barbaric brutal mass murder without justification. It is seen as that by the people of Australia and it is seen as that by the people of the world. It is a terrible reminder that terrorism can strike anyone anywhere at any time. Nobody anywhere in the world is immune from terrorism. It is a reminder that, in this time of a borderless world with a particularly mobile young population, Australia can scarcely imagine that it can be in any way immune from such horrible attacks.

I know that the thoughts of everyone in this parliament—and, indeed, the thoughts of millions of Australians—are with those of our fellow countrymen and women who still do not know whether their daughter or their son or their brother or their sister or their lover or their mother or their father or their mate is alive or dead. The agony of waiting at the end of a mobile telephone for a call is an anxiety that we can only begin to think about and try in our own inadequate way to share, and we hope that that effort is of some comfort to them. I know that the hearts of every man and woman in this parliament will go out to them and to those who know the worst already, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who are coping with injuries, many of them horrendous burns as a result of the flames that followed the bombing of the nightclub.

At present, the best advice I have is that there is a total of 181 dead. Very few of these have been identified. According to advice from the Indonesian authorities and our Consulate-General in Bali, 14 Australians are now confirmed among the dead and at least 113 Australians have been hospitalised following the attacks. We are still trying to establish the precise number of people evacuated to Australia, but the best advice is that it is in the order of 67 to 70. There are still 220 Australians unaccounted for. It should not be automatically assumed that all of those are dead but, given the very high percentage of Australians who were in the nightclub at the time of the bombing, we should as a nation prepare ourselves for the very real likelihood that the death toll of Australians will climb significantly when the final tally and identity of the fatalities is known.

As the House and, I am sure, the nation will be aware, a major rescue and medical evacuation operation has been under way since news of the attack came through. On behalf of this parliament and all of the Australian people, I want to express our gratitude to and admiration for the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, particularly the Royal Australian Air Force; and the doctors, nurses and paramedics, many of whom have worked in very difficult circumstances. I also record my thanks to the various state governments that have offered help, to Qantas and to many other private individuals who have provided help and assistance. The willingness of the government to provide evacuation facilities for all Australians and, indeed, others in need of medical attention remains. No expense will be spared and no limitation will be placed upon our willingness to do that.

This foul deed—this wicked, evil act of terrorists—has not only claimed the lives of Australians but also claimed the lives of many of the innocent people of Bali, a beautiful, hitherto peaceful part of Indonesia. Bali is much loved by so many Australians. In many cases, it is the first place that young Australians visit. Many of us will feel the poignancy of this attack coinciding with the end of the football season in Australia. So many of the young people in that club that night were members of Australian rules football teams, rugby league teams and rugby union teams. They were having a bit of fun at the end of a hard season. It is that connection with the everyday occurrences of life which we know so well and embrace so lovingly, that cruel conjunction, which makes something such as this that much more despicable and something that all Australians will utterly repudiate to the depths of their being.

We must remember, though, that this will have an enormous impact on the people of Indonesia and the economy of Bali. The Indonesian economy is a fragile economy. It relies very heavily on tourism. Those who did this are no friends of Indonesia. Those who did this sought to inflict misery on and deliver hatred to not only the people of Australia and the people of the other nations who lost their sons and daughters but also the people and the government of Indonesia. We must understand essentially what has happened. This is a vile crime which has claimed the lives of an as yet uncounted number of Australians on Indonesian soil.

All of us have a right to feel a sense of deep anger and a deep determination to do everything we can, as a nation and as a community, working with the government and the people of Indonesia, to bring to justice those who are responsible for this crime. We owe it to those who died, we owe it to those who have been injured and we also owe it to a proper sense of justice. Nothing can excuse this behaviour. No cause—however explained, however advocated, however twisted, however spun—can possibly justify the indiscriminate, unprovoked slaughter of innocent people. That is what has occurred here. We must do all we can, as a nation and as a community, to mete out a proper response—a measured, sober, effective response—which brings to justice, if we can, those who are responsible.

It is necessary, in the course of this, for us to cooperate with the government and the people of Indonesia. Yesterday I spoke by telephone to President Megawati. She expressed her horror at what had occurred. She agreed with me that, on all the evidence available to us, this was clearly the act of terrorists. There can be no other explanation. Both of us agreed that every effort should be made to bring those responsible for this act to justice.

In that context, the House will be aware that a number of Australian Federal Police and some ASIO officers have already gone to Bali. I can also announce that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, will travel to Indonesia either tonight or tomorrow morning. They will go first to Bali to visit a number of those who are still hospitalised there and will then go on to Jakarta for discussions with the Indonesian government regarding cooperation between our two governments in the pursuit of those who have been responsible for this outrage. They will do that against the background of the memorandum of understanding against terrorism which was signed in Jakarta during my visit earlier this year. They will be accompanied on their visit by Mr Mick Keelty, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, and also by Mr Dennis Richardson, the head of ASIO. Their mission will be to maximise cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in pursuit of the murderers. Their mission will be to emphasise, by their presence and by what they convey on behalf of the Australian government, the willingness of Australia to offer all available resources to assist the Indonesian authorities in tracking down those responsible.

I can also inform the House that this morning the National Security Committee of cabinet met in the wake of this outrage. We discussed the proposal that the two ministers travel to Jakarta. We also decided to institute a review of the adequacy of domestic terrorist legislation. It is inevitable that, in the wake of what occurred in Bali over the weekend, the thoughts of Australians will turn to the potential vulnerability of our own soil, our own mainland, to a possible terrorist attack. There is no point in ignoring that. I do the Australian people no service if I pretend that, in some way, it cannot happen on the Australian mainland. In a sense, this is sequential. I do not think any of us believed that something like 11 September 2001 would happen until it really happened. We might have intellectualised afterwards and said, ‘Oh yes, we thought that might happen,’ but in our hearts we did not really believe it was going to happen.

Equally, I do not think many Australians contemplated that what happened at the weekend in Bali would in fact occur. It is therefore very important that we disabuse ourselves for all time if any of us entertain the notion that something like that cannot happen in one of our cities and on our own mainland. We must dedicate and commit ourselves to doing all we can to guard against such an event. We therefore need to again assess the adequacy of our domestic law. I know it has been only recently reviewed, but further events have occurred and we are required as a matter of responsibility to almost 20 million Australians to do that. It is also necessary that we review the adequacy, which I have asked be done, of our counter-terrorism capacity. Once again, that was the subject of significant review after 11 September 2001 and major augmentation of the assets followed as a result of that review. It is therefore timely that those assets and that capacity also be reviewed.

I do not say these things lightly or in any sense of overdramatising the situation, but we are living in different circumstances and different times. That has been the case since 11 September last year; it is dramatically more so the case now, because what happened at the weekend claimed our own in great numbers, was on our own doorstep and touched us in a way that we would not have thought possible a week ago or even three days go. It has been the case that all the world, including Australia, has been more vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks since 11 September last year. In relation to the events in Bali, it is obvious that the Australian government has been concerned for some considerable time about the existence of extremist groups in the region, especially in Indonesia, with links to al-Qaeda and the real possibility of terrorist attacks against Western interests. That has been not only a concern of the Australian government but also a constant concern of the government of the United States. That concern, and the concern of our American friends, has been regularly communicated to the Indonesian authorities. It was one of the reasons that lay behind the negotiation of the memorandum of understanding on terrorism, to which I referred a moment ago.

I can inform the House that the intelligence available to the government highlighted the general threat environment but was at no time specific about Saturday night’s attack in Bali. Indeed, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s travel advice reflected the heightened level of concern which followed the terrorist attacks in September of last year. It was very much against the background of the general threat disclosed by intelligence that the government issued its alert in early September about the possible threat to Australian interests in the region around 11 September 2002.

It is apparent from the words of the resolution and from what has been said over the last 36 hours and what is self-evident from an examination of the realities that confront Australia and the rest of the civilised world today that the war against terrorism must go on in an uncompromising and unconditional fashion. Any other course of action would be folly. Retreat from the war against terrorism will not purchase for the retreaters immunity against the attacks of the terrorists. That has been the experience of the last year; that has been the experience of mankind through history. You will not escape the reach of terrorism by imagining that if you roll yourself into a little ball you will not be noticed, because terrorism is not dispensed according to some hierarchy of disdain; it is dispensed in an indiscriminate, evil, hateful fashion. Those who imagine that it is dispensed according to a hierarchy of disdain do not understand history and are deluding themselves.

The war against terrorism is not, as has frequently been said in this place, a war against Islam. People of good Islamic faith will abhor what happened in Bali. They will find it as despicable to the tenets of their faith as Christians, Jews and many others will find it despicable to the tenets of their faith. It is therefore important that we reaffirm again our commitment to a tolerant Australian community—an Australian community that, while embracing all, is an Australian community bound together by common values of openness, individual liberty and individual freedom. We fight terrorism because we love freedom; we fight terrorism because we want to preserve the way of life that this country has; we fight terrorism because we share the values of other countries that are in the war against terrorism; and we fight terrorism because it is intrinsically evil and you do not seek to covenant with evil and you do not seek to reach an accommodation with those who would destroy your sons and daughters and take away the security and the stability of this country.

In the hours that have followed this terrible outrage—this dark day for the people of Australia—there have been many expressions of concern from world leaders. I spoke at length this morning to President Bush of the United States and I received a call last night from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark. Her Majesty The Queen has sent a message of sympathy and condolence and I have received messages from many world leaders. All of them have a common theme and a common resonance, and that is that, in the world in which we live, our problems are the problems of others and the problems of others are so often ours as well. We live in a globalised world. We live in a world in which the young, in particular, are more footloose and more mobile than even their mobile parents and grandparents, and there is no escape in those circumstances from the reaches and the ravages of terror.

I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive way in which we have been able together to discuss these challenges to our country. Our country belongs to all of us, and this is a challenge to the fabric of this country and what it stands for. The Leader of the Opposition wrote to me and suggested that we might have a national day of mourning in relation to the events, and I am very happy to support that proposition. I propose that next Sunday be observed as a national day of mourning. It is of course sadly the case that we do not know the full extent of the horror that has overtaken our people—the precise death toll may not be known for several days—and it does seem that a national day of mourning next Sunday would be appropriate, and perhaps at some later stage it would also be appropriate to have a national memorial service.

In different ways, different communities in different parts of our country will mourn the abrupt and brutal deaths of so many and reflect on their own lives. In our own way we must try to offer comfort, care and hope to their bereaved friends, lovers and relatives. It is a very sad time for our country but it is a time—as always in cases like this—that has brought forth heroism, decency and goodness. Already stories of people assisting others at enormous risk to themselves are emerging, as are stories of the dedication of the staff of the hospitals and the commitment of so many. We think also of the lovely people of Bali who have been such friends to so many Australians of so many generations on so many occasions. We extend our thanks, our warmth and our affection to them.
I am saddened beyond words of proper description by what has happened. I hope I speak for all Australians in sending my and their love to those who are grieving and in expressing the fierce determination to do everything I and we can to bring to justice those who have done such evil things to our people.

Palin: Pro-Family, Pro-Baby, Pro-Life.

This week,
Monday October 6th marked not only the start of the United States Supreme Court's new session but the American Life League's Pro-Life Memorial Day. It was therefore fitting that Vice Presidential Candidate Governor Sarah Palin chose this week to eloquently and openly address the abortion issue, and specifically Obama's record on abortion, at a rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Her remarks begin at 14:20... (H/T CSPANJunkie.org):

---

For those who can't, or choose not to view, the video, her speech was posted on The Corner by Kathryn Jean Lopez:

“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.

I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.

In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”

---

Walking the walk, talking the talk. This is one of the many reasons 'they' are attacking the Republican #2 so much more vociferously, viciously and vehemently than the #1 candidate.

Time Magazine disagrees on this point however. They cover much more heady reasons in their article Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin.

New Party? Obama's Not-so-new deal for America

From Powerline today, Barack Obama, Socialist?:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. ...

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.



And from the Democrat Socialists' Party of America's pronouncements (click to enlarge):

---

excerpt: ...his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration...

Sounds a lot like the work he did for ACORN as their lawyer and trainer. Remember ACORN? They're the "community organizers" currently in the news for even more vote fraud investigations in up to an additional 10 states.

---

You think this is all one big October Surprise? From Human Events Online in June 2008: Obama and the New Party:

‘If there’s anything that defines the American Left, it’s fragmentation,’ said Dan Cantor, the party’s national organizer.… The New Party aims to change that. By uniting the progressives behind a cohesive ideology, one that, in theory at least, will have room for all the factions that now litter the landscape of the Left, The New Party is confident progressives can again be strong.”

In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

“Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”

Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

---

Some questions I ponder in regards to ACORN:

How DO dead people register to vote?

How does it happen that you can have 105% of your population (and that included children) registered to vote?

You hire convicted felons to be Special Registration Deputies, responsible for voter registration? ACORN sure has an interesting concept of "community organizing."

The lowdown on ACORN:

---

Barack Obama: The Most Liberal Member of Congress? We now know he's also the Most Radical.

Paul's Passion

With the unfortunate loss of the movie legend Paul Newman earlier this month, word is leaking out that the formidable philanthropist 'secretly' supported at least one cause outside the usual celebrity grab bag: nuclear power.

From NRO comes Newman's Own: The secret he took to the grave, excerpts:

---

Paul Newman, who died last week, took a carefully guarded secret to his grave — something that would have disgraced him in Hollywood.

Did he have a secret mistress? (No, that wouldn’t bother anybody.) Did he have a clandestine fleet of SUVs? (Now that’s more like it.) Was he addicted to McDonald’s hamburgers?

No, Paul Newman was a cautious but increasingly open supporter of nuclear power.
...
Newman’s journey from garden-variety left-wing environmentalism to nuclear advocacy began in 1992 when he played the role of General Leslie Groves, supervisor of the Manhattan Project, in the movie Fat Man and Little Boy. Richard Rhodes’s book The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won the 1988 Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction, was a primary source for the film, and Rhodes had just written Nuclear Renewal, making the case for a revival of the technology.

Rhodes and Newman both lived in Connecticut and became friends. Over the next few years the two men discussed nuclear power, and Newman gradually became a convert to the technology. Through Rhodes, Newman met Denis Beller, a professor of engineering at the University of Nevada, also an expert on nuclear energy.

“In all the meetings I had with Paul Newman, he struck me as very open-minded and inquisitive,” says Beller. “He came out to Nevada in 2002 and visited the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, where several faculty members showed him research on the transmutation of nuclear waste. They also discussed why ideas like launching nuclear waste into the sun were not really practical. The visit ended with a trip to Yucca Mountain, where Kevin Phillips, the mayor of neighboring Caliente, whose front porch is only 50 yards from the rail line where waste would be transported, told Newman he was not opposed to the project. Later [Newman] told me, ‘That’s the most impressive thing I’ve seen.’”
...
Newman did begin advertising his support for nuclear in connection with his other passion — auto racing.

Note: Paul Newman's portrayal as the voice of 'Doc Hudson', retired racing legend 'The Hudson Hornet' in the Pixar film "Cars" was the highest grossing film of his career.

...

In 2002 Newman and Wachs formed Newman Wachs Racing, which fielded two cars that carried 26 nuclear decals and a public service message promoting nuclear power. Two year later the Nuclear Energy Institute became aware of their effort and sponsored a car emblazoned with the message “Nuclear — Clean Air Energy,” which won the opening race of the 2008 Champ Car Atlantic season. The car and its racing crew subsequently visited several engineering schools around the country to encourage young people to enter the nuclear profession.

---

I find it fascinating to consider someone as powerful & influential in Hollywood as Paul Newman would have been 'disgraced' in Hollywood for supporting nuclear power, which is after all, a clean-air alternative energy. And, seeing his sponsored racing cars boldly emblazoned with the nuclear decals, it doesn't appear he was intent on keeping his keen support for it entirely 'secret', does it?

wptg: Barack Obama & Raila Odinga

Update:

Texas Darlin @ TD Blog has some more background on the Obama-Odinga connection:
Why Did Obama Campaign for a Pro-Islam Candidate in Kenya?:

Opening shot: Odinga Made A Deal with Kenyan Muslims to Institute Islamic Law; Obama Campaigned for Him.

Spread the word.

---

Another stunning video from wptg over at YouTube. 8 minutes long. Watch it all to fully understand who some of Obama's associations are.

and, from Paul F Villareal at the Hillary Clinton Forum, a concentrated version focusing on Obama himself:

---

Thank you for the kind words, PUMAs...

october pie in the sky

H/T to Fronteras for this divine close-up.

It's October and & that means apple harvesting time for many. 'Tis the season for apple picking and with it homemade apple pies, apple tarts, apple sauce, apple cider, baked apples, apple dumplings, apple turnovers, apple muffins, apple cakes... back in Julian, California just north and east of San Diego they have the Apple Days Festival, apple picking and some of the most amazing apple pies and cider you'll ever find.

But if you can't get to Julian or to any other local apple orchard, or even mom's for some of that right-out-of-the-oven delight, try making your own!

Making an apple pie sounds easy enough: just find a recipe and follow it, right? Of course! But there are all kinds of professional baker secrets that can make your own apple pie not just good, but maybe as heavenly as mom's.

Diana's Desserts has compiled a must-keep list of these tips & tricks to help in baking pies and tarts, too.

Here are some of the headings, follow the link and read them all!:

Using The Right Pie Pan
To Prevent Over-Browning Of Pie Crust
Tenderizing for Pastry and Pie Doughs
Rolling Out Pie Dough
"Baking Blind"
Fruit Pie Filling Tips
Weeping Meringues
Runny Pie Filling
Tips on Making Fruit Pies and Pie Crust
What To Do About Juicy Fruit For Pies
Soggy Bottom Crust
SOME GUIDELINES FOR HOW MUCH FRUIT YOU WILL NEED FOR MAKING A 9-INCH FRUIT FILLED PIE
Knowing Your Fruit
Miscellaneous Fruit Pie Info
Making the Perfect Pie Crust
What Makes Pie Crust Making Different Opposed To Making Other Doughs?
The Equipment
Pie Crust Recipe
Double Pie Crust (recipe!)
Rolling Out The Dough
Fitting The Dough Into The Pan
Crimping The Edges
The Finished Pie

There are even tips on freezing your pies, and glazing!

It's a little reading, a little extra work but take a look at that picture up there and tell me ... won't it be worth it?

Numbers

69.9 million: Viewers who tuned in to the Vice Presidential Debate

6: The number of times Governor Palin winked during the debate according to the blogosphere.

263-171: Final vote in the House to pass the Bailout plan.

$700 billion: The cost of the Bailout plan.

Sarah... Smiles. Ratings, Reviews, Revelations!

UPDATED: Thursday's highly anticipated face-off between Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Delaware senator Joe Biden was the most-watched vp debate of all time.

Last night's event was seen by 69.9 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research.

That's the most-viewed debate -- presidential or vp -- since the second round between Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and George Bush in 1992 (which also drew an audience of 69.9 million).

---

The early numbers are coming in, H/T The Live Feed:
Last night's debate totaled a 45.0 overnight meter-market household rating, according to Nielsen.

That's 42% higher than Friday's presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, which scored a collective 31.6 rating among the broadcast and cable networks.

It's also a stunning 60% higher than the 2004 debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. In fact, the figure surpasses any presidential debate since 1992's second bout between Bill Clinton, Ross Perot and George Bush.

The ratings will likely decrease slightly when Nielsen releases total national viewers later today. If it stays above 43.6, it will mean Thursday night was the highest-rated vp debate in TV history, surpassing 1984's most-watched record holder between George Bush and Geraldine Ferrarro.

Previous VP Debate Ratings:

2004: Cheney-Edwards: 28.1 HH / 43.6 million viewers
2000: Cheney-Lieberman: 21 HH / 29 million viewers
1996: Gore-Kemp: 19.7 HH / 26.6 million viewers
1992: Quayle-Gore-Stockdale: 35.9 HH / 51.2 million viewers
1988: Quayle-Bentsen: 33.6 HH / 46.9 million viewers
1984: Bush-Ferraro: 43.6 HH / 56.7 million viewers

---

Sarah Smiles.. and wins hearts & minds.... from inside and outside the "conservative/fundamental/right wing... oh, and don't forget 'less educated white women' base":

---

Formerly lukewarm Peggy Noonan, today: She killed. She had him at "Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?" She was the star. He was the second male lead, the good-natured best friend of the leading man. She was not petrified but peppy... At one point she literally winked at the nation.

Nice, but she goes on to critique it more as a manipulation than a message. I disagree, wholeheartedly. Do people in the Beltway not know how to describe Real people as.. Real? I think Peggy prefers Tina Fey's Sarah Palin over the real Sarah Palin. Manipulation as art.

and Frank Luntz of the notorious "independent I used to be a Republican but not anymore" focus groups on Fox News Channel had an epiphany of his own last night:




I like Michelle Malkin's post-debate analysis 'Sarah Rocks!':

Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight’s debate.

She was warm, fresh, funny, confident, energetic, personable, relentless, and on message. She roasted Obama’s flip-flops on the surge and tea-with-dictators declarations, dinged Biden’s bash-Bush rhetoric, challenged the blame-America defeatism of the Left, and exuded the sunny optimism that energized the base in the first place.

Sarah Palin looked presidential.

Joe Biden looked tired.

Sarah made history.

Biden is history.


Sarah Rocks, indeed!

Steyn Clarity on the PB(ia)S Veep Debate Controversy

From the Magnificent Mark Steyn: Stop being intellectually dishonest!:

At least Dan Rather et al went through the motions of insisting on their super-mega-ultra-impartiality. This makes you wonder why any of them bother. Why didn't Dan just announce at the start of the 1988 presidential debates that he'd like to open with a number from his forthcoming show Dukakis The Musical?

Gwen Ifill is writing a book about one of the candidates. What, just a run-of-the-mill biography, no big deal, merely an unfortunate scheduling coincidence? No, it's a book on the profound historical significance of one of the two candidates, and it's due to be released on Inauguration Day. Anybody's Inauguration Day in particular?

Miss Ifill has an explicit commercial stake in an Obama victory. Even the time-serving squishes on the Debates Commission should had been able to do ten minutes of due diligence on this. Otherwise, what's the point of a Debates Commission? If you said to Kim Jong-Il, "Look, Jimmy Carter and the UN observers are flying in. How about we hold a debate just for appearances' sake? But don't worry, we'll get the author of Dear Leader, We Your Subjects Are Not Worthy Of Your Benificent Omniscience to moderate it", even ol' Kim might scoff that it doesn't pass the smell test.

---

The debate commission came out and said it wasn't "concerned" about Ifill's upcoming Obama book because, after all, the "chapter on Obama hasn't been written yet." What a relief.

By the way. What are the other chapters about in the Obama book?

Bailout blues 2... the boomeranging behemoth

It's Baaaaaack!

Previous: Bailout Blues

With the Senate's passage yesterday of the latest version of the Bailout, comes the House's 2nd attempt to socialize our country's financial systems. They claim it's an "entirely different" plan they're voting on today. They're right. It's much bigger! Here's what is apparently in the "new" package, courtesy Rich Lowry on The Corner:

New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)


Operation Hold the Line: Let the faxing, emailing and calling begin anew

H/T to Michelle Malkin for this very handy list:

---

The People’s House needs to hear from the people. Get your fingers dialing for Operation Hold The Line. Because so many of you asked, I’ve compiled the phone numbers for each and every one of the House GOP members who voted no on Monday. They need to hear from you again. Area code is 202 for all numbers:

Aderholt R AL legislator No 225-4876
Akin R MO legislator No 225-2561
Alexander R LA legislator No 225-8490
Bachmann R MN legislator No 225-2331
Barrett (SC) R SC legislator No 225-5301
Bartlett (MD) R MD legislator No 225-2721
Barton (TX) R TX legislator No 225-2002
Biggert R IL legislator No 225-3515
Bilbray R CA legislator No 225-0508
Bilirakis R FL legislator No 225-5755
Bishop (UT) R UT legislator No 225-0453
Blackburn R TN legislator No 225-2811
Boustany R LA legislator No 225-2031
Broun (GA) R GA legislator No 225-4101
Brown-Waite, Ginny R FL legislator No 225-1002
Buchanan R FL legislator No 225-5015
Burgess R TX legislator No 225-7772
Burton (IN) R IN legislator No 225-2276
Buyer R IN legislator No 225-5037
Capito R WV legislator No 225-2711
Carter R TX legislator No 225-3864
Chabot R OH legislator No 225-2216
Coble R NC legislator No 225-3065
Conaway R TX legislator No 225-3605
Culberson R TX legislator No 225-2571
Davis (KY) R KY legislator No 225-3465
Davis, David R TN legislator No 225-6356
Deal (GA) R GA legislator No 225-5211
Dent R PA legislator No 225-6411
Diaz-Balart, L. R FL legislator No 225-4211
Diaz-Balart, M. R FL legislator No 225-2778
Doolittle R CA legislator No 225-2511
Drake R VA legislator No 225-4215
Duncan R TN legislator No 225-5435
English (PA) R PA legislator No 225-5406
Fallin R OK legislator No 225-2132
Feeney R FL legislator No 225-2706
Flake R AZ legislator No 225-2635
Forbes R VA legislator No 225-6365
Fortenberry R NE legislator No 225-4806
Foxx R NC legislator No 225-2071
Franks (AZ) R AZ legislator No 225-4576
Frelinghuysen R NJ legislator No 225-5034
Gallegly R CA legislator No 225-5811
Garrett (NJ) R NJ legislator No 225-4465
Gerlach R PA legislator No 225-4315
Gingrey R GA legislator No 225-2931
Gohmert R TX legislator No 225-3035
Goode R VA legislator No 225-4711
Goodlatte R VA legislator No 225-5431
Graves R MO legislator No 225-7041
Hall (TX) R TX legislator No 225-6673
Hastings (WA) R WA legislator No 225-5816
Hayes R NC legislator No 225-3715
Heller R NV legislator No 225-6155
Hensarling R TX legislator No 225-3484
Hoekstra R MI legislator No 225-4401
Hulshof R MO legislator No 225-2956
Hunter R CA legislator No 225-5672
Issa R CA legislator No 225-3906
Johnson (IL) R IL legislator No 225-2371
Johnson, Sam R TX legislator No 225-4201
Jones (NC) R NC legislator No 225-3415
Jordan R OH legislator No 225-2676
Keller R FL legislator No 225-2176
King (IA) R IA legislator No 225-4426
Kingston R GA legislator No 225-5831
Knollenberg R MI legislator No 225-5802
Kuhl (NY) R NY legislator No 225-3161
Lamborn R CO legislator No 225-4422
Latham R IA legislator No 225-5476
LaTourette R OH legislator No 225-5731
Latta R OH legislator No 225-6405
Linder R GA legislator No 225-4272
LoBiondo R NJ legislator No 225-6572
Lucas R OK legislator No 225-5565
Mack R FL legislator No 225-2536
Manzullo R IL legislator No 225-5676
Marchant R TX legislator No 225-6605
McCarthy (CA) R CA legislator No 225-2915
McCaul (TX) R TX legislator No 225-2401
McCotter R MI legislator No 225-8171
McHenry R NC legislator No 225-2576
McMorris Rodgers R WA legislator No 225-2006
Mica R FL legislator No 225-4035
Miller (FL) R FL legislator No 225-4136
Miller (MI) R MI legislator No 225-2106
Moran (KS) R KS legislator No 225-2715
Murphy, Tim R PA legislator No 225-2301
Musgrave R CO legislator No 225-4676
Myrick R NC legislator No 225-1976
Neugebauer R TX legislator No 225-4005
Nunes R CA legislator No 225-2523
Paul R TX legislator No 225-2831
Pearce R NM legislator No 225-2365
Pence R IN legislator No 225-3021
Petri R WI legislator No 225-2476
Pitts R PA legislator No 225-2411
Platts R PA legislator No 225-5836
Poe R TX legislator No 225-6565
Price (GA) R GA legislator No 225-4501
Ramstad R MN legislator No 225-2871
Rehberg R MT legislator No 225-3211
Reichert R WA legislator No 225-7761
Renzi R AZ legislator No 225-2315
Rogers (MI) R MI legislator No 225-4872
Rohrabacher R CA legislator No 225-2415
Ros-Lehtinen R FL legislator No 225-3931
Roskam R IL legislator No 225-4561
Royce R CA legislator No 225-4111
Sali R ID legislator No 225-6611
Scalise R LA legislator No 225-3015
Schmidt R OH legislator No 225-3164
Sensenbrenner R WI legislator No 225-5101
Shadegg R AZ legislator No 225-3361
Shimkus R IL legislator No 225-5271
Shuster R PA legislator No 225-2431
Smith (NE) R NE legislator No 225-6435
Smith (NJ) R NJ legislator No 225-3765
Stearns R FL legislator No 225-5744
Sullivan R OK legislator No 225-2211
Terry R NE legislator No 225-4155
Thornberry R TX legislator No 225-3706
Tiahrt R KS legislator No 225-6216
Tiberi R OH legislator No 225-5355
Turner R OH legislator No 225-6465
Walberg R MI legislator No 225-6276
Wamp R TN legislator No 225-3271
Westmoreland R GA legislator No 225-5901
Whitfield (KY) R KY legislator No 225-3115
Wittman (VA) R VA legislator No 225-4261
Young (AK) R AK legislator No 225-5765
Young (FL) R FL legislator No 225-5961

CALL/FAX/WRITE... RIGHT NOW.

Levi's... Leviathan.. what's in a name?

Maybe it's their answer to Webkinz? From the makers of one of America' most well-known jeans brands comes a new campaign that is being breathlessly described as "bold and risqué"... Unbutton Your Beast.

I call it "crass and creepy". Upon viewing the site you're shown a pair of Levi's jeans that have something wriggling about all around the groin beneath the fly.

From Brand Week:

Starting today, consumers can visit Unbuttonyourbeast.com where they will be greeted by a large pair of jeans that asks them to create, customize and send their own "beast." Site visitors can choose from such creatures as "Paul the Pincher," "Sock Nasty," "Honky Tonk Hank" and "Saucy Sal," then add a pre-recorded message or record their own via phone technology that captures voices.

The concept is based on the success of San Francisco agency EVB’s work over the past two holiday seasons with an online viral campaign for Office Max called “Elf Yourself,” which allowed Web surfers to morph into dancing pixies and share the characters with others. EVB did something similar for Kodak last month with "Make Me Super," where consumers could add their visages to a video showing them wearing superhero costumes. "Unbutton Your Beast," also via EVB is also meant to encourage consumers to unleash their inner creativity and, in this case, literally "unbutton themselves," said Lauren Harwell, EVB's creative director.

---

Customized dancing pixies & personalized superheroes are a far cry from a perverse Christmas/"holiday" pants puppet. Now it's customize your own jeans crotch beast. Who are they marketing to exactly?

Answered:

---

The target audience for "Live Unbuttoned" is 18- to 24-year-old males, who are not familiar with straight leg jeans since they grew up wearing "loose and baggy" jeans, said Robert Cameron vp-marketing at Levi. "It's aimed at that age group of guy, so it's that kind of humor," Cameron said, referring to the "beast" effort. "The whole purpose is that we want kids to know that the key feature of the 501 jean is the button fly. When you 'unbutton your beast,' you can play this game and have a greeting card to send to a friend."

"18 to 24 yr old males" aka "kids". Fun for the whole male family? Well they definitely influenced my buying decisions this holiday season. No Levi's products of any kind for the family, not even those super cute Levi's baby outfits. Glad my husband isn't a "kid".

wptg: The Lowdown on ACORN (YouTube)

wptg on YouTube has another must-see video up: "The lowdown on ACORN":

Watch it. Digg it. Share it far & wide.