Say Anything Blog

Wright 101

Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism

By Stanley Kurtz

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

Read it...

Senator Stealth

How to advance radical causes when no one’s looking.

By Stanley Kurtz

Beyond its revelation that Obama’s original community organizer home-base is pervaded by anti-Americanism, “Senator Stealth” foreshadows today’s debates over redistributionism, and shows that concerns over Obama’s radical “associations” cannot be separated from the most significant policy disputes of the campaign.

Read it...

Saul Alinsky Takes the White House

By Quin Hillyer on 11.6.08 @ 6:09AM

Watch what Michael Barone called the Obama “thugocracy” use the Justice Department to stifle dissent. Anybody who complains about vote fraud will be charged with “vote suppression.” Anybody who complains about DoJ’s actions will be charged with interfering with an investigation. Anybody who denies having interfered will be charged with perjury. Likewise, anybody who peacefully protests abortion clinics or the use of state-sponsored racial quotas will be charged with a civil rights violation. And the accused won’t be able to look to the Supreme Court for help: Anthony Kennedy’s “evolving standards” of justice will evolve to match the new zeitgeist, providing a 5-4 majority for the administration. Meanwhile, of course, Obama’s other appointments will be filling up the rest of the judiciary at a rapid clip, with nobody able to stop them.

Read it....

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis. This is absolutely unbelievable. These people ought to be in Federal prison, not over-seeing a multi-trillion dollar embezzlement of more hard earned American taxpayer money.

WE should put them all in Stryker's Island Penitentiary; except for Barney Frank. He needs to be put in a cell with Ted Kaczynski at the Super Max Federal Prison in Colorado.

The Democrat party has abandoned whatever claim it once had to being the party of the First Amendment. Regrettably, examples of Democrats selling out the First Amendment are becoming more prevalent and the few champions of freedom of speech and expression left in the party are getting more difficult to find.

To Ban a Book
by Winfield Myers
FrontPage Magazine
December 3, 2008

Political correctness is at its most parodic precisely when it seems beyond parody. The latest bit of history to support this adage is the Middle East studies establishment’s reception of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina (Jewel), a life of Aisha, the favorite wife of Muhammad.

As Robert Spencer writes in his review of Jewel for the Winter 2009 issue of the Middle East Quarterly, Jones set out to “be a bridge-builder” who chose her historical sources selectively to ensure that her work would present a flattering picture of her subjects.

Enter Denise Spellberg, who teaches Islamic history at the University of Texas.

(more...)

ST. LOUIS —  A St. Louis city leader frustrated with the police response to rising crime called Tuesday on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said police are ineffective, outnumbered or don’t care about the increase in crime in his north St. Louis ward. St. Louis has had 157 homicides in 2008, 33 more than last year at this time.

“The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it’s clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold,” Troupe, 72, said Tuesday.

Troupe said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told “there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community ... that he didn’t have the manpower.”

Read it…

by Steve Chapman

Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last summer, one municipality after another with handgun bans has faced reality.

Washington, D.C., which lost the case, changed its law. Morton Grove, Ill., repealed its ban. So did neighboring Wilmette. Likewise for Evanston. Last week, Winnetka followed suit.

Then there is Chicago, which is being sued for violating the Second Amendment but refuses to confront the possibility that what the Supreme Court said may apply on this side of the Appalachians.

View Article

“Saul Alinsky Takes the White House”
By Quin Hillyer on 11.6.08@ 6:09AM

Too many conservatives think we’ve seen all this before—in 1964 and 1974 and 1992—and that we know how to handle it.

Fly, meet ointment: We’re not dealing with the same sorts of opponents. These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles.

They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs.

It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents).

Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two.

We’ve seen this game before. They did it in Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth” congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor’s race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances. ....

....And, only when the time is right and the ground (or air) has been well prepared, will come the grand-daddy of all fights, the re-enactment of the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.”

Read the whole thing.....

Watch a cheerleading establishment media -- the Fourth Estate as a veritable Fifth Column -- actually back these lefty maneuvers.

Teresa Ghilarducci-"spreading your wealth”

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans.

In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker.

The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since “the savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”

Policymakers in Washington should help Americans replace their risky accounts with new pensions more like the old kind with defined, predictable benefits.

How would they do this? By setting up government-managed retirement accounts for every worker who does not already have an old-fashioned pension.

Here’s how it would work: Each person would contribute 5 percent of his or her pay. And the government would provide an annual deposit of, say, $600, and also guarantee a 3 percent return, added to the inflation rate.

(In a year with 4 percent inflation, for example, the guarantee would be 7 percent.) The account would begin to pay out in fixed intervals when a worker began to collect Social Security benefits.

The government would pool the proceeds from all the accounts into a sovereign wealth fund, and get its 3 percent rate of return (probably more) by investing in a diversified portfolio of both safe and risky assets. The government is large enough to handle this risk.

-TERESA GHILARDUCCI

What do you do when your family feels different than you about politics?

Here are six rules to remember when engaging the family at the dinner table. Play by these simple guidelines and you’re on your way to persuading others to your way of thinking without being offensive.

1) Remember to take a breather in a dispute.

Ok. You’ve just been confronted on an important issue. Your brother-in-law decides to corner you at the big Thanksgiving dinner this year and hits you over the head with a whammy you didn’t see coming. Social, political, it doesn’t matter.

First, stop and gather your thoughts. This is not most people’s initial reaction when challenged on big issues like abortion, gun control, education and so on. Usually we want to let ‘em have it. Yell, curse, maybe even throw food.

Stop and think about how best to proceed and pick only ONE point he’s made to refute him on. This makes your job a whole lot easier than trying to field every argument he makes.

2) Stay focused.

He’ll want to smother you with too many challenges at once. Again your goal is to stay on target and not move on until he’s agreed you’ve answered his challenge fairly. Don’t let him pull you in another direction. Remember since you are all family, you have to see each other again and it’s best to resolve disagreements with diplomacy instead of screaming matches.

3) DON’T get personal.

Too many people fight unfairly and insult the person instead of debating the topic. In a family setting, this can lead to ill-will and yes, less presents at Christmas time. Neither of which is good.

Unfortunately, fallacies like these leave you with far less credibility. Leave that to your brother-in-law. When you violate this principle you’ve allowed them to get to you leaving all your potentially good arguments for your case lost in the middle because you’re too busy being witty.

Avoid insults of any kind.

4) Ask questions.

Okay, so now you’ve traded a few answers back and forth, yet he’s still pro-choice, you’re pro-life, and the family is getting uncomfortable. This is the time to ask questions.

There is really no bad time to do this. If you throw in the right question at the right time, you can accomplish quite a lot without really doing any dirty work.

Let’s say he is pro-choice. Ask him why he is. Then follow up on his answers. Ask him how he has come to the conclusions he has about the position he holds. When you start up like this, it keeps him in everyone’s focus and allows you some breathing room in a heated debate. Questions also allow you to make him defend anything he has said if you do it right. Think, “why do you feel…” and “how did you come to that conclusion?”

Keep the ball in his court.

5) Don’t try to win the battle, just advance the front-line.

Sometimes when your goal is not trying to convince everyone at the table why you’re right, they’ll come to that conclusion on their own. It’s when we insist that we’re right that we’re the most closed off to sound arguments and we turn off everyone else as well.

When you stop trying to be absolutely right on everything, you can come away looking the victor for one very important reason: if you have a “hey, I feel pretty strongly about this but I’m okay with your position too” kind of position (while still presenting a good and reasonable argument—don’t be weak here) then the credit people will extend to you for your politeness, respect and thoughtfulness will also be extended to your argument by proxy.

And lastly…

6) Know when to quit gracefully.

Hey after all, we’re talking about family here right? There comes a point when it’s time to give it a rest. And it comes before the mashed potatoes end up on the wall. Being the one to bow out gracefully can lead to yet more respect for your position. At the same time, knowing when to quit the right way can be used to drive home you’ve got the winning facts.

When you’ve hammered away at the other guys position and spent time trying to make him defend his position (even though he may have started this fight) and then you suddenly agree to call it quits when he’s up against a wall, you allow him to save face. All of this presupposes that you know you’re subject pretty well and can handle yourself in the first place in the topic you’re discussing.

Agreeing to disagree is friendly and good for families that have to see each other a lot. Take it easy out there and you may just get through dessert with smiles all around.

Politics Policywatch

In 1964, in language that’s just as apt today, Ronald Reagan said:

In this vote harvesting time, they use terms like “Great Society,” or [that] we must accept a “greater government activity in the affairs of the people”...

Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of our country.
Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. And Senator Clark defines liberalism as ” meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me-the free man and woman of this country- as “the masses.”
But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”-this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. A government can’t control the economy without controlling the people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve it’s purpose.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

And as Rush Limbaugh writes:

We have the blueprint [of success] already-full-throated conservatism;works every time it’s tried. Limited government. Low taxes. Strong military. Individual liberty. Rugged individualism. American exceptionalism. Preservation of the founding documents and the founding principles. Free markets, free speech, free people.  The truth is, ther’s only one “code word” in our lexicon : FREEDOM

Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:35:51 PM

“Sitting back there listening to this, I’ve gotta tell you that it just amazes me. My father was an expert in the founding of our country, and knowing what I know about the Bill of Rights, - it just - it just - friggin’ amazes me that this even up for discussion! Enough said about that. OK.”

Here’s a good follow-up.

A “heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is one of the ten planks in the Communist Manifesto. 

So is “centralization of credit in the hands of the State.” 

So is “centralization of the means of communication” and “establishment of industrial armies.”

A reasonable person could infer that the present aim of the Democratic Party is full implementation of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. 

Just look at the ten planks and look at the Democratic Party’s platform or its legislation waiting in the wings.  You don’t need rose-colored glasses to see the red in either.

Order Your ‘OBAMA BIN LYIN’

Deck of Deception



“Since announcing his candidacy for President, much debate has arisen about Barack Obama’s:

•Public statements

•Voting record

•Quotes from his published books

•Relationships Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright

•Obama and Rezko

•Campaign Finance ‘Rope-A-Dope’

•Obama and Ayers

•‘Spread the Wealth Around’

•Obama and Lobbyists

•ACORN

•OBAMANOMICS

•Obama and Ouchi

•What Hillary said about Obama

•What Biden said about Obama

•Donor List???

•Rural Americans ‘Guns and Religion’ Slur

•AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!



Tony Rezko, ACORN, and others.

Debate on these items has never been seriously conducted in the mainstream media.

Other than conservative entities like Fox News, NewsMax, and others, the media has shown little interest in doing so, ignoring objective reporting which might have put Obama’s candidacy in jeopardy – even as many of these topics seem to indicate conscious deceptions by Obama and his campaign.

November 4th, 2008, was indeed a day to remember. Any unpleasant memories of the campaign will pale in comparison to the aftermath in terms of taxes, the economy, energy independence, and national security. Americans, even Obama supporters, will find themselves wishing these issues had been examined in public view. They are now feeling the ‘OBAMA HANGOVER’

We have commemorated, in the Deck of Deception, 52 of the most significant items controversially linked to Barack Obama.

They were defining factors of his campaign and will continue to define him as a person during his Presidency. Everyone, no matter how they voted, should own this important collectible reminder of the 52 factors that shaped this election.”

Newsmax.com

We have all seen it in the elevation of relatively untalented radical Leftists like Angela Davis, Ward Churchill, and William Ayers to professorships while genuine conservative scholars like Newt Gingrich were denied tenure.

“It is a singular thing that college authorities who stress the fact that students should hear every side of every question generally take the precaution of having the radical side predominate.

One of the favorite methods of the radical professors is what is called the ‘insinuating method.’ 

The words, Socialism and Communism, are carefully avoided.  The professor moves by indirection. 

Skillfully, he presents his subject in such a way that the pupil thinks he is making up his own mind without the professor’s influence.” 

“By 1970 the conservative point of view had virtually vanished from the American university scene…By 1968, academic liberalism reached the position that no applicant for a faculty job could be considered unless he or she possessed the standard precepts of liberal ideology…Distinguished conservative professors were forced to suffer indignities in silence.  Sometimes ‘unpersons’ to their colleagues, they failed to match the promotions and salary increases of liberal and conforming colleagues.” 

Is Mein Kampus a more descriptive term for many colleges in America today? Once politically correct thinking was limited to those disciplines which deal directly with politics. 

Today biologists must have politically correct views on Darwinism, geologists must have politically correct views on global warming, and criminal justice professors must have politically correct views on President Bush.

View Article

NBC’s Ann Curry aborted her quest to find proof of global warming at the peak of Tanzania’s Mt. Kilimanjaro.  But at about a half mile shy of her goal, she did find proof that sub-zero degree temperatures and thin, low oxygen concentration air might do a 52 year old woman and her crew serious harm, particularly when altitude safety rules take the back seat to ideology.

For those of you who may not know, as part of last week’s silly “Ends of the Earth” series, itself part of their even sillier “Green is Universal” week, the network dispatched four Today show anchors to various locales to discover and teach the world the truth about global warming. 

The sweeps week stunt was ceremonially launched during Sunday Night Football when not the stadium but the studio lights gave way to candles for the game’s duration. 

I kid you not. During the flickering half time, Meredith Vieira, appearing from Australia, where she was sent to make friends with supposedly drought-endangered Australian Penguins, broke the deep-guarded secret of where in the world each anchor had landed.

View Article