Promoted from Diaries. - Moe Lane

ALERT! Senator Obama has thrown off his campaign plane the members of the press representing the New York Post, Washington Times and Dallas Morning News — papers that endorsed John McCain for president. According to an exclusive from Drudge this happened yesterday night, Oct. 30.

As Drudge has it, some are saying that the Obama campaign is trying to “make room” for network bigwigs and a documentary crew attempting to cover Obama’s last remaining days on the campaign trail.

Read More →

In the Chicago Sun-Times on October 29, Andrew Greeley said that Barack Obama simply cannot beat racism to become president of the United States. He’s consumed by all the talk of racism during this campaign and he sees it everywhere he turns. Of course, Greeley is right. There is a lot of talk of racism. But he isn’t right about where it’s coming from. You see, Greeley is claiming that racism is the sole reason that anyone wouldn’t support Obama and he worries that racist talk is coming in torrents from Obama’s opponents. The truth is, though, that the only people talking about racism is Obama and his most earnest supporters. People like Greeley.

Greeley and Obama’s other supporters claim that anyone that opposes Obama is a racist. But the reality is that Obama’s opponents are not talking much of or worried about the fact that Barack Obama is a black man. Obama’s supporters, however, are acting just like the worst example of a McCarthyite in the respect that they see “racists” under their bed at night, around every corner, and in every dark closet. Greeley and his ilk see racists lurking everywhere… whether they exist or not.

In fact, in his fevered imagination, Greeley thinks that racists fill both parties and that they had marked Obama for destruction at the very outset saying that, “his rivals perceived that they had to destroy him.” He marks the early battleground as the “haters on the Internet” and then claims that the Democrat Party itself took up the anti-Obama bigotry.

The next assault came from his fellow Democrats. He was too quick, too disciplined, too well-organized to disappear as he should have. Therefore the litany of contempt began. He lacked experience. He was not ready to be commander in chief. No one knew how he would act in time of crisis. He needed more seasoning. Others had worked for similar causes in the heat of the day. They were entitled. All he had ever done was give one good talk.

But, do you notice something odd abut the anti-Obama arguments that Greeley lists as coming from his own Party? Did you notice that not one of those reasons are race-based complaints? Inexperience is not inherently a racist charge. Neither is the “unknown” of how Obama will “act in time of crisis.” Neither is the charge that Obama jumped ahead of the line of people patiently waiting for the Democratic nod and that had been around longer than he.

Greeley also lists what he thinks were the Republican’s reasons for being anti-Obama.

If his opponent was going to do him in, he would have to attack Sen. Obama’s character, a favorite strategy of Republicans for the last 20 years. He was a celebrity, as shallow as the pop tarts. His eloquence was phony. He was an extreme liberal, he was a socialist, he was a terrorist. He was a threat to the American way of life, he was not like the rest of us. He was not a patriotic American. In a time of crisis the country needed a proven, patriotic American.

Yet, again, Greeley seems to insist that this is all because of racism. In fact, one finds that few of the many negatives that Greeley claims folks heaped upon Obama are examples of obvious racism.

Yet, strangely, every single substantive reason that anyone would use to oppose Obama is ascribed firmly to racist intent as far as Greeley is concerned. Here’s how Greeley sums up what he feels is the real intent behind each of the reasons he presented:

In other words, he faced the same race card that President Nixon played in 1972, only the card had another name now — “experienced, patriotic, American.”

So, every single reason offered to oppose Obama by Whites, Republicans, Hispanics, Democrats, women, men… they are ALL really mere racist epithets in disguise?

This is astonishing for its utter lack of reasoned reflection. Certainly there was opposition to Obama inside and outside the Democrat Party and, as to be expected, from the GOP. But, it obviously wasn’t insurmountable and it was never based on race. There has been no real out-cry about Obama’s race in any venue, in any debate, in any advertisement, in any legitimate political opposition.

Still, Greeley sees racism everywhere. He is fixated on it, fascinated by it. He is consumed by it as brilliantly as the light of all the suns in the universe. There is a medical word that describes someone who sees things that aren’t there. You know what that word is, I’m sure.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

The Pacific Justice Institute reported that teachers in California are outraged that over one million dollars of their dues money has been spent by union leaders to promote gay marriage and to fight Proposition 8, a proposal that would restore the traditional definition of marriage in Calif.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, recently claimed that if gay marriage becomes recognized in California, school kids will be confronted with increased pressure to accept gay marriage as normal behavior and will be propagandized in school.

“If CTA has its way, we can expect to see more first-graders taking field trips to lesbian weddings, more elementary-age students subjected to transgender teachers and events like ‘Coming Out Week,’ and more students taught that gay marriage is normal. We do not believe those values represent most Californians, or even most teachers. There is a way teachers can say ‘Enough’ to CTA’s radical agenda. Under federal and state law, teachers and all other unionized employees whose religious values are not honored by their unions have the right to disassociate and divert the full amount of their union dues to charity.”

As I’ve said before, donations to extremist causes like this by unions is further proof that the political agenda of union leaders has strayed far from their proper venue of their worker’s rights and needs. The issue of gay marriage is none of a union’s business, yet here is the CTA donating over a million dollars of its members’ dues to a cause that is completely outside its purview.

Unions are no longer interested in the workers and are only interested in gaining political power to wield without benefiting members.

John Hollenhorst, reporter for KSL TV in Salt Lake City, Utah, wants you to forget about all those gosh darn Internet rumors. In fact, forget the Internet altogether and just rely on the “established news organizations” to tell you what is what. After all, it’s just too darn hard for the common folks to figure it all out. Alarmingly the “21st Century is putting a higher responsibility on voters to seek out the truth and ignore the ridiculous.” Imagine? Requiring citizens to go to all the trouble of actually seeking out the truth and learning about what a candidate really stands for? What a bother.

But, reporter Hollenhorst and his “expert” have the solution: Don’t bother and just make the Old Media your source for news. After all, the Old Media is the only one to be believed because they’ve got “the greatest credibility.” Right Dan Rather?

Hollenhorst’s report is a cornucopia of condescension. It appears to inform us that American citizens are just to stupid to separate the wheat from the chaff and to determine what are mere unsubstantiated rumors about Obama and McCain and what is real and to be trusted.

He quotes his “expert,” a professor Robert Avery, as saying that we should just let the Old Media do our research for us.

Avery thinks people who don’t have time to do their own research need to put some trust in professional information gatherers.

“There’s no question that your best bet is established news organizations. That’s where you’ve got the greatest credibility,” he said.

Greatest credibility? The New Media has pretty much made that claim a national punch line.

Ben Franklin is famously supposed to have said that he and the Founders had created a Republic “if we could keep it.” By that he meant that it was up to each of us to inform ourselves about the issues and philosophies of this great nation in order to make informed votes. But here comes Hollenhorst to let us know that we needn’t bother because his pals in the Old Media will do it for us.

Um, isn’t that why we are IN this situation? Because for decades we’ve allowed the leftist media to lead us all around by the nose?

But, no, according to Hollenhorst, we shouldn’t be expected to do our own research.

But how do you tell the difference? And, in an age when politicians score points by blaming the media, who do you trust?

The Internet gives us unprecedented access to information — and misinformation — about the candidates.

“It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is real and what is not,” said communications professor Robert Avery.

First of all, we are not in some new age where “politicians score points by blaming the media.” We have been in that age since the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson… even before that.

The media has always been filled with scurrilous rumors, misleading stories and outright lies about our politicians. It has also always been up to the citizen to decide what to believe by careful consideration of the facts. Today is no different than yesterday except in the speed with which we can now access that information.

How we get the news is certainly faster, but the news itself isn’t in any way “new.” It is still presented by flawed humans with agendas, flawed humans without all the facts, flawed humans that just innocently misinterpret. Flawed humans are the root now, always were and always will be.

But, what we have here are two denizens of the Old Media trying to protect their dinosaur establishment and denigrate the New Media as inherently untrustworthy. The truth of the matter is, the New Media is no less trustworthy on the whole than the Old Media.

The fact is, it’s up to each of us to do enough research to come to a balanced, informed opinion. Listen to Ben Franklin. He was just a tad wiser than John Hollenhorst.

(Photo credit: KSL TV)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

If you want to see an example of the media employing a subtle undercurrent of disdain for Republicans and praise for Democrats, you can’t get any better example than the masterful effort at left leaning propaganda that the Boston Herald unleashed on October 26. Even the headline is artful for the negative image in which it casts McCain’s actions while simultaneously presenting Obama as the innocent victim. The subtlety is amazing and really must be seen to be believed.

With the very headline we see that nasty McCain and the obviously innocent Obama as the Herald sternly informs us that, “John McCain keeps swinging socialist hammer at Barack Obama.” That mean, “hammering” McCain “swinging” that obviously absurd claim that the Marxist is a socialist! Imagine. The negative image of McCain being an aggressor is painfully obvious.

The first paragraph continues the negative framing of McCain and the portrayal of Obama, the “light worker,” as the aggrieved victim.

Republican John McCain used the phrase “that’s not America” yesterday to describe Democrat Barack Obama’s plans for a middle-class tax cut, and Obama said McCain is “throwing everything he’s got at us, hoping something will stick.”

That darned old McCain saying innocent Barack is “not America.” How could he? Now, notice how the Herald defines what it is McCain is viciously attacking: “Barack Obama’s plans for a middle-class tax cut.” Wait, how could McCain be so mean as to be against a “middle-class tax cut”? Of course, we all know that it isn’t a tax cut that Obama is proposing and it isn’t tax cuts that McCain is opposing. Then, after showing that McCain is calling people unAmerican, the Herald gives Obama the space to say that McCain is just flailing because, presumably, Obama is such a winner and that all McCain has left to use are undue attacks.

This first paragraph is a perfect example of spin. Negative spin against McCain and positive in favor of Obama. It’s masterful propaganda, really. Oh, but there is more.

Campaigning in Albuquerque, N.M., McCain told his supporters to ignore polls that show Obama ahead and returned to a refrain that’s been resonating at his rallies: the idea that Obama’s plan to raise taxes on those who make more than $250,000 and cut taxes for middle-class families is tantamount to socialism.

Point one the Herald makes in this paragraph is that McCain is losing and he is desperate because the polls prove it. Point two is that he is using a line that merely “resonates” but is not really true. Then the final point mischaracterizes McCain’s position quite thoroughly.

The Herald doesn’t waste its precious time explaining that Obama is not really proposing any tax cuts. To begin with, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, that will raise taxes on everyone right away. Further, by saying that “95% will get tax cuts,” Obama is straight out lying because 95% of the country isn’t paying income taxes in the first place. Also, his claim of a tax hike only on those making $250,000 and up is unsustainable and he knows it. But, the Herald is not interested in facts nor in giving McCain any space to explain his positions. The Herald only wants to fully support every claim and utterance Obama makes quite despite any nuance or facts. Again, actually informing the public of the issues is not the Herald’s intention. Propaganda, however, is.

Next we get a bit of pointless and misinformed editorializing after reporting that McCain said, “He wants to spread the wealth around. He believes in redistributing wealth. We’ve seen that movie before in other countries. That’s not America.”

America, however, has had what’s known as a progressive income tax for 95 years - taxing wealthy people at a higher rate than the poor; McCain himself has previously endorsed the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes than less-fortunate Americans do.

“However”? Sorry, Herald, but the fact that conservatives and capitalists lost the battle over FDR’s socialist ideas on taxation decades ago does not mean that we Americans should take on every manner of socialist policies based on the fact we’ve been unfortunate enough to have ONE socialist policy in place. Let’s put it in an analogy. Should we agree that someone who’s stepped on an ant, killing it, go on ahead and graduate to killing people because “killing is killing”? That is the logic the Herald just used to justify accepting the socialist agenda that Obama is proposing. Since we’ve already taken one socialist policy we should adopt them all, the Herald is positing.

Next we get a subtle slap at Sarah Palin.

While she spoke, the crowd at her rally cried out about Obama: “He’s a socialist.”

Obviously, the Herald is trying to paint Palin’s followers as mean spirited. To the Herald saying Obama is a socialist is just outrageous.

Then, after flavoring the story to show that McCain and Palin are unhinged, partisans, the Herald goes on to show us how sensible and nice their messiah is. They Herald goes says that he is command of the debate and is calmer and smarter than all before him.

Obama, meanwhile, continued to use his massive fund-raising appeal to his advantage.

Today, the Illinois senator planned to unveil a two-minute TV ad that does not mention McCain, but says that Obama will work to end “mindless partisanship” and “divisiveness.”

And then we see the compassionate, caring Obama that the Herald is so in love with.

Obama was back on the mainland after a day-long visit to his ailing grandmother’s bedside in Hawaii. Speaking to an audience of 11,000 at the University of Nevada-Reno, he thanked those who’d sent prayers, cards and flowers.

“It meant the world to her. It means the world to me,” he said.

Doesn’t your heart just melt with that? I’ll bet that mean ol’ McCain doesn’t have anyone that loves him that much!

Next the Herald assures us that Barack is so confident that he is only campaigning in states that Bush won.

For the last 10 days, Obama has been on the offense, campaigning exclusively in states won by Bush four years ago. McCain has been working those same red states, playing defense. His only blue-state destination has been Pennsylvania, where he will return this week for two stops.

See how confident The One is? Of course, what the Herald doesn’t bother to mention is that Obama needs to get states that went for Bush before or he cannot win the election. Unless Obama can persuade undecideds he hasn’t a chance to win. It isn’t that he’s so confident it’s that he doesn’t have a choice. Sticking only with the states he knows he can win is not a very good strategy at this point, not that the Herald tells anyone that truth of the matter.

And finally we see the Herald helping to buck up the troops by telling Democrats that the “first black president’ will be joining Barack on the trail soon.

On Wednesday, the AP reported, Obama will campaign for the first time with Bill Clinton, speaking at a rally in battleground state Florida.

Hearts are a flutter that the slick Willie and the messiah will take the stage side-by-side.

This piece is a wonder of subtle negativity heaped upon McCain and Palin as it gives support to The One and his campaign. This one is certainly a masterwork of propaganda.

High marks for the effort for underhanded agenda journalism should be the Boston Herald’s reward. But low marks for truth.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

The world of the New Media can be a treacherous land to navigate. People would be excused to wonder what it’s all about and to approach it in confusion. You have the funny, the profane, the boring, the absurd. You have many political sites like DailyKos and DemmocraticUnderground that aren’t at all interested in truth or balance. But, with most of those types of sites you know right off that they aren’t to be taken seriously. Yet still, they are all as easily found as the news sites like ABC, CNN, Fox News or The New York Times.

It’s one thing to know when a site is not to be taken seriously. DailyKos and the like are obvious for the over-the-top silliness. One knows at the outset that some sites are not serious news outlets. But, it’s the ones that pretend at seriousness of which one must be wary.

One such site is AmericanChronicle.com. The Amer. Chronicle site seeks to be a place of reasoned debate, serious opinions, a place where readers can trust the “news” presented. The folks there tout their work as “an online magazine for national, international, state, local, entertainment, sports, and government news.” So, they mean to be taken seriously.

To assure that status they seem to feel they need to warn possible contributors, though. Amer. Chron. warns that they offer a place that seeks “articles that promote diversity and tolerance.” And I say warn because this isn’t an affirmation made in a positive manner. It is one made to scold.

We have a strict editorial policy and affirmatively seek articles that promote diversity and tolerance. We are not a forum for articles that promote hatred, racial or ethnic strife, homophobia, or intolerance of any kind.

Right away we get the feeling that they are activists for their own brand of “tolerance” and not merely looking to keep smut and actual hate off their site. If it was a merely perfunctory stance, they’d have said something more leagalease. Such as “we reserve the right not to publish any submission.” But, no, they went out of their way to scold possible writers about their policy. One immediately wonders how PC this crusade to exclude “hatred, racial or ethnic strife, homophobia, or intolerance” will be?

Still, when one views the opinions page, one does see a wide gamut of political views, right, center and left. But one is also struck by the obvious fact that the right side of the political spectrum has decidedly fewer examples offered.

One wonders why the right is so underrepresented. It is almost as if they grudgingly allow but a few conservatives to show that they aren’t as partisan as they’d rather be. Well, it turns out I may have found the answer to that question.

A former Amer. Chron. author recently contacted me to offer one explanation as to what is really going on at AC. This conservative author was contacted several years ago by the folks at American Chronicle to add her work to their site. She had never heard of them before they contacted her, but she agreed to submit her work regularly. For several years her work was reviewed in a timely manner, rarely edited and quickly posted.

Then came Obama.

After the current presidential cycle began and my author friend began to write pieces not friendly to the Obama candidacy — as a good conservative must — the site editors suddenly found her work problematic. The time between submission to posting began to lengthen. Then pieces regularly began to be rejected. It got so ridiculous that my author friend decided just to bag it and stop working for them. She also contacted American Chronicle and asked them to remove all her work from their site.

The letter she got back was something of an enigma at first blush.

First of all, I must say that my writer friend is a serious person. Not one apt to foolishness, off-handedness, or outrageousness. She always strives to be taken seriously and never uses intemperate language. In fact, I host her work often on my own site, Publius’ Forum. She is as far from a person that would foster “hatred, racial or ethnic strife, homophobia, or intolerance” as one might find. Yet, this is basically what she was being accused of by the folks at American Chronicle.

In their reply, the AC folks told my friend that they had been getting nothing but “vitriol” and “racism” against Barack Obama and that it all made them “want to vomit.” Then they went on to accuse the McCain campaign of encouraging this racism. The AC folks told her that McCain refused to “suppress the racist fringe elements that form a large part of the Republican base.”

So, according to these Obamatons, the large part of Republican voters are racists?

Needless to say, my friend was taken aback.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from all of this. The folks at American Chronicle had for a time allowed a small number of conservatives to donate their hard work in order for their site to seem unbiased. But when it comes to electing Obama, they’ve tossed aside all pretenses at balance and decided to censor any articles that might denigrate their chosen candidate.

Now, of course they have every right to do this. It is, after all, their site to do with as they please. But, to get back to the question raised at the very start of this piece, how do readers know for sure that the site they are visiting has sold its soul to a single side of the political debate, yet pretends to be unbiased, even balanced?

It is a question that cannot be easily answered. If a site wants to as much as lie to its readers, one might invest an awful lot of time and effort into that site before a clear picture is formed. Sadly, one must roll the dice and hope for the best.

Now, Barack Obama himself has exhibited a fascist tendency to try and shut down his opponents’ free political speech throughout this campaign. He has tried to have radio hosts silenced, he’s asked District Attorneys to silence political dissent and his workers and supporters have sternly warned everyone that any nay saying of Obama is to be deemed “racist.” Obama has used the race card liberally in this campaign as a weapon to eliminate political discourse. When once he claimed to be rising above race, he has proven to mean the opposite.

So, one thing is true. Barack Obama has brought out the worst, most fascist tendencies in the left. And unfortunately, it seems that American Chronicle has succumbed to that tendency.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

As we’ve discussed before, Colorado has several Amendments on its ballot this election season. One of them is Amendment 54. (See full text in PDF format here)

Basically, Amendment 54 is a corruption fighter. It prohibits any company that holds a no-bid government contract from donating to political campaigns. This law would stop politicians from taking kick-backs from companies that receive contracts from the state.

Naturally, the unions in Colorado oppose this Amendment. They are not happy to be told they aren’t allowed to fatten the larder of the politicians with whom they negotiate. It makes it easier for unions to get politicians to do what they want them to do when those politicians have a pocketful of union cash at hand. (this law does not, by the way, stop individual union members from donating to the political candidate of their choice.)

Here is where the Denver Chamber of Commerce comes in. As reported earlier this month, unions made a few backroom deals with ostensibly pro-business groups in order for the union promise of pulling off the ballot Amendments 53,55,56 and 57, all of which were anti-business measures. That being the case, the Denver Chamber has pledged to help the unions defeat Amendment 54.

News is, however, the agreement to lend money to the fight against Amendment 54 is not going well for Colorado Businesses for Sensible Solutions. So far, with only a week or so to go before the elections, CBSS has only raised $2.3 million of the $3 million they promised for the effort.

In any case, it is bizarre that an organization that should be fighting against the union efforts (and has in the past) is now working with them to defeat a measure that would tend to curb corruption and graft. But this is where Colorado has come, anyway.

Colorado: vote YES on Amendment 54!

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

A Democrat candidate for the Senate in Oklahoma has thus far refused to remove from his campaign website the name of a fallen U.S. soldier despite the fact that the soldier’s Mother and family have repeatedly asked that Rice remove their son’s name.

Candidate Andrew Rice hosts on his site advertising for his campaign a page that lists a number of soldiers from Oklahoma that have died in service to our country. On that page appears the name of Spec. Micheal E. Phillips of Ardmore, Oklahoma.

Jenn Sierra of Green Country Values alerted me to the fact that Specialist Phillips’ family has repeatedly asked Democrat candidate Rice to remove their son’s name from his site, but so far he refuses to do so.

The Phillips family have posted their plea on-line in the hopes that Rice might be pressured by popular opinion against his unwanted use of their son’s name in his own political campaign.

My name is Angelia Phillips and it is my son who Andrew Rice refuses to remove from his website. My husband and I believe strongly that if you do not support the troops AND their mission then any “tribute” you might make on their behalf is hollow and nothing more than a scoreboard.

After having read and viewed Mr. Rice’s comments regarding our troops in Iraq and the job they have done there we asked that he not use our son on his campaign website. Legally I know there is no way I can prevent him from doing this. I had hoped he would respect my wishes though. I was mistaken. I have called 4 times and been assured his campaign manager would call me back. After the first call his staff removed the page on his website regarding the Iraq war views he has. This page included statement s such as Iraq was a waste of time, rubber stamped, nothing more than a civil war and that no Al Qaeda had ever been present in Iraq.

Another issue I would like to point out is when I lost my son 8 months ago I received letters of condolence from many Senators, Congressmen, State representatives and Governors from across the country. Every single letter we received was from republicans. Not a single democrat sent condolences. Including Mr. Rice who is a representative in my on home state. And I know he was aware of my son’s death because Gov. Henry ordered all state flags be lowered in honor of my son on Mar. 4th. No one involved in our state government could not know. If he could not honor him then then he can not truly honor him now.

Thank you for your time

Angelia Phillips  
Gold Star Mom of  
SPC Micheal “Pokey” Phillips  
KIA 24 Feb 08  
Baghdad Iraq

Yet, despite of repeated requests, this Democrat candidate continues to use the name of the fallen to advertise his candidacy when at least one family is against the practice.

Why won’t this Democrat do what the family of this fallen hero wants him to do? They feel he is sullying the memory of their son. So, why does Rice refuse to listen to them?

Why not contact this Democrat candidate for Senate to let him know how you feel.

Phone: 405-606-2288  
Fax: 405-208-4496

Headquarters: info@andrewforoklahoma.com  
Volunteer Office: volunteer@andrewforoklahoma.com  
Finance Office: finance@andrewforoklahoma.com  
Press Office: press@andrewforoklahoma.com  
Field Office: field@andrewforoklahoma.com

Campaign Mailing Address:  
P.O. Box 1027  
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

The Obamatons opened a new campaign office in a strip mall in Las Vegas.

Here is a photo of the store front…

Too bad the Obmatons don’t realize just how TRUE their signage is.

Instant Tax, indeed. Let’s hope what is in Vegas STAYS in Vegas!

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

When George McGovern ran for president against Richard Nixon in 1972 the conventional wisdom before the polls opened was that the vaunted first-time voters among the youth of America were going to propel McGovern to victory. It was the first time that those under 21-years-old could vote and many imagined that young people in amazing numbers would turn out for the Democrats. The conventional wisdom in 1972, however, was wrong. The youth vote did not propel McGovern into the White House. Despite the probably apocryphal claim by Pauline Kael that she never met anyone who voted for Nixon, he won in a landslide.

Today we are once again faced with the conventional wisdom that the kiddies are going to come out in droves to vote for The One and propel Barack Obama and his message of hope-n-change into the Oval Office. But, are they? If they are, shouldn’t we be seeing this gigantic youth vote reflected in the polls? Certainly one would think so, but Gallup, for one, has found that young voters are not registering in droves and the numbers of first-time voters does not appear any larger than they were in the 2004 general election.

These surveys seem to argue against a great wave of young and first-time voters being driven to the polls by love for Europe’s favorite candidate.

Gallup has found that there is no increase in the proportion of first-time voters. It has also discovered that young voters are still less likely to vote than older voters, at least if their polling can be believed — granted polls have been notoriously unreliable the last few elections.

According to the first poll, Gallup found that a mere 13% of registered voters say that this election will be their first presidential election, a percentage that matches what they found in 2004. Even worse, using an expanded model, that number fell slightly to 11%. Now, these numbers match the higher than average first-time voters from the 2004 cycle, but it still seems to say that Obama has not brought any great wave of new voters to the polls.

As to the tsunami of new, young voters surging to the polls, Gallup doesn’t find the prospect likely. Gallup sums up its survey on the youth vote for 2008 as such:

Gallup Poll daily tracking suggests that 18- to 29-year-olds are not nearly as likely as older voters to be registered to vote, to say they are thinking about the election, or to express strong intentions to vote. Thus, as of mid-October, there is not convincing evidence in the Gallup data that young voters will in fact vote at higher rates than in past elections. But even if things change over the next two weeks and many more young adults do become motivated to vote, turnout alone would do little to change the candidates’ overall support, according to Gallup’s likely voter models.

And, to all that, I say good thing, too. Not just because I don’t want to see the most radically leftist candidate for president since Debbs and Thomas becoming our president — though I most assuredly do not wish such a thing — but I am glad the youth vote is no larger than normal because I just don’t want kids to vote at all.

That’s right, I don’t want anyone under 21 to vote. I think the 26th Amendment was an idiotic one that should never have come to pass. So, please do keep those uninformed, video game addled kid home on Election Day.

Many people will recall the reported words of the venerable Ben Franklin who said upon exiting the final session of the Constitutional convention that our representatives had created a republic “if we could keep it.” By this, Franklin meant that it is up to each of us to learn the issues, come to understand the principles upon which our system was created, as well as the mechanics of the system itself, in order to cast an informed vote, one that will uphold those principles and keep our government orderly. This all means that it is incumbent upon each of us to stay informed and to educate ourselves.

I will not, of course, claim that all people under 21 are inherently incapable of becoming such a well-rounded and informed citizen. In some cases, there are surely 19 year-olds that are smarter, more informed, and trustworthy than certain 30 year-olds out there. This is beyond question. But one cannot make general rules for society by honing in on every individual case. One must strike for the best general rule and generally it is true that people under 21 do not care a whit about government and will, therefore, make for uninformed — maybe even dangerous — voters.

It should be pointed out that when our nation was first constructed voting rights were in no way distributed universally. It is a fact that women and many minorities were ineligible to vote, not to mention that many white men who did not own property, make a certain yearly wage, or pay a certain level of taxes were denied the vote. Many of the Founders suggested that universal suffrage was even dangerous to the welfare of the nation, an idea that seems absurd by today’s standards.

The main concept for only offering the vote to landholders or people who made enough money to pay a certain level of taxes was that of a vested interest. You see, someone who is vested fully in the system such as those who have property to safeguard from government intrusion, or enough riches that government can threaten their holdings, has the most to gain and/or lose with their interactions with government. Such people have a vested interest in the actions of government that will force them to more carefully consider what that government does and, therefore, will be far more circumspect in their voting patterns. What and for whom such people vote for will weigh far heavier upon them than it might for someone without any vested interest in the system.

This is especially true for taxes. A person who is wealthy enough to materially lose their fortune to taxation is far more likely to require their representatives in Congress to be careful with budgetary matters and far less likely to vote for representatives who might raise taxes. However, someone living on the dole or someone who will lose nothing should taxes be raised has absolutely no imputes to put much thought or emotion into the issue. Most especially, those on the dole will find themselves in a position of being able to vote for someone who will give them free stuff. The later is a most dangerous situation and one we are faced with today with a large block of voters that constantly elect officials who will give them largess from government larders in an unsustainable way.

The truth is, though, few people under 25 are much vested in the system or the country. As a consequence, they have little interest in learning about the issues. After all, they have nothing vested in government. They are usually uninformed about our national philosophy, they do not generally pay large amounts of taxes, they don’t own property… heck, most of them don’t even have careers and families to support until sometime in the mid to late 20’s. Generally, those under 21 have no emotional connection nor even an intellectual connection to government and this generates little interest in voting.

But it’s far worse than disinterest. Many of the ones that do bother to vote do so out of a wild, childish and uninformed emotionalism that borders on the irrational. Not having the years of life experience that can lead them to more ably understand the issues, they are apt to fall for all kinds of intellectually vapid populism offered by people without scruples. The counterculture of the 1960s is the perfect example of such idiotic support of ideas antithetical to America. The riots, disruptions, and havoc wrecked by these foolish children back then are the perfect arguments against the youth vote. People of such ungoverned passions, with such a complete lack of knowledge or even an interest in the system should certainly be excluded from the privilege of voting.

So, please do keep your children home on Election Day. Let’s restrict the vote to folks with the knowledge and an actual vested interest in the outcome.

The Hard Numbers

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006 only 22.1% of those 18 to 24 were reported voted and of the 25 to 34 age bracket only 33.5% did so.

Here is what the Census Bureau says about other elections:

1972  
18 to 24- 49.6%  
25 to 44- 62.7%

1976  
18 to 24- 42.2%  
25 to 44- 58.7%

1980  
18 to 24- 39.9%  
25 to 44- 58.7%

1984  
18 to 24- 40.8%  
25 to 44- 58.4%

1988  
18 to 24- 36.2%  
25 to 44- 54%

1992  
18 to 24- 42.8%  
25 to 44- 58.3%

1996  
18 to 24- 32.4%  
25 to 44- 49.2%

2000  
18 to 24- 32.3%  
25 to 44- 49.8%

2004  
18 to 24- 41.9%  
25 to 44- 52.2%

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

A popular professor of environmental geology seems to be under attack by the University of Oklahoma because of his skepticism over global warming this month.

In October Dr. David Deming, a teacher for the U of OK for over a decade, was informed that his “general education” certification was being revoked for his class. This will result in many students passing over his class when they choose their classes in the future.

Deming says that he has a consistent record of outstanding student evaluations and has no idea why the university has decided to punish him like this unless it is because of his stance on global warming.

In 2006, Deming testified before the US Senate and said that media coverage of global warming had descended into “irrational hysteria.”

Deming is also a well known critique of the Malthusian theory, an environmental theory that claims that overpopulation will make resources scarce causing humanity to be reduced to a mere subsistence existence. Deming is also a member of several conservative groups and causes. None of this is something that will endear him to our increasingly oppressive universities in the US, to be sure.

In 2004 Deming also had a few run-ins with the U of OK, suing to stop the university from punishing him for his views then.

Deming says he does not know of another such case in the entire history of the U of OK.

Professor Deming is unaware of any other case in the history of the University of Oklahoma where the “gen ed” certification for a course has been revoked. It would appear possible that professor Deming’s position on global warming was a motivating factor. But in this case, the tragedy is that the people being punished are the students, not the professor. Those who wish to express their concern can do so by writing or calling University of Oklahoma President David Boren.

It certainly appears as if the U of OK could be punishing Deming for his political and scientific stances.

We will keep our eyes on this one.

If you would like to contact the president of the University of Oklahoma, he can be contacted at:

David Boren, President  
University of Oklahoma  
110 Evans Hall  
Norman, OK 73019  
telephone: 405-325-3916  
email: dboren@ou.edu

President David Boren has announced that he is a staunch supporter of Barack Obama.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Democrats in Boise, Idaho are pretending they’ve done nothing wrong, as Democrats are wont, wide-eyed in amazement that anyone would question their morality after they produced a political mailer that gave out the Social Security numbers of a political opponent in a 1st Congressional District race there.

The Republican, Bill Sali and his wife Terry, found their SS# printed on a mailer put out by the Idaho Democratic Party that raises concerns about past due taxes that the Sali family had earlier in their marriage. The mailer contained copies of records of the Sali’s past tax problems in an effort to call into question his fiscal responsibility.

For his part, Jim Hansen, executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party, protests innocence pointing out that the records are publicly available. And then, to try and misdirect from the issue, Hansen says that if Sali doesn’t want his SS# broadcast to everyone he should have paid his taxes. “If he was going to be upset,” Hansen said “he probably should have paid off his bills and his taxes.”

Of course, the entire campaign is a cynical attempt to mislead. Sali reports that some of the tax troubles he had happened over 20 years ago when he and his wife were young, just out of college and first married. Others were due to medical expenses he incurred. The past-due taxes were all paid in full.

Sali told reporters for the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington that, “There were tax liens from 20 years ago. It’s bills that were paid off. … And yet the state Democrats think that it’s somehow OK to take two people’s personal financial information, including Social Security numbers, and splash it all over people’s mailboxes.”

But, the real question here isn’t if Sali had past problems that he satisfied, but if it is a legitimate campaign tactic to release personal information of an opponent that has nothing to do with a political campaign? In this day of chronic ID theft, is it an innocent action to print your political opponents personal information?

Sali is right to be upset at tis lowdown action by Idaho Democrats. Looks to me like just another example that Democrats see no line not worth crossing for a win.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Did you know that all white people are so racist that they shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Did you know that people who are armed are stupid? Did you know that President Bush caused 9/11? Oh, and did you know that most of Pennsylvania is a “long dark chicken dance of the national soul”? Well, the Philadelphia Inquirer would like to school you in these “facts.” And, if you disagree? Well, who cares what you think anyway? You’re a gun loving, bitter racist, so who cares what you think? So proudly says PI columnist Jonathan Valania.

This is probably one of the most shocking, hate filled columns I’ve seen outside a KKK website, or the Communist Party Daily, for a long, long time. And that it comes from a leading national newspaper in one of our founding American cities, well, that makes it all the more outrageous. But right there in the Philly Inquirer we see it: “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.” And in case you are confused, the subhead brings it into sharper focus: “It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.”

This unAmerican piece of elitist hectoring is brought to us in the name of “tolerance” and for the singular purpose to elect the most radically leftist candidate for president this nation has seen since Eugene Debbs and Norman Thomas.

So what is this business that whites should not be allowed to vote? One would hope that Valania was being “funny.” But, no, he’s as serious as a heart attack… or maybe as serious as a class attack is more to the truth.

As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don’t think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.

By “come to our senses,” obviously Valania means to say that if we all don’t toe Obama’s Marxist line, well, we just don’t deserve to be allowed to vote. You see, voting isn’t the result of a personal process that ends in a chosen candidate, according to Valania. It is a perfunctory action made after receiving marching orders by overlords such as he, presumably. We should simply listen to our betters, maybe someone like Valania, without all this messy business of deciding for ourselves. And if we fail to come to his same conclusion? Well, we should have our vote summarily removed by he and his cohorts.

So, how does this elitist justify his claim that all whites do not deserve the vote? Well, he begins his quest to explain it all by lying… SEVERAL times… in the same paragraph.

In 2000, Bush-Cheney stole the election, got us attacked, and then got us into two no-exit wars. Four years later, white people reelected them. Is not the repetition of the same behavior over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome the very definition of insanity? (It is, I looked it up.)

There was no “Bush stolen election” except in the fevered minds of the extremist, wacko-fringe of the far left. We have elected presidents in the same way for hundreds of years: the Electoral College. Further, 9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office, so Bush did not “get us attacked.” No one of any credible reputation can say such a thing. It is well known that bin Laden had been planning the felling of the World Trade Center for quite a while before anyone even imagined Bush would serve in the White House.

But, let’s play Valania’s game with that last bit. If he wants “insanity” how about his obviously insane belief in communism, a concept that is responsible for killing more humans than any other single idea in human history. It has been tried for well over 100 years and proven disastrous in lives, wars and treasure since the first time it was tried. Yet, Valania insanely still seems to believe in its tenets? Now that is insane.

Valania then goes on to knock Sarah Palin in a prosaic effort dragged right off the editorial page of any Old Media outlet. Yes, all of Sarah Palin’s fans are racists. Isn’t Johnny funny? Isn’t he a free thinker?

Then Valania goes on to act as if he is “just a regular guy” and not an unAmerican, elitist. You see, his grandfather was a coal miner. Surely the poor man is spinning in his grave over his grandson’s anti-American attitudes, too.

Valania ends with this cryptic description of Pennsylvania.

I fear for what is to become of them after the campaigns leave town for the last time, and Scranton and Allentown and Carlisle go back to being the long dark chicken dance of the national soul they were before the media showed up.

What is a “long dark chicken dance?” Your guess is as good as mine, but this guy sure thinks it’s cleaver, at least.

But, after reading this dreck one can only wonder what it was all about in the end? In reality, Valania indulges in sniping, hate against his fellows, hate for Republicans, hate for Bush and company, and reveals a self-indulgent assumption that he is smarter, more tolerant than everyone he knows. But what he didn’t do is give a single real, thoughtful reason to buttress his idiotic premise that all whites should be disenfranchised. All we get is off-handed quips and bland assumptions. Not a line of thoughtful analysis do we see.

If this schlock is what passes for intelligent analysis, the left really has come a long way from the days when the smartest people in the world served as the intellectual backbone for the movement. Apparently, all that is left is self-congratulatory, snarkists that are so sure that their ideas have already been “proven” that they waste no effort at intellectual justification. Yes, this lazy attempt at getting noticed is all there is left to the intellectual heft of the extreme left.

Valania is a great fit for the likes of the DailyKos, or the Democratic Underground, both places where intellectual vigor is not only not required, but is unrecognized by anyone there should it appear. And since the anti-intellectuals from those sites serve as the moving force of the left these days, one assumes that starting today Jonathan Valania will become the newest celebrity of the unhinged left.

For everyone else, though, he’ll just be a laughing stock.

(Photo credit: phawker.com)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Well, that mean ol’ Sarah Palin ruined everything for the St. Louis Blues hockey team, darn it all. That’s right the media’s newest Cheney replacement must have been planning this monstrous attack on the Blues’ goalie for weeks. Her next trick: world domination. At least this seems to be how MSNBC and the Associated Press feel about it all.

What am I talking about? Well, Palin visited the Blues’ arena to see a game on October 24 and it seems that Blues goalie Manny Legace tripped on the carpet that the team laid on the ice so that Palin and her family could walk safely out to address the crowd. Because of that injury, the AP and MSNBC both decided that this accident was all Palin’s fault. Really.

Right on the MSNBC homepage is a link to the story in the sports section and on that homepage the story is headlined “Goalie’s injury linked to Palin’s puck drop.” (see screen shot below) It’s as if Palin’s “puck drop” caused the injury. Though, one easily gets the feeling that the situation is closer to an outbreak of PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome).

 
Screen shot of MSNBC homepage from 9AM, 10/25/08

And then, as one reads the AP story, one discovers that the AP is also blaming it all on Palin.

Palin’s appearance was costly to the Blues as goalie Manny Legace left the game after one period with an injury that occurred when he tripped over the carpet placed on the ice for Palin and her family to walk on.

I am now shaking my fist in the air a’la Snoopy damning that Red Barron! DARN YOU SARAH PALIN!

But, how in the heck can anyone blame Sarah Palin? Did she force the visit upon the team? Is she responsible for the goalie’s clumsiness? Did she personally lay down that carptet? Is it her fault that the team staffers didn’t lay the carpet flat? Did she even unobtrusively kick it up so that her eeeevil plan could come together?

Come on, let’s get serious here.

It turns out that even the goalie didn’t blame Palin. He blamed a worker at the arena.

Just before the ceremony, Legace was the first player onto the ice for St. Louis. A team official pointed to the carpet. But Legace said the official moved his own foot from the carpet just as Legace stepped down, causing the carpet to slide.

To an unbiased reporter this should be seen as an accident, not something that can be blamed squarely upon Governor Palin. But, the AP and MSNBC never miss an opportunity to blame a Republican for something when pure chance is closer to the truth.

By the way, did you also notice in that screen shot how MSNBC is touting how “serious” a contender Al “the Brute” Franken is? Not too much advocacy there, eh?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

It the investigation into the corruption of Calif. SEIU head Tyrone Freeman keeps getting better… well, actually worse. Now it is being revealed that Service Employees International Union chief Freeman regularly forced employees of a charity he headed to do political hack work — a practice barred by law.

Six people who worked for either the union or the charity told The Times that Freeman, and others at the labor organization acting on his behalf, ordered the nonprofit’s staffers to join partisan get-out-the-vote drives and other campaign efforts during and after their regular hours. The former employees spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation and legal jeopardy.

The former workers say that employees were required to distribute fliers, walk precincts and staff phone banks for individual candidates and the Democratic ticket during the days leading up to primary and general elections.

Naturally, Freeman is giving that innocent look of “what, me?” He is denying all allegations despite the several workers and other witnesses saying the opposite.

Like the old saying goes, deny, deny, deny.

The many scandals surrounding Freeman has resulted in several firings by the SEIU.

In the meantime, the SEIU has fired four of Freeman’s top managers and assistants. Two other employees either were fired or resigned after being accused of threatening colleagues suspected of speaking to The Times, according to an SEIU official.

It’s sure to get messier before it’s all over. Freeman had direct ties to SEIU head Andy Stern in Washington D.C.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Someone at The Phoenix, a small Boston weekly, is off his medication. It’s hard to believe sanity is a familiar state, at least, when reviewing the silliness passed off as serious political analysis, anyway. For the lead editorial in The Phoenix this week is a fantastic display of hyperbole filled with “truther” propensities. The editorial, you see, is all worried that John McCain will make himself a “dictator” if he wins the election next month. No, they are serious, so quit laughing.

And how is it that he will become a “dictator”? Why, it’s because he will be able to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, you see. Yes, that is the only proof posited for this idiotic theory.

The “argument” this editorial pushes on an unsuspecting reader is that if McCain appoints another eeeevil conservative Justice, then the Courts will turn over all the power in the land to the president. After that, I suppose the writer of this schlock posing as analysis imagines that the rest of the government will just turn off the lights and go home, or something.

Even more conspiratorially, the editorial imagines that Dick Cheney created this plot. In its perfectly nutty “truther” style, quickly calling Cheney the “dark brain of the Bush White House,” the piece imagines that it was he who created the criteria for all new SCOTUS appointees. Apparently, Cheney had in mind the specific goal of heading off any “future criminal prosecution” of White House staffers and employees after the Bushies leave office.

Two things were at stake: not only, of course, the future of the Cheney/Bush-style imperial presidency (the legacy thing is big with traditionalists), but also the future criminal prosecution or administrative sanction of the hundreds — or perhaps thousands — of government employees and officials who executed the Bushies’ more questionable orders. (You have to credit that Dick; he thinks ahead.)

Now if THAT isn’t a whacked out theory…. what is? I’ll bet the space alien, Bilderbergers, had to ask their pals on the Tri-Latteral commission to help them come up with that one!

The piece goes on to warn us that Cheney also intended all SCOTUS appointees to acquiesce to handing all power in government over to the president by judicial decree. Naturally the piece does not explain why this would happen, only that Cheney’s deep, dark, evil plan is in play. Oh, what they won’t ascribe to their favorite villain.

It is flat out stupid… yes, I said stupid… to imagine that the Supreme Court, a body traditionally very jealous of its power and prerogatives, would suddenly just turn over all its power to John McCain — or any other president for that matter. The SCOTUS goes back and forth, sometimes buttressing the president, more oftentimes handing more power to the judiciary, but it retains to itself the final authority. Not only is it a foolish historical analysis to make that the court will suddenly reverse that trend, it is not even a sensible thing to imagine based on simple human nature. For if the SCOTUS handed over all power to the president, it would then be denuding itself of that power. And that is never going to happen. People don’t voluntarily give away personal power, let alone find it possible to convince eight others to go along with them in the same self-destructive behavior!

Then this idiot piece goes into some pointless, long winded discussion of the Nazi Party’s Carl Schmitt who theorized that even in a democracy a country’s chief executive should wield dictatorial powers. We get 6 pointless paragraphs on this historical figure but not once does this wild-eyed, editorialist actually prove that this Nazi Schmitt guy is in any way connected to Bush, Cheney or McCain. The writer of this mush just mentions Schmitt as if it is a given that every Bushite was basing his actions on the Nazi’s theories despite the complete lack of any quotes or proof that any U.S. official has used, or even heard of, Schmitt’s ideas.

So, why bring up this long dead Nazi? Merely to make a vague association to justify the editorialist’s claim that Bush is really Bushitler. In effect he mentions the Nazi theorist, then winks at the reader saying, “You know what I mean, right? They ALL love Nazis, right?”

Then, this garbage piece goes into the Bush torture policy as if that somehow automatically equates to proof that McCain would mount a new throne of dictator of the USA if elected despite that McCain was vocally against Bush’s ideas.

This piece is utter trash, but it is wholly emblematic of the garbled “logic” that truthers use to justify their fevered and unhinged beliefs.

However, deep inside this piece there is a real, solid point to be made. It is embodied in the last paragraph, even though half that paragraph is an out right lie.

But the most important and least discussed aspect of this presidential election is the future of constitutional government in the United States. A McCain election would keep this nation on its current path to a presidential dictatorship. Democrat Barack Obama would reverse that direction. Nothing could be simpler or more important.

Lies first. The country is not “on a path to presidential dictatorship.” While it is true that the Bush administration pushed executive privilege too far, it is not true that we have now or will have a “dictator” as president. Nor is it true that this was ever Bush or Cheney’s intentions. It is also a lie that Barack Obama would tend to reverse that trend. Based on the fascist use of government powers to quash political free speech that he has already displayed before he’s even become president, anyone interested in civil liberties should be afraid of an Obama presidency.

But, there is a germ of truth hidden deep among the slobbering, trutherism displayed in this editorial. There should be a wariness for the Supreme Court as well as the so-called “imperial presidency” here. Bush did, indeed, push his powers almost to the constitutional breaking point and the SCOTUS has aggregated far too much power unto itself.

In the presidency’s case, this has been of recent origin. The Bush administration set out to take back some of the president’s powers that were unduly stolen by the Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate debacle. There is certainly a legitimate reason to imagine he went too far and that this nation should keep a wary eye on further expansion of presidential authority.

But, the encroachment on unconstitutional powers made by the courts has been on going since the Warren Court. The courts in general, not just the SCOTUS, have stolen legislative powers and those powers need to be taken away from them and given back to the representatives of the people where they belong. Our legislators have grown lazy, it is true. They have allowed themselves to be bullied into seeing their powers slowly drained away by the courts, bit by bit.

But, once again, a President Obama will NOT be one to take on this task. He, rather, will be apt to want the courts to expand their powers so that he can get his socialistic ideas passed over the heads of the Congress and without any meddling by voters.

In any case, who ever wrote this insane editorial for The Phoenix really needs to get back to his mental health care specialist. Let’s hope the paper has a good medical plan that offers such coverage.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

This is the kind of sensationalistic reporting that just makes all “news” agencies look like scaremongers. A recent Chicago Tribune report on homes in foreclosure in Illinois focuses on “higher” rates and says alarming things like, “Illinois foreclosures were up 49.55 percent.” These numbers the Trib bandies about seem shocking. Up 49.55 percent? WOW! But this same report doesn’t quite report the whole truth. The fact is that 9 some percent of Illinois homeowners are paying their mortgages just fine and are not in foreclosure. With a 90 some percent success rate, these “higher” rates of foreclosures seems to be no story at all.

At least the headline is honest — for a change. The brief report is titled “1 in 510 Illinois homes in foreclosure.” One in five hundred is a drop in the bucket, it is sure. But, the story itself seems to try for sensationalistic, scare numbers instead of fully fleshing out the factual news here.

One in 510 homes in Illinois were in some stage of foreclosure in September, a slight improvement from August but almost 24 percent higher than in a year earlier, according to data by RealtyTrac.

During the month, 5,863 homeowners got the first notices that they were in default on their mortgages, and lenders owned almost 3,400 homes that had been foreclosed, the data shows. Compared with the third quarter of 2007, Illinois foreclosures were up 49.55 percent.

We should also remember that some portion of these homes are not owned by single families but people who own homes they rent out as well as people that bought homes they intended to resell later, but don’t live in.

But, still, shouldn’t the real story be that the largest number of people that own mortgages are paying them and are not losing their homes? Shouldn’t it be pointed out that the number of foreclosures is still pretty small and that the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot?

It isn’t like every third household is being tossed out on the streets. It isn’t even one in ten! It’s one in over five hundred! That means in a typical one thousand home subdivision, maybe two homes would be in foreclosure.

Let’s look at Cook County, Illinois, for instance. With a population of just over five million, the County is estimating that there will be 4,500 foreclosures in 2008. Now, that’s all foreclosures, not just actual single family homes as about a third of those homes are occupied by renters (that according to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart).

The point is, we are not in another Great Depression. During that horrendous era nearly every single American knew of folks who lost everything and was reduced to begging or was one themselves. Unemployment reached into the 25% range. And that number only included white males, because blacks and females weren’t considered “part” of the employable citizenry. If reckoned the way we calculate unemployment now, that number might be more like 60% unemployed. By comparison, today we have some six percent unemployed. These are not calamitous numbers especially in light of the fact that economists consider a five percent unemployment rate as “full employment.”

Yes, we should all feel bad for anyone that is having tough times. And, no, things are not ideal and we must go forward with an eye to reform. But another Depression is isn’t. Statistically this nation is no where near Great Depression stats. It is wild hyperbole to imagine that we are. Yet, we get stories like this Trib example pumping up that false impression, regardless.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

Wendi C. Thomas, a black journalist that has written for such media outlets as the Charlotte Observer, the Indianapolis Star and the Nashville Tennessean, was recently asked by what she called a “white man in Memphis” if blacks would riot if Barack Obama should lose the upcoming general election. The question made her angry, and I can’t blame her for that anger. But, after a brief flash of sanity, Thomas turned the tables and went on to decide that it will be whites, rather, that will riot if Obama wins, not blacks if he loses.

At first Thomas had the absolute right answer for that “white man from Memphis.” She wrote at TheRoot.com that ascribing to “blacks” the actions of rioting from some blacks is not a logical exercise. Even if some blacks rioted after an Obama loss, it is illegitimate to decide that all 40 million blacks in America would agree with that lawlessness. Who could disagree with this sensible comment?

Riot because we didn’t get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I’d go so far as to say we’re experts in making the best out of a losing hand.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: “No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win.”

This is a great response to an absurd question. In fact, when viewing all the riots that have happened throughout America’s history, blacks have proven to have no more penchant to rioting than any other ethnic group. Whites rioted in New York during the Civil War to avoid the draft during which several blacks were murdered. Irish immigrants have rioted at points in American history. German immigrants have, as well. Catholics have been the victims of riotous attack, government the target, and blacks have been a target, too. There have been draft riots, labor riots, anarchist riots, race riots and anti-war riots. And let us not forget the riots perpetrated in the 60s by the odious “counter-culture,” filled with mostly well-to-do white kids, on college campuses across the country. To be sure, blacks have been the criminals in riots that have erupted after sports victories in such cities as Chicago and Detroit and these may be most fresh in people’s minds — especially for the senselessness of it all — but it just cannot be said that blacks are more apt to riot than anyone else for any reason. History is clear; nearly every race, color and creed has rioted at one time or another in this country. We have had equal opportunity rioting, for sure.

But then Wendi C. Thomas allows her inner racist to show its ugly head. After saying that blacks should not be feared she uses against whites the same illogic that her “white man from Memphis” used to posit that blacks could riot.

But soon after getting this man’s e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an “Obama” sticker on the toy’s head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?

First of all, Thomas obviously doesn’t keep up with the news. The claim that someone said “kill him” at a McCain rally has been debunked by the Secret Service, no less.

Secondly, if she so easily imagines that whites will riot in the event of an Obama win, why is it so hard to say that same for blacks if he loses? Who can doubt that there is just as much hatred for whites in the black community (Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, Malcolm X, Huey Newton) as she intimates that there is for blacks in the white community?

And there is at least one example that one might use to wonder about the possibility of blacks rioting. It’s certainly sensible to use the OJ trial as a perfect basis upon which to wonder if blacks might riot after an Obama loss, for instance. After all, the prevailing opinion about OJ among blacks in the US was that he was “innocent” merely because they were tired of “their kind” being targeted by the police, not because OJ was actually innocent. The fact that so many black Americans were willing to absolve OJ of murder because they felt they were being kept down as a group was astounding for its “seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration,” wasn’t it?

But, riot over OJ? It didn’t happen any more than anyone should truly believe it will happen over Barack.

Unfortunately, Thomas seems to worry using the same outlandish, fear-based assumptions aimed at whites that she decries when aimed at blacks.

If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?

Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that’s unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that’s scary.

OK, let’s play. I gave two examples of blacks “seething anger.” OJ was one and the illegitimate rioting after sports events was a second. What historical evidence can Thomas show for white conservatives to have rioted or came near to such in the recent past?

In truth, there isn’t any.

Thomas offers not one single compelling reason to wonder as she does, “Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?”

The plain fact of the matter is that there should be no more fear of blacks as a group rioting if Obama loses as there is to worry that whites will riot if he wins. The lawless actions of individual idiots from either ethnic group aside, there is no social unrest at such fever pitch as to imagine there will be wide spread riots in either case.

Further, Wendi C. Thomas is herself wallowing in the same sort of racist thinking as she scolded that “white man from Memphis” for indulging in.

(Photo of Wendi C. Thomas from the Memphis Commercial Appeal)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

An Arkansas TV reporter that had a bit part in Oliver Stone’s movie “W” was found beaten unconscious in her Little Rock home on October 20 and in its report on the crime the Associated Press seemed to decide that she was beaten merely because she had appeared in the movie though this impression the AP seems to have is not supported by the police. One wonders why the AP decided to spend almost half its story focusing on her movie role when reporting this crime? Is the AP trying to say her connection with George W. Bush got her attacked? It sure seems like the AP is seized by another bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome with its unnecessary emphasis on this reporter’s film role.

The APs obsession with the victim’s movie role was odd, indeed. Even in its first few lines the AP ties KATV anchor Ann Pressly to her movie work saying in its first sentence that she “had a small part in the Bush biopic ‘W.’” The AP takes pains to point out that in the movie, Pressly “speaks favorably of President Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ event on an aircraft carrier shortly after the start of the Iraq war.” The report speaks about how she won the role in the film and then adds this odd sentence:

Spokeswoman Kate Hubin for the film company Lionsgate confirmed Pressly’s role but declined to comment further.

Why did we need to have Pressly’s role “confirmed”? Why would the AP imagine that Lionsgate films had anything useful to add to a report on this crime?

In fact, despite all the attention the AP directed to the victim’s movie role, there doesn’t seem to be any immediate reason to suspect that her role in “W” had anything at all to do with the attack. The AP quotes a Little Rock police spokesman on a possible motive for the crime; robbery.

Davis said investigators are talking to Pressly’s co-workers to determine whether she “has had any problems.” Davis said Pressly’s purse was gone and that robbery was among the possible motives being explored. Davis would not discuss specifics of what the investigation revealed.

So, why did the AP spend so much time on the movie role? Is it possible that the AP just wanted to find a way to make it all seem like Bush’s fault?

Now, let’s contrast the AP’s treatment of the crime with the way the Arkansas Times reported the story. In its 12 paragraph story, the Ark. Times mentions Pressly’s movie role precisely once and briefly at that.

Pressly has a small role in the current movie, “W,” Oliver Stone’s portrayal of George W. Bush. She played commentator Ann Coulter in the movie, much of it filmed in Shreveport.

That was it. The Ark. Times didn’t see the movie role as that much of a factor at all and unless more details emerge, nor should anyone else.

Yet the AP went mad over her role in “W.” What could have been the APs motivation?

Anyway, here’s hoping that Miss Pressly gets well soon and can help the police to find her attacker whatever his motive.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

It the investigation into the corruption of Calif. SEIU head Tyrone Freeman keeps getting better… well, actually worse. Now it is being revealed that Service Employees International Union chief Freeman regularly forced employees of a charity he headed to do political hack work — a practice barred by law.

Six people who worked for either the union or the charity told The Times that Freeman, and others at the labor organization acting on his behalf, ordered the nonprofit’s staffers to join partisan get-out-the-vote drives and other campaign efforts during and after their regular hours. The former employees spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation and legal jeopardy.

The former workers say that employees were required to distribute fliers, walk precincts and staff phone banks for individual candidates and the Democratic ticket during the days leading up to primary and general elections.

Naturally, Freeman is giving that innocent look of “what, me?” He is denying all allegations despite the several workers and other witnesses saying the opposite.

Like the old saying goes, deny, deny, deny.

The many scandals surrounding Freeman has resulted in several firings by the SEIU.

In the meantime, the SEIU has fired four of Freeman’s top managers and assistants. Two other employees either were fired or resigned after being accused of threatening colleagues suspected of speaking to The Times, according to an SEIU official.

It’s sure to get messier before it’s all over. Freeman had direct ties to SEIU head Andy Stern in Washington D.C.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!