full rant at:

http://www.bloggernews.net/118116
and cross posted political part below:

But what if the abuser has status in the community, e.g. a well known lawyer, cop or businessman who will have no problem walking in court and denying the abuse? Often if the abused partner has hid the abuse out of shame, or she has withdrawn the accusations or the restraining order out of pity (so he won’t lose his job), she can’t prove her case. The result is that he essentially goes free to abuse again, and she ends up unable to prove the pattern of repeated abuse, and even complaints by family and friends that confirm the abuse might be dismissed as biased.

The helplessness of those suffering from domestic abuse against a criminal justice system that dismisses the seriousness of this crime can be seen in the Palin case:

If even a governor and her family after repeated complaints of domestic abuse and threats to a woman and her family can’t get a cop fired (and his right to carry a deadly weapon revoked), what does that mean for the average minority woman in Alaska who complains of domestic abuse by a policeman?  Presumably, after the politics calms down, someone with a background in human rights and domestic abuse will do an expose on the problem, but don’t hold your breath in the meanwhile.

But a lot of abused spouses will recognize the pattern: He has power, I do not. So he will keep getting off until he kills me, or his next girlfriend.

(FYI: the International Association of Chiefs of Police suggest guidelines for such cases. But I’ll give you a hint: The answer is not to censor the complaining family members for abuse of power).

Sigh.

Obama's numbers must be slipping  because our Filipino paper has an article telling us about all those terrible American racists who won't vote for him.

Actually, there are racists, at many levels. Myself, having lost a scholarship when the school decided I wasn't a minority, I am racist. My son, who in the Job Corps noticed all the kids in one dorm smoked Marijuana and no one said a thing, but that if the Hispanic kids (like him) tried anything, they were disciplined, is racist too.

All those "polls" who tell America that the world wants Obama as the next president ignores the one sided media coverage by anti American (leftist/progressive) newspapers not to mention the openly anti American CNNInternational.

One of our ABSCBN reporters was at the Democratic convention, and interviewed some local Pinoys in Denver, and was astonished to find many of them were anti Obama: Because  they had relatives in the Military, and Obama was anti Military.

Obama's problem is not racism, but that he is painted as the great hope for mankind, and was placed in running by his radical followers hijacking the primaries.

I'm a Hillary backer, and just go to Real Politics: numbers don't lie. The caucuses went big for Obama, but the actual numbers were even.

The problem, of course, is if McCain wins, I agree with James Carville that there will be riots.

If it is close, expect 2000's troubles squared.
Someday, AlGore will be noted in history books like the Gracchi brothers: Not for what he did in office, but because he broke the system and the unwritten rules to try to get elected.

And if Obama wins, with all those illegal votes, McCain, like Nixon, won't make a fuss.

He will put the good of the country before his personal ambition.

CNN International had the VP debates...of course we missed them except for about a half hour.

But their "review" of the debates was interesting, to say the least.
They had "letters" from their viewers: First one, nice analysis pro Palin. Three more were simply talking points, and then the announcer said their poll implied Biden won.

But the worst bias was their clips of the debate. In the clip, Biden was talking, and Palin looked like she was playing defense. But a second clip of her talking was taken from a distance, full body view with Biden in the center, and Palin facing Biden so that you only saw 10 percent of her face.

Needless to say, they are pro Obama.

Ironically, when the BBC was interviewing an "expert" who said the buzz was that it would be a landslide for Obama, it was the BBC reporter who essentially pointed out that things could change in the next month.

I can't remember the expert's name, but if the "buzz" was an Obama landslide, it meant the pundits felt he would win in a landslide. The pundit also said that he visited Nevada (?) a solidly pro Republican state, and low and behold it looked like people there were pro Obama too...

I suspect that pro McCain voters are so worried about abuse that they won't say anything. When I blog elsewhere, and try to be apolitical,  and even hint Obama is lying, I get cremed and accused of racism.

Luckily, I have lots of blogs, and one is a human rights blog about Africa, so I place that as my home page. Let them figure that one out...

Instapundit has a link from someone in a newsroom claiming press bias in favor of Obama...

Well, one only has to watch CNN International to realize that maybe the reason that the US is so unpopular is that there is no pro American network to tell the other side of the story...
No, I don't especially count VOA as pro american, especially since it is only shortwave.

Last week, while all the news of financial problems, bombs in Pakistan etc was going on, they had a "Palin charged for rape kits" in their news ticker...old news, if one was aware of the left wing palinderangement syndrome...but why on the news ticker? No context: such as the "charge" was to the criminal if convicted, and no admissions that no victim had ever been charged at all, nor any context (how do small town cops fit this into their budget? Did any real rapes occur in the town requiring a kit? Most rapes are date rapes, or women come in days later or after showering when kits are not used...I've done quite a few examinations as a doc...and even on Indian reservations where rapes (from Alcohol abuse)are common, we see only two or three which require a rape kit each year).

Similarly, after the debate, they had all this "reading body language" on McCain, and lots of negative comments. but only one observation on Obama out of the five minute segment.

So as a foreigner it is impossible to tell what is going on...and the Democrats are trying to recruit foreign residents for voting...
Just be aware that this opens stuff to fraud...

Obama wasn't a spontaneous candidate.
He was put in by a sophisticated left wing campaign by the far left.
Don't believe me?
Did you know that Hillary might have won except that he carried the caucuses by large margins...and the caucuses are easy to manipulate. If you look at states which only had popular votes, she was even with Obama...

So these same left wing godfathers are busy smearing Palin...and the Jawas did some googling...and connect the dots to a big time PR firm...they can't prove it, but they lay out their suspicions.

Sometimes rumors and lies get spread organically with no need from direction. But sometimes what may seem to be an organic bottom up grassroots movement, may actually be led from the top and may be professionally organized.

We believe at least one such campaign to discredit Sarah Palin is currently underway. It seems highly likely that others are as well. We've done the initial work, but now it's time for the professionals to take over and ask the tough questions.

UPDATE: Within an hour of this post going up, YouTube videos implicating Ethan Winner were yanked, sockpuppet accounts deleted, and more importantly, the Wikipedia entry on David Axelrod began to edit out mentions of his well know astroturfing campaigns. Hmmm, it sounds to me like we're on to something.

The attacks against Sarah Palin didn't work, and the economy will survive, with fingers pointing all over (one hopes the press will note the funds taken by Democrats that prevented legislation to stop the abuses, but don't hold your breath)

But the next step is calling the Americans racist.

What is "racism"? Is it dislike of a person because of his skin colour?

Or is it lumping together everyone of a certain ethnic group as if they are the same, sort of like saying all Blacks are Democrats?

If it is the last definition, the demise of Detroit's mayor, the congressman with the money in the freezer, and now Charles Rangel will tar Obama. But no one is doing so.

Obama isn't really in the old fashioned part of the party, where Tammany type politics and gifts are not really looked at as wrong. And this part is not exclusively black (does the name Rostenkowski mean anything to you?)

Obama is actually in the "hippie sixties" part of the party. If he loses, it will be because he is the reincarnation of George McGovern. And that is why the working folks will vote against him: Because his approach to politics is extremist: he is a "messiah", and if you don't like him he is evil.

Most people know better than that, and dislike this as much as they dislike fundamentalist religion that puts everyone else but their small church in hell. (earth to media: few churches, even those that take the Bible literally, don't really believe this. Most are like Catholics, figuring if you are good, God isn't going to screw you just because you don't follow a certain way of worship or rule).

As for the rest of the world, I live overseas on and off.
They read what the NYTimes etc says. And the bad news is that the US has no voice outside the country. CNNInternational is full of snotty people with British accents whose facial expressions sneer at Americans, and Bush.

And of course the intelligencia is full of leftists, who left the religion of their ancestors and now follow the leftist religion.

Except, of course, for those Muslim countries whose government owned press prefers hating Israel and hating the US as a substitute for allowing free speech that might point out the rampant corruption of their own dictatorships.

Obama very conveniently opted out of campaingn finance reform funding, allowing him to raise and spend as much as he wants to.

The question I have is that this BBC report says he raised $66 million in August, including money from half a million new donors...

Sorry, but this sounds fishy to me.

Most of the Obama donors are leftists who gave lots of money back in the primaries...

Now however we are told half a million new people are giving money,

55 million divided by 500 thousand= $100 a piece...all from NEW donors?

Except things don't work like that. We might have people giving a couple bucks, and big donors giving large amounts...
but the big donors probably already gave, so who is masking their new donations? Or is the money coming from union dues (without members approval)?

Most Americans don't give to their political parties, so this suggests that something fishy is going on.

Anyone checking the news? Nope? wonder why?

The biggest news being ignored by a MSM intent on criticizing Palin's hairstyle are danger signals in the axis of evil...

In North Korea, a major famine is threatening, and for awhile they were cooperating with dismantling their nuclear sites while getting food aid. Now there are rumors that the sites are being reassembled...and that their leader Kim has had a stroke or brain surgery. Latest news: It's okay, he can brush his teeth....notice he hasn't released a tape, suggesting he may have aphasia (inability to speak).

In all of this, the US isn't the only one worried. China has ties to North Korea, and if the country disintegrates, the refugees will make the Zimbabwean exodus to South Africa seem like a minor trickle.

So if Kim dies, who takes over? His oldest son is out of favor...his younger son is too young, and a third son is almost unknown...so probably a military coup. But the military is corrupt
There were rumors on Pajamasmedia that China's army might enter and take over. This would be good, but does the US want another superpower to expand their base? Such action by China would have repercussions in Taiwan, Viet Nam, western Siberia, and other countries where China once ruled...not to mention Japan.

But there is no way that the US or South Korea could do it.

So anyway, keep an eye on Korea...

The expression lipstick on a pig is a southern expression...

Obama is not a southerner, so one suspected it was put into his speech by a speechwriter. Since Obama's first language was learned when he was living overseas, he may not understand that this was a slur....but his speechwriter did, and the crowds who cheered the expression did too.

Is it sexism?
Given the personal attacks by the same people who attacked Hillary when she refused to give up so that Obama could win easily, I would have to say yes.

Was it accidental?
No.

Because if it was accidental, Obama, when informed of his inadvertant error, would have been embarassed and apologized.

Biden makes mistakes all the time, and apologizes. Which is why I like him.
McCain makes mistakes all the time, and apologizes. Which is why I like him.

Obama is so insecure he won't apologize, instead he denies and denies.
And wonders why he is in trouble.

The trouble with accusations is that they tar a person even when the person is innocent.

So one sees the same internet people who invented Obama and dissed Hillary busy accusing Sarah Palin of everything under the sun.

Having lived in a small town, a lot of this sounds like small town gossip by women who envy someone.

Perhaps Palin's answer should be to play the Harper Valley PTA, where a woman tells off the snobs who think her skirt is too short...

Hmmm...come to think of it, she already did.

I am very angry at the smearing of Sarah Palin.

The Daily Kos and the other outlets that "invented" Obama and destroyed Hillary spread the most vile rumors...including hints of incest, adultary, etc. not only those less paranoid ones picked up by the MSM>

What is worse, the rumors were not anonymous posters but the rumors were picked up and spread by Andrew Sullivan. Now, Sullivan is not a "blogger" but very influential, yet he spread the rumors without even checking.

One wonders about this: I mean, if Imus can be fired over a joke about cheerleaders, why does the Atlantic magazine allow Sullivan to keep his job? Isn't spreading unsubstantiated rumors considered libel?

Yet calling names is not limited to Sullivan. An MSNBC site had a discussion about "Sarah Palin, Governor, Breeder and...."

Breeder is a curse word, used by radical childless people and a subgroup of homosexual activists who disdain ordinary folks (including gays) who have children.

Again, no one in the main stream press seems to notice.

This is made worse because it is general knowledge that both Obama and Clinton are alive today because their teenaged mothers decided to keep their babies and marry, rather than abort the child.

Both these mothers did well with their children, to a large part because the grandparents in both cases helped the mom raise their kids: Clinton's grandparents cared for him so his mother could go back to nursing school after his father was killed, and Obama's grandparents raised him when he was older gradeschool and high school age.

So what's the difference here?

But of course, this is the MSM, and one is happy that Obama actually admonished his staff when he found some of them were behind the smears.

So kudos to Obama for his honesty. Now, if he could only throw Kos under the bus like he did his racist pastor....

I have actually posted this on my other blogs in more detail, but in Zimbabwe, a minor politician is going to join in a coalition government with Mugabe.

However, he didn't do it with the permission or backing of his section of the party (an MDC faction)

this will allow China and others to ignore the sanctions and make money, while the army is essentially running the place.

George Clooney loves Obama.

So according the the UKTelegraph:

“'George is pro-Palestinian. And he is also urging Barack to withdraw unconditionally from Iraq if he wins,” the source told the Mail on Sunday.

“His hope of becoming America’s first black President depends heavily on winning over conservative voters and it would be suicidal for him to be perceived as a tool of a Hollywood Leftie, which is how they regard George.”

Mr Clooney, who once famously declared that he could not go into politics himself because he had “slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties” has been said to be giving Mr Obama image advice and tips on public speaking.

One of Mr Clooney’s trusted acquaintances said: “George is a master at crafting his own image and he is helping Obama to hone his image both domestically and abroad,” adding: “He has tried to keep the true extent of their involvement out of the Press because he is frightened of alienating voters.”

Then there are the news stories that Clooney plans to hold a "fund raiser" in Switzerland with the Hollywood Elites.

And the story that he plans to make a movie about Osama Ben Laden's driver.

Yet the anti war movies have been bombs, and those that stress honor and fighting evil tend to be fantasy films. Is this because fantasy films are a more accurate way to frame the eternal questions of good and evil, or is it because only those that do oppose evil become hits?

Klavan in the WSJ writes:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

But where are the films about the good guys?

There is an old Pauly Shore comedy In the Army, about a bunch of California dudes who become "water boys" in the National Guard, and then get called up in a war. It's full of profanity, and jokes, but the point of the movie is that the dudes actually do become heroic in the end...

Yet one cannot envision a similar film being made today. why not? Because the thought that people can suffer terrible things but manage to cope is taboo. The thought that ordinary people can do heroic things is taboo. And of course the thought that there are bad guys worse than the US is also taboo.

Yet the isolation of Hollywood from the mainstream suggests that they are digging their own graves (hint to investors: Don't invest there).

Does anyone actually think that if Hillary visited Europe she would be getting this type of publicity?

What is worse, is that the Philippine press assumes he will be president. You see, they read the US press.

But there is a real question about the lack of humor and true believers behind the Obama movement:
It is assumed that if you vote against him, it is racism. This will impress the yuppie types, but less so the youth or the working class, who have lost jobs and college places because of affirmative action for people like Obama, who as "black" got preferences that an Asian or a coal miner's kid would not get, even though his family was rich.

Yes, I know he brags his mom was once on food stamps, but that's because she chose to be on food stamps instead of staying with her husbands or asking for help from her parents or (aghast) working at McDonalds while waiting for a good job.

The real danger is that the "Racists against Obama" meme is that if he loses the election, we will have race riots.

The press however won't notice that the riots are by the usual suspects.

The press of course won't notice Hispanic and Asian voters who dislike Obama...

cross posted from Bloggernews...

A cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was hijacked by four armed thugs, and to prove they were mean and meant their threats, they killed a defenseless elderly man in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, dumping his body over the side of the ship.

Yes, kidnapping and murder will get you 25 years, but Fatayer got time off for “good behavior” and apparantly didn’t bomb anything when he was loose on parole for three years. And the poor dear is now probably going to be helped by “human rights” groups, because no one wants him, and Italy says he is not allowed to stay. This makes the BBC sad:

The BBC’s David Willey, in Rome, says Ibrahim’s predicament as a “stateless person” is similar to hundreds of foreign-born criminals in Italy.

Abdelatif will remain perpetually subject to arrest if he remains in Italy, our correspondent adds.

Given his young age at the time of the crime, it is possible that he just might settle down.

Others convicted with him were given longer sentences.

Yet the now forgotten Achille Lauro incident has many reverberations for today’s headlines.

For example, what does one do with ex terrorists? Can they reform, or do we jail them all for life? Since some released from Gitmo have gone back to terrorism, including bombing civilians, this is not an easy question.