RNC Begins New Security Measures

The times sure have changed from years gone by. No where is the contrast greater than in a presidential election season. Hearken back to 2004 when democratic political activists ransacked offices, stole computers, and slashed the tires of vans that were to be used on election day to carry people to the polls. That was then, however, the danger is not over. And now, if you can believe this, the RNC is going to spend $2 million of campaign cash for added security of their facilities and offices to protect their workers and property from similar thuggish behavior.

From an RNC press release dated 10/11/08 . . .

“There is no place for violence, vandalism, or intimidation in politics. As a result of violence against Republican volunteers and supporters, and acts of vandalism against Republican Victory centers, the RNC has redirected funds previously allocated for get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts — totaling at least two millions dollars — for 24-hour security at volunteer centers across the country. We are making this investment in protective security because our staff and volunteers deserve to know they are safe as they work to elect the next President of the United States. “I am appalled that the RNC must take this action. The fraudulent activities of ACORN combined with thuggish behavior of intimidation, violence, and vandalism on the part of others are clear signs that our opponents don’t believe in free and fair elections.

No doubt, in my mind anyways, this will be the next best guarded secret on the part of the mainstream media. Keep your eyes and ears peeled for the media to bring this up.

link:RNC Announces New Security Measures Following Violence & Vandalism

For Barack Obama, Character Matters

By the time a person rises to the level of the leader of his party and becomes their nominee for the office of President of the United States, people already know a lot about what kind of person he is. Like John McCain, they know his history, his legislative background, his core beliefs, and his character. That is, until now. So when you have a candidate for the top spot that has limited legislative experience, no executive experience, and no public presence beyond a well delivered speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, knowing more about who our candidate is rises to a level that it would not otherwise be.

Critics of Obama, and I’ll include myself in this, are wrong when they bring up Obama’s ‘associations’ with unsavory people. Until I read Thomas Sowell’s article regarding who ‘the real’ Barack Obama is, I’ve come to the realization that it is not Obama’s associations that matter as much as his ‘alliances.’

From Thomas Sowell’s article . . .

Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his “past associations.” That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against “guilt by association.”

We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics.

Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you.

About the names that are part of Obama’s past and present, Sowell writes . . .

Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.

Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance- but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time.

Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.

What we do know about the kind of politician Obama is, is not well known. A testament to the effectiveness of his enablers in the mainstream media in reshaping and repackaging their chosen candidate. Ask yourself if this is the first time you’ve seen or heard this about Barack Obama.

The story of Obama’s political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot- after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates’ petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with.

Despite his words today about “change” and “cleaning up the mess in Washington,” Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates.

Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini.

So the next time a liberal, like Pensacola’s Air America Radio host Mike Papantonio, tries to defend Obama by equivocation, by bringing up McCain and the ‘Keating Five’ association of 20 years ago, bring up the alliances that Obama has had for the 20 years since then.

related links:Thomas Sowell, The Real Obama | ‘Character Attacks Emerge’ Says MSM

Yes We Can, Be Offended

Need an example how there are always some people out there waiting to be offended? Here’s one from the second presidential so-called debate, that P Diddy Combs feels is ‘racist.’ The audience was faced with only two candidates. When McCain referred to legislation, and asks the audience who supported it, and points to Obama and saying ‘that one,’ is not racist by any stretch of an educated person’s imagination. It is to say, it isn’t this one, McCain, it is that one, Obama.

In a back-and-forth discussion Tuesday night of a Bush-Cheney energy bill, McCain had this to say about Obama: “You know who voted for it? You might never know: that one,” he said, pointing to, but not looking at, Obama as he sat nearby. “You know who voted against it? Me.”

We know that there are small sectors of people eager and waiting to be offended. As a result of this non-incident, I guess Democrats can be added to the list. Nevertheless, because someone feels that it is a racist comment doesn’t make it so. The Obama campaign reacted by notifying the public relations wing of their campaign, the media, in this way . . .

Within minutes after McCain referred to the junior Illinois senator as “that one,” an Obama spokesman e-mailed reporters – “Did John McCain just refer to Obama as ‘that one?'”

Here is how P Diddy reacted . . .

The McCain campaign’s response was the obvious one. McCain was merely distinguishing himself from his opponent regarding who voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill. For the too easily offended, try getting a life, or at the very least, get on with yours. As for P Diddy, there is not much hope that he will change.