HAS ANYONE ELSE RECEIVED THIS VIA EMAIL

[7thson]

This is from Major General Buckman.(ret)

My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq , was assigned with others of her unit, to be escorted/guarded/ watched out for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain's recent trip to Iraq . Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI's walking past.

They kept count of the GI's and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI's who they planned to vote for, in November, '08.

54 soldier's said John McCain, 4 for Obama and 2 for Hillary.

Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they'd see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn. Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn't a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell'ava view of skewed news.

After a dissertation on McCain's trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GI's being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November; 3 for Obama and 2 for Clinton .

No mention of the 54 for McCain.

Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone...YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It's about time we do something.

[7thson]

I received the above in an email and was wondering if anyone else on FR received the same thing in their emails. I also would like to know how I could go about verifying the accuracy of the above.

[Jeff Head]

This email has been all over. I have received it twice.

I do not know of its accuracy...but I do know that this owuld be right in line with the MO for the MSM and the liberal, hate-America, anti-military, anti-war crowd.

They are so biased in most of the MSM that it is disgusting. Worse than Pravda in the former USSR because there that agency was set up by a totalitarian government and forced on the people, here we have free news agencies, living under and enjoying the fruits of liberty vouchsafed and purchased by the blood of our all volunteer force, who are willfully choosing to put forth such propoganda.

OBAMA'S DIVERSE VISION OF AMERICA



THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS

NOBAMA MOVEMENT SPREADS ACROSS THE NATION

[mass55th]

Here's the link for Snopes on this email: Click Here

[Mr. K]

I heard a similar story about 2 weeks ago- and I think it has grown to be an internet myth

[onlylewis]

Saw it a week or so ago on another web site but had no way of verifying it. Of course if the MSM is in control of the footage it has been destroyed. Only the military officer could verify the numbers.

[Mr. K]

thanks for the Snopes link! it shines some light on this story and proves it does have a grain of truth to it

[7thson]

Thank you for the link.

[3AngelaD]

The interesting thing about the story at this point is how many people just assume it is true. That speaks volumes about ABC News’ reputation - something that all the Snopes in the world can’t turn around.

[silverleaf]

snopes is no longer to be trusted as an unbiased source- sorry

[Oatka]

Think about this: If you don't want to forward this [fill in the blanks] . . .

That "forward this or else" bit always sets off alarm bells for me. If the story is true it will grow legs on its own, via bloggers, etc. That, and "I'm a relative of " or "I know a relative of".

There's no doubt that the media is biased and becoming more flagrant about it (McCain joins Obama in offshore drilling), so who are those this email is trying to fool? And, when it is exposed, it takes away from the cause as the first thing that comes to mind is "why would they have to lie about it?"

[TexasNative2000]

It's crap like this that angers me about e-mailers who want to influence every person on their 'contacts' list.

False stories diminish the influence of true ones, just like the parody news stories lessen the impact of real ones.

[Hulka]

I researched this as best I could do and found the following:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046774/posts

“Seen that email.
Some are saying it is not true, and Snopes is reporting it as untrue.

However. . .

Raddatz came to ABC News from NPR-—that is enough to make any report she makes a left-wing hit piece.

Here is what the email is based on-—http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=4244798—;

Snopes is wrong. It is true—-though the general officer part is suspect as I can’t find anything on him.

Regardless, Raddatz submitted a totally biased report that painted a majority of warriors as supporting an empty suit, a guy that walks upright without a spine, a person with no character, a poser, a physical anomoly—two ears being held apart by a vaccuum.

The segment included six brief interviews with soldiers, three that wanted Barack Obama, two wanted shrillary, and one for John McCain.

Don’t know if she actually interviewed 60 people, no way to tell unless you were in the editing room.

Nonetheless, it is fair to say that a random sampling of military personnel in Iraq would have more than one McCain supporter, as the military is generally conservative in its ethos and approach to life and politics.

Personally, I think ABC News deliberately misrepresented the military mind-set when it comes to the candidates, that ABC News tried to convey that the military has new-found loyalty with the dems.

Radatz showed only one military guy with a McCain reference (prefaced by a Raddatz voice-over saying, “there were some McCain backers ...”). Like that was supposed to demonstrate balance?

Calling the piece ‘Whom Are Our Troops Endorsing?’ and ‘Surprising Political Endorsements by U.S. Troops’ is a deliberate misrepresentation of the partisan demographics of the military.

ABC News reported the interviews within the context of a representative sample, a cross-section of the average military guy and their possible candidate.

Found a reference of Raddatz sending an email in defense of the news report: ‘Martha Raddatz’ own email response to this situation, I am frankly surprised at the lax standards applied by the editors of ABC News in assessing whether the facts supported the essence of the story. ‘. . . I did not talk to many more than a dozen service members. I . . . had no time. . . This was not a poll.’ These facts as openly admitted by Raddatz in her attempt to defend her “integrity” actually do more harm than good. It reveals how shallow and vulnerable the basis for the “truth” in our news has become. This is not about some fabrication of a relative in the military category of email chain. . . you [ABC News] are doing a shameful disservice by allowing a reporter representing your network to portray as popular opinion something as anecdotal and isolated as Raddatz’ ‘surprise’ in the number of solders expressing support for Obama.’”

Just FYI. . .

[Rick.Donaldson]

Yes... I got a copy in email.

[chuckles]

....."snopes is no longer to be trusted".......

Bingo! Wikipedia also. And believe it or not, ABC can't be trusted!

[reagan_fanatic]

The problem is, it’s difficult to tell right off whether a story like this is true or not, since this is exactly the way the media acts.

[mass55th]

Don’t be sorry. Thanks for the info. I don’t spend that much time here anymore to be up on things like that.

[longtermmemmory]

you are correct.

I was watching CNN coverage of the Obama’s trip to iraq and saw a room full of only black soldiers talking to Obama. Now I could be wrong about watching CNN, since I now surf the networks since fox went all 1970 balance rather than reporting the facts. However, I am not wrong about the visual. It was clear it was an affirmative action troop photo op for the Obama.

I have no reason to doubt this story even if snopes says otherwise. I wonder what Snopes says about John Edwards being caught in a hotel room with another woman.

[Stephanie32]

“snopes is no longer to be trusted”.... “Bingo! Wikipedia also. And believe it or not, ABC can’t be trusted.”

Do you know anything about factcheck.org? They claim to be totally unbiased but everytime I look there they seem to be siding with the left so I have my doubts about that site also.

[chuckles]

...."Do you know anything about factcheck.org".....

Nope, never used them. This stuff is basically up to us to figure out. With Photoshop and sound dubbing, almost everything is suspect for me. I have to get stuff from multiple trusted sources and then I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it. Sometimes you just have to have discernment.

[Stephanie32]

“photoshop and sound dubbing”

I never even thought of that. That is a good policy about multiple sources and I guess we just have to figure out if something makes sense to us or not. I think “trusted” is the key word.

[rabidralph]

I really hate chain e-mails that try to shame you into forwarding them on. I just delete them.

[chuckles]

Let me give you an example of how difficult this subject has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

Now, In church, this Sunday no less, the pastor was trying to make a point that even the elect can be fooled by Satan's workings, so he brought out a Youtube rant by a man named Russo that claimed a Rockefeller had tried to recruit him into the conspiracy to dominate the world. You can do a search on Youtube under Russo and find a 10 minute story of this meeting. The idea was to get everyone "chipped" to buy and sell, and if you are a Christian, you know the rest of the story. Well, Russo claimed Bush started the war on terror to take our rights away and he wants to get us into the New World order.

The rub comes when Russo claims Bush knew about the twin towers before they were hit and the Pastor used the Youtube clip above to prove it. Now he is saying Bush is a lier and part of Satan's plan.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone knows Bush's speaking prowess, so I'm willing to believe he meant he saw WHERE the plane had hit the first tower and not that he saw the plane HIT the tower. We all remember that day and 5 minutes after the plane hit we had live video of the hole in the first tower with flames and smoke coming out. I'm sure the president was briefed on the latest info they had at the time before entering the classroom. The conspiracy buffs want to parse the sentence to mean he actually saw the first plane hit the building. He did say it that way.

Now you make the call. Is the president a pawn of Satan that started a war by murdering 3000 souls, or was he just drunk during speech class?

The purpose of the sermon was to make us aware that the elect can be fooled if they aren't on their toes. I believe the Bible is being fulfilled as we speak, but you don't have to be a willing participant to get it done. The fact that Dubya and his father were globalists is nothing new. If you notice, one candidate can be for abortion, the other not, but the one thing all have agreed on for years is they are Trilateralists, CFR's, and some Bilderbergers. In Satan's plan he doesn't care about homo marriage, or abortion as much as a move to one world government. Who can explain why we are still in the UN and pay the biggest amount of dues to them? They do absolutely nothing for the US and in most cases foil our plans. Satan definitely has scales on someones eyes there.

As we try to discern the truth of a subject, we must be careful and look at it from all angles. The Internet is probably the most manipulated forum, but at least we get raw info to filter ourselves. Most people believe what they want to believe with their prejudices. I wouldn't trust Clinton if his lips were moving,and yet I trust Bush unless it's a proven fact.

McCain is by far the more honorable candidate, but look at the skepticism here about him. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, but I don't think he is a lier, he's just wrong on most subjects. I know he will sell us out at that border, but I don't think he would betray what he thinks is right. You just have to know that he thinks many wrong things are right. I trust Obama to say and do whatever it takes to get elected, because he has no soul.

I look at this sort of like figuring out a magic trick. When the magician is waving one arm, or a half naked female is strutting around the stage, that is when the magician is doing something with the other hand you can't see. The hand you can't see is what you should follow and discount the stuff that is right in front of you. What is right in front of you is probably fluff.

[FreeAtlanta]

Snopes lies and distorts for their own leftist agenda. They are quick on the “false” labels, especially if the story helps conservatives or hurts liberal/progressive/marxist/commies.

[FreeAtlanta]

snopes is no longer to be trusted as an unbiased source

IMHO, they have never shown they are to be trusted. They are an information source, but they lean heavily to the left. Personally, I doubt they even realize it. I think it was started by some mom in her kitchen... or something like that. I remember sensing bias from them when I first read them nearly 10 years ago.

They are what they are. There are some other Urban Legend debunking sites that are less bias.

[Mr. K]

I am confused- according to the snopes site there is some basis in truth for this story.

So.. they are not hiding it because it helps conservatives

[Stephanie32]

I would never claim that Bush is a good speaker. But I definitely don’t buy into the theory of him knowing about the twin towers prior to the event.He wouldn’t say he saw the first tower hit when he knows that no one saw that. In the days following 9/11 the best way I could describe the way I saw him was as appearing shell shocked or something like that. I’ve heard about that New World order and all of that nonsense. Would you trust that tape?

I totally agree with you about the UN and I have never trusted Clinton.

I think McCain is honorable also and I have the utmost respect and gratitude to him for his service and sacrifice to our country. When you say he is wrong on most subjects, what are you referring to?

I don’t care for Obama at all and I don’t really trust any politicians. I can appreciate what you are saying in your last paragraph.

[chuckles]

I trust the tape was as shown because it was shown so many places by too many sources. I say he misspoke and meant he saw the hole in the building where the plane hit and not that he saw the actual plane hit the building. Only the Bush derangement syndrome would insist on parsing every word to make him look as if he knew about the plot before hand.

As far as McCain, He WILL figure a way to give citizenship to illegals without finishing the fence. It's in his blood. He has crawfished some to get conservatives off his back, but the fence will be a separate issue and on the back burner when he is elected. He also has bought into the idea that killing babies to extract stem cells holds the keys to the kingdom in medicine. Fetal stem cells have not been found to fix anything and in fact often result in a horrible death for the recipient. ADULT stem cells show great promise and are drawing billions in private money backing for research. Fetal research is legal for private investors now, but it is a bad investment so the abortionists want the gubmint to finance the boondoggle. The McCain-Feingold fiasco qualifies him for impeachment ,IMHO, so you know that he hasn't changed his mind, he is just trying to figure out how to steal my free speech so the courts will accept it. I want to drill in ANWAR, he doesn't.

I'm sure if I thought about it and it wasn't so late I could list more, but you get the idea. This is the reason the conservatives don't like him. I don't agree with Kennedy on the time of day if he's looking at a watch, yet we get McCain-Kennedy. He's no Reagan, but he's not Obama either. Ann Coulter has a list of stuff, I think, on her website that she objects to and she is pretty much a cloned sister of mine.

Having the "Maverick" nickname worries me when he thinks it's honorable to stray from the platform. Can he be trusted on judges?, 2nd Amendment, Free Speech? The list is pretty long. Last go round he showed real disdain for Evangelicals, but has since softened his rhetoric. I just don't trust someone as bull headed as he is when he "changes" his mind. How about carbon credits? The list will grow with time, I'm sure.

I also admire anyone that has worn the uniform and served honorably, but that doesn't always make them a whiz kid at running the country. It is a plus, but that isn't my main concern when judging a presidential candidate. There are many Dems that have served well, but that doesn't make them right for American political office. The reason they are Dems is because someone hit their head when they were young or some other reason they feel the military is supposed to fight to make us socialists. Probably bad drugs or something. I've heard spraying Raid on your crack pipe makes you vote Dem but no one can be sure. It can't come from being in the military though.

[Stephanie32]

“I say he misspoke.”

So do I.

“McCain: He will figure a way to give citizenship to illegals without finishing the fence.”

I have noticed that no politician is really willing to take a bold position on illegals. It’s a topic they avoid.

“ADULT stem cells show great promise.”

They have been and without the ethical questions and problems. I’ve been reading good things about progress in the areas of retinal diseases and heart disease. BTW, I am pro life.

I want to drill in ANWAR also.

Honestly, I don’t understand his postition on carbon credits. I need to read about that. The last I remember reading was that he wanted to have allotments to auction them or something. I’m not up on that.

“Can he be trusted on judges, 2nd amendment, free speech etc?”

I pray that he can. Because the opposition cannot be. Sometimes voting is a matter of choosing who you dislike least, not who you like best.

“I also admire anyone who has worn the uniform but it doesn’t make them a whiz kid at running the country.”

Agreed.

Here’s the deal though, we have to choose between the options we are given. We have McCain and Obama and Obama shares non of my views or values so it’s not a hard choice here. And if these are your views (as stated in your post, I can’t see where you would consider Obama.

I will tell you that I don’t have much faith in any politician anymore. It’s kind of disillusioning.

[chuckles]

...."I can’t see where you would consider Obama".....

Maybe you have me mixed up with someone who would? I wanted Hunter, then Tancredo, then Thompson, then I started drinking.

Carbon credits are just a way to get you on a moped like in Viet Nam. That's pretty much all you need to know. A friend of mine was contacted to sell them because he has a 12 acre tree farm. So that means he could sell the credits to Algore to fly his jet to Hollywood to pick up an award and for the next 20 years the trees would soak up his CO2 and emit O2. It's a scam and McCain loves it. What it will mean to you is you have to trade in your SUV and buy a new air conditioner and put fluorescent lights in, ect, ect, or you will pay a tax on your carbon footprint. In layman's terms, its a tax on living.

[Stephanie32]

“Maybe you have me mixed up with someone who would (consider Obama?)”

I was writing in general terms, just about the issue of choosing between these two people.

“Carbon credits”

So in other words, if you don’t do what’s dictated to save energy you have to pay higher taxes?”

[chuckles]

That's pretty much how I understand it. Right now, they talk about oil refineries and coal fired electrical generation, but actually it applies to everyone. If you own a coal fired plant, you will have to buy credits from someone that is "green" or you pay for polluting. AlGore has been chided for using enough electricity in his home to light 10 regular homes, so he allegedly bought credits so he can heat his pool and leave the lights on. He still pollutes, but he pays money for it. So if you insist on driving your SUV, you can for as long as you can afford it. It's the BTU tax from several years ago recycled. The Greens would generate income from doing what they do anyway, and if you want to live like a hermit with a moped and a window fan, you can save money. The greens would get judged( I don't know how) that they can absorb so much pollution and they get a set amount of money. I suppose the gubmint would do OK because they own all the Natl. forests and would be able to sell the most credits. Lets say you own land that you make biofuel on. The government would determine what that was worth and allow you so many credits. It would amount to a subsidy from individuals instead of the taxpayer. The plan has many points that attract various political partners, but it boils down to people paying more one way or the other.

I've been saying for years the Greens think the Viet Nam example is what the world needs. You can ride a Vespa and live in a tar paper shack with one light hanging by an extension cord and you will be a real comrade of the world.

[Stephanie32]

“Al Gore’s house”

I know, what a joke.

So it sounds like this whole thing is like a business that people are making money on. I hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t want to live that way.

“It would amount to a subsidy from individuals intead of the taxpayer.”

You kind of lost me there. I don’t understand what that means.

[chuckles]

If I want to build a solar plant or an ethanol plant, I would go to the government right now and ask for money to do it. If my plant would cost, say, $500,000,000 if I went to the bank to borrow the money, I could go to the government, get a $200,000,000 subsidy because it's green, get a tax abatement locally for bringing jobs to the area, and probably a basket full of other obscure pots of money to defray the cost of construction.

With a carbon offset, individuals like you and me would be throwing money into the pot to help "green" companies with their costs. With a subsidy, taxpayers from all over pay the price. With carbon offsets, the "dirty" people would bear the burden. Sounds reasonable to many people. What they don't understand is at the board meeting of a coal burning plant they would say," All in favor of passing the carbon payments on to the customers say "Aye". The Aye's have it. Show that unanimous in the minutes of the meeting."

What really happens is everyone would transfer wealth to the greens and they would write checks to Nancy Pelosi and Obama re election campaigns. So when you pay your electric bill or pay money to your school taxes, or whatever, you re elect socialist, baby killer, homo marrying, surrender monkey, gun grabber, morons. The reason we have Planned Parenthood, The ACLU, GreenPeace, et al, is because they have discovered how to extract money from the population without them supporting it or even realizing they are the source of the funds. When the topic is school funding, what they are really saying is we need more money so the teachers union can send more money to elect Dems. When it's the World Health Org, it's usually to support free condoms to teens so they can fornicate and get free penicillin. The socialists are awake day and night thinking of new ways to get right thinking people to part with their money to support things they never would support otherwise. If I make the argument that the polluters would be helping the clean companies without government tax money, that will appeal to many on the surface. Read the fine print. You are probably transferring money to some obscure company that Ted Turner or AlGore owns.

I read an article a few years ago about a woman that received a $2.5 mill subsidy to raise goats or llama's or some such animal, but she lived on an estate in Cape Cod. She rented some land in New Mexico and got all kinds of business write off to do this. She then had a fund raiser for some Democrat and gave $2mill to the Dem party. Her congresscritter was a critical vote to get the subsidy for whatever animal it was she was raising. Of course the Dems just say they are trying to help farms and ranches. If we knew the money trail for all these things we would probably hurl until we died.

[chuckles]

P.S.....If you get the IRS publication that explains energy write offs, you would find that if you do the "right" things, the government would subsidize many of the things you might be doing anyway. Like more insulation, double pane windows, energy efficient lighting, solar panels, and a better air conditioner and heater. They even subsidize electric cars and other transportation. If you were thinking of a hybrid, look it up before buying and you can tell what might be the best deal. The rules change all the time so it's hard to keep up with.

I've looked at solar before, but it still doesn't pay to get them even with government help. You have to be a true "believer" to part with the cash you won't get back for 20 years.

[Stephanie32]

I can see where the media does not report this whole (what sounds like a) scam accurately or report it at all. I’m not surprised though. And when they do it seems that they play on the people’s fears who believe in global warming. Al Gore’s documentary should have been called, “An Inconvenient Lie.” I was reading this morning where he buys these carbon credits from his own corporation.

“What really happens is everyone would transfer wealth to the greens and they would write checks to Nancy Pelosi and Obama re election campaigns.”

What a covert way to siphon money to these people who have manufactured all of this fear to begin with and want to pretend that they are doing something good for the country. When you really look into all of these things, it’s very disillusioning and aggravating that more people don’t see through it.

“If we knew the money trail for all of these things we would probably hurl until we died.”

If the MSM was on our side maybe more of this would be exposed to people who have no idea about all of this. I suppose it is all of our responsibilities to look into it ourselves. I didn’t know very much about this issue until posting on this thread and then finding out all of this. Thank you for the explanations.

[chuckles]

If I were a news reporter, I could come up with 50 one hour specials in about a week on under reported stories no one ever thought about. I keep waiting for a camera shot of some elementary school yard in Texas with a oil rig pumping next to the swing set. The reporter could start the program complaining that the caribou have been decimated at this school.

Or how about a shot of the Galveston beach with the oil rigs in the background and tell people the polar bears have moved on. Ask a fisherman to take you fishing and he takes you to the rigs for the best fishing, etc.

[Stephanie32]

“I could come up with 50 one hour specials in about a week on under reported stories.”

And I’ll bet you would get a lot of viewers !