Monday, October 06, 2008

Barack supporter Norman explains why

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH MARKOWITZ TO GET HIS SIDE.
 
YOU'VE DEFENDED SENATOR SWEETIE BARACK OBAMA RATHER STRENUOUSLY WHILE ATTCKING GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN.  ARE WE CORRECT IN ASSUMING YOU ARE SUPPORTING BARACK?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: ABSOULTELY!  HE'S SO GROOVY AND HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IDENTIFIES WITH MY ISSUES AND SPEAKS FOR ME.
 
SO YOU WILL BE VOTING FOR HIM?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: AS MANY TIMES AS ONE PERSON CAN!
 
AND YOU SEE YOURSELF AS LIKE OTHER BARACK SUPPORTERS OR DIFFERENT?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: WE'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER, YOU DIG?  I MAY BE A LOT OLDER THAN SOME OF THE SUPPORTERS BUT WE REALLY ARE ONE.  WE ARE TOUCH WITH ONE-NESS.  IT'S REALLY KIND OF HEAVY.  I HAVE TO GO PHONE BANK FOR BARACK NOW AND THEN USE MULTIPLE IDENTITIES TO LEAVE COMMENTS ON NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT BARACK SO ARE WE DONE?
 
ALMOST.  YOU WRITE FOR WHAT PUBLICATION?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: POLITICAL AFFAIRS.
 
AND IT DEFINES ITSELF AS?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: "MARXIST THOUGHT ONLINE."
 
AND YOU'RE SUPPORTING BARACK?
 
NORMAN MARKOWITZ: ABSOLUTELY.  I TOLD YOU HE SPEAKS FOR ME! 
 
 
 
Turning to the US presidential race, Saturday Scott Shane (New York Times) reported some on Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's relationship to Weather Underground member Bill Ayers.  Governor Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential candidate, began noting the relationship following the publication of the story (as did CNN all day Saturday).  Laura Strickler of CBS News makes an ASS of herself -- and unlike past media liars on this topic, Strickler isn't hiding a relationship with Weather herself.  She is just grossly uninformed as she repeats the lie: "The senator has repeatedly noted that when Ayers committed his domestic acts of terrorism forty years ago, Obama was eight years old."  She never questions it.  As noted here (and at Third), I know Bill and Bernardine.  I'm not in the mood for a press that still can't get their facts right.  I think we last dealt with the topic in April and we're just going to cut and paste the points made then: 
 
 
I'm not sure why people keep repeating that lie. Weather Underground was not a one-year organization. Obama was born in 1961. Weather was active throughout Nixon's presidency (and after) and Bernardine and Bill turned themselves in when Obama was in college. When they turned themselves in, it was front page news, the lead on the evening news broadcasts. It's a nice little lie on Obama's part that what happened happened when he was eight-years-old. But it's a lie none the less and people need to stop repeating it.  

Myself, I don't include the 1981 Brinks robbery as a Weather action but that's me. Many others do include it as such. (It was actually an action by the Black Liberation Army.) By that time, and news coverage of it certainly saw it as a Weather action since it involved members of the Weather Underground, Obama was in college. What is this nonsense that he was eight-years-old. If you include it (and, again I don't), then Weather was responsible for the deaths of three people (a security guard and two police officers). In June of 1970, they bombed an NYC police station. The Pentagon's women's bathroom was bombed in the spring of 1972. They smuggle Timothy Leary (after the prison break) out of the country in September 1970. In 1974 alone, they've got at least five bombings including the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in San Francisco (other targes included the AG's office in California and Gulf Oil). Obama wasn't eight-years-old in 1974. 1975 is when they bomb the US State Department, a bank in NYC, and another corporation (Kennecott?). He wasn't eight-years-old in 1975. He wasn't eight-years-old during the bank robbery (when Weather was back in the news even though it wasn't a Weather action), he was in college, just like he was when Bernardine and Bill turned themselves in.  

Barack declares "I was eight-years-old" and no one must question the Christ-child? I don't think so. I don't play stupid. Now Diane Rehm did last Friday, embarrassing herself repeating the lie, "He was eight years old!" Diane Rehm damn well knows that Weather Underground was not active for only one year. Considering that the bombing wave doesn't even start when Barack's eight-years-old, this lie needs to stop. Barack latches onto it because it's the easy out for him. It's not reality. And if Diane Rehm, for example, really can't remember those days, then it's time to retire. Seriously, the mind is gone if Diane Rehm honestly believes that Barack Obama was just eight-years-old throughout Weather Underground's long history. 

It's just like the issue of pardons and commuted sentences. He says something and the press runs with it. They don't bother to check out. They just start repeating it. That's embarrassing and more indicative of the failures of our modern press than anything else. An argument can be made with their known activities that they were more active from 1973-1975 than at any time in their history and Barack Obama was not eight-years-old then. Considering that the grandmother who raised him was a vice-president in a bank, it's highly unlikely that the bank bombings wouldn't have been the topic of conversation in his grandparents' home while Barack was growing up. If you're the child of a police officer and a police officer is shot anywhere in the US, it gets discussed. Also true of a fire fighter. This is nonsense and he gets away with it because we don't have a working press. We have a group of cheerleaders for Obama (and include Diane Rehm in that, she's far from fair as anyone listening can quickly determine -- she has chosen sides in the Democratic primary) trying to pass themselves off as the press. That's why, despite the fact that Bill Clinton did not pardon Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans, the press went with that lie over and over and still continues to go with it. It's shameful. 

The actions did not occur when he was eight-years-old and anyone writing that or stating that is lying. It's that simple. Your historical ignorance is no excuse for your failure to check out the facts. Yeah, if you have the memory of pin cushion, doing your job may entail some work. Too damn bad, that's your job. Try actually doing it for a change.
 
The facts are the facts and, no Barack, wasn't 8-years-old.  Barack lied again today and Laura, you should have called him on it:
 
"He's a professor at the University of Chicago - ah, Illinois, teaches education, and he engaged in these despicable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old. I served on a board with him. And so now they're trying to use this as guilt by association, and as you said, they've explicitly stated that what they want to do is to change the topic because they don't want to talk about the economy and the failed policies of the last eight years."
 
"Despicable acts 40 years ago"? He was 8-years-old in 1975?  I mean, pick your damn year and figure out when he was 8-years-old.  Equally true is when the British press were first asking early in the primaries, the Obama campaign claimed that Barack and Michelle's daughters went to school with Dohrn and Ayers' children -- a BOLD FACED LIE.  The domestic press doesn't care to note the ever changing story.  Just like they didn't bat an eye when Barack LIED during the debate with Hillary and claimed that Bill pardoned two members of Weather.  
 
Now if he was really so uninvolved with Bill Ayers, pay attention, how did he happen to tell that lie in the debate?  You only prep -- with factoids -- on the subjects you are vulnerable on.  The uproar from the lunatics at FAIR indicates that the question of his relationship with Bill Ayers was so off-the-wall that no one would have asked it.  So if that's the case, why was Barack prepped with a LIE to use for distraction?  

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate.  Team Nader notes:
 
Why? 
For the first time since 2004, the Dow Jones Industrials this morning dropped below 10,000. 
The Dow is going down. 
While Nader/Gonzalez is movin' on up.   
Everything is in place for an October surprise.  
Ralph is barnstorming the country -- this week in his home state of Connecticut and throughout New England.    
(Fox News reports that a crowd of 2,000 showed up to hear Ralph at the University of Vermont yesterday.)   
The MOB (McCain/Obama/Bush) were exposed last week like never before for the whole country to see.     
As they all jumped aboard the Wall Street Bailout Express. 
While Nader/Gonzalez stood opposed.     
And stand opposed.         
(Nader/Gonzalez would have prohibited Wall Street's "sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior" -- as Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank put it.)       
The Nader/Gonzalez vast Get Out of the Vote Network is on the ground and cranking (Stay tuned for the details tomorrow.)      
So, the choice on November 4 is clear. 
The Corporate Elite.
Versus Main Street.   
All we need is an October surprise.
An American awakening. 
With the American people standing with the one candidate who has stood with them throughout his 40 year career. 
Ralph Nader. 
So, donate $10 now to the Nader/Gonzalez October Surprise Fund.  
We're ready for an October surprise. 
Are you?      
Onward to November 
 

1 comment:

sham debate said...

John McCain is used to force the election of Barack Obama.
Barack Obama forced you to pay for Wall Street's bailout.

Stop the extortion, blackmail, bribery, and division;
Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney.

"The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
'throw the rascals out'
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy."
- Carol Quigley