Our Changing Globe

Posts Tagged ‘presidential elections’

NBC reported just a few days ago that Mouha Husaini who is the Obama campaign’s Muslim outreach coordinator, met last month with her predecessor Mazen Asbahi who was forced to resign this summer because of his connections with radical Islam.

They met in area known as the “Wahhabi Corridor” which is in one of Washington’s Northern Virginia suburbs and what is perhaps even more disturbing was the presence of two prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives, Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Nihad Awad of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The NBC is on record as saying that others at the meeting expressed concern that the Obama campaign was reaching out to such “politically radioactive” individuals as Bray and Awad and the episode is perhaps yet another indication that the Democratic candidate hopes to win the White House aided in part by the Islamic vote and its money.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has known for months that the Obama campaign has received as much as $200 million in amounts of less than $200 but unlike the Clinton and McCain campaigns which have reported all donor information Obama has declined to do so. It is known however that of the of the $200 million that between $30 and $100 million is from the Middle East and Africa. What is not clear however is how much of the money is coming from non-U.S. citizens which would make the contributions not only worrying but illegal.

Additionally there are the various well known Islamists with whom Barack Obama has had long had ties and they include a former Black Panther convert named Khalid al-Mansour who is an aggressive promoter of Wahhabi influence operations. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal who is virulently anti-Israel. A Palestinian professor by the name of Rashid Khalidi who is pro-suicide bomber. And last but by no means least the ‘Nation of Islam’ leader Louis Farrakhan, who in a speech last February called Sen. Obama “the messiah.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist organization who’s intention is to use ‘Fifth Column’ in America and their stated purpose is to “destroy Western civilization from within”.

The next two weeks are all the time that is left for the media, the courts and the Federal Election Commission to get to the bottom of Barack Obama’s ties to Jihadists because the ‘change’ that they have in mind is for global theocratic rule under Shariah, and the end of its constitutional, democratic government.

When first looked at the ‘fairness doctrine’ seem reasonable and ‘fair’.

It basically states that for every opinion that’s expressed on radio and television that equal time must be given to an opposing voice.

So what’s wrong with that?

Well before it was overturned by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in 1987 it never worked as it was intended to and in fact had almost the reverse effect.

Probably the easiest way to understand why the doctrine didn’t work is to read a quote by Nat Hentoff.

He was born June 10, 1925 and is an American historian, novelist, jazz critic, and columnist for the Village Voice, JazzTimes, Legal Times, Washington Times, The Progressive, Editor & Publisher and Free Inquiry.

“I was in radio under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine, at WMEX in Boston in the 1940s and early ’50s and suddenly ‘Fairness Doctrine’ letters started coming in from the FCC and our station’s front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned, tapes of accused broadcasters had to be examined with extreme care; voluminous responses had to be prepared and sent. After a few of these FCC letters, our boss announced that there would be no more controversy of any sort on WMEX. We had been muzzled”.

And what makes this even more horrible and threatening is that Bill Ruder, who was a Democratic party official at the time said, “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too costly to continue”.

Another reason that the FCC overturned the ‘fairness doctrine’ was because it seemed to be in violation of the ‘First Amendment’ free speech principles.

So what does Barack Obama have to say on the subject?

Well his press secretary, said in June that the candidate does not support re-instituting the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and sees the issue as “a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible”.

But more recently, a campaign surrogate told a C-SPAN TV audience Obama had not taken a position on the doctrine.

His website has nothing meaningful to say on the subject, or nothing that I could find anyway.

McCane has been limited to spending $84 million for the general election campaign because he accepted federal funds under a program created after the Watergate scandal.

Obama initially indicated he would adhere to the same limit, but reversed course and became the first post-Watergate candidate to finance a general-election campaign with private funding.

It is hard to call America a democracy when one candidate is allowed to spend five times (three times as much just on TV ads) as much as the other, something which is forbidden in many democracies which are much younger than hours.

One can but wonder what the effects of the following would be on our so called Democracy
if they were enacted.

1) Resurrecting the ‘fairness doctrine’.

2) Giving the District of Columbia (which is staunchly Democrat) the right to vote in congress.

3) Introducing election-day voter registration.