Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Obama Truth Squad - Good Grief!

Missouri Governor, Matt Blunt on Saturday said:
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism.... Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Bill Clinton has Betrayed us!

From the LA Times:
Sen. John McCain on Thursday kept his promise to address the annual meeting in the Big Apple of the Clinton Global Initiative, founded to fight malaria, global warming, poverty and other ills that know no borders. McCain's wife, Cindy, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, came along to lend support....

Clinton was effusive in his introduction, saying he was "personally profoundly honored" and "profoundly grateful" that McCain showed up. Obama, he noted less warmly, would speak to the group later by satellite feed from Florida, where he's been encamped for prep sessions for the Friday debate that may or may not take place...
Now, I must tell you that I am really irked at Bill Clinton! If Barack Obama was unable to attend the meeting, Clinton should have immediately called Sen. McCain and disinvited him from the affair, just like the Iran rally organizers did last week when they withdrew their invitation from Sarah Palin after Hillary Clinton dropped out of the event and Sen. Biden told them he could not attend. Sen. Biden could have easily addressed the rally via satellite hook-up, but you and I both know, that is simply not the same thing.

Rally organizers did not want the affair into a partisan event and they rightfully withdrew their invitation from Sarah Plain. Conversely, Bill Clinton failed the test today by not taking similar action.

With Sen. McCain at attendance at the Global Initiative Meeting and Barack Obama holed up in Florida, the meeting turned into nothing more than a partisan, Republican affair. And that is simply not fair!

So what can we do about this grave injustice?

Here's my suggestion: When Democrats last week discovered that Sarah Palin had been invited to attend the Iran rally, they acted quickly, and wisely. They told organizers of the event that if Palin attended the rally their organization would lose its tax-exempt status. "The IRS is very clear," they said, "you have to have equal representation of candidates."

And so my fellow Democrats, it is time for us to take similar action. Please call your local IRS office and tell them that Bill Clinton's Global Initiative organization is nothing more than a political organization, an arm of John McCain and the Republican Party. Tell them to remove the tax-exempt status from Bill Clinton's organization. In doing so, you will send a loud and clear message to Mr. Clinton that we will not tolerate his coddling of John McCain, and we will not allow his Global Initiative Organization to become another arm of the Republican Party.

Yes, indeed, a new dawn is upon us. "Change" has finally arrived.

Obama and the 'Freedom of Choice Act'

At the Saddleback forum several weeks ago, Barack Obama insisted that while he may be pro-choice, he is not pro-abortion and he said that one of his goals as President would be to reduce the number of abortions here in the US.

However, this is merely political posturing on his part, since Obama told Planned Parenthood in July of 2007 that "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."

Yes, that's the very first thing he would do. And that's probably one of the reasons why the National Journal voted him "the most liberal senator in 2007".

Many believe that the Freedom of Choice Act, if passed, would legalize partial-birth abortion. Others contend that the bill, if passed, would increase abortions by 125,000 per year. But one thing is for certain, Obama is evading the truth when he says he would work to reduce the number of abortions here in the US, because if Obama is elected President and he signs the Freedom of Choice Act, the number of abortions here in the US would increase dramatically.

Fact: Barack Obama is pro-abortion, despite his claims to the contrary.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

"SaysMe.Tv", Despite It's Claim to the Contrary, Is an Obama Mouthpiece

Necessary background material for this post located at the Jawa Report:

From the Glass City Jungle blog:
I’ve been getting unsolicited emails from a company called SaysMe.TV Here is the first one that I received with what is in bold was the subject line:
" - a new way to help Obama
you can run your own ads on tv.. the last 5 seconds will read “Paid for by: YOUR NAME” - Tell your friends to watch
Pick the cable network… time slot… ad… and zip code…
For $100 you can run 6-7 ads in Ohio… be the difference for Obama…"
I went online and looked at their website where they claim that they are not partisan.

When you visit the Ohio Saves America site that was created by Says Me Tv, it’s impossible to state this is non-partisan:

"There are 40 days until Election Day. You don’t want to wake up on November 5th and have John McCain as your President. Four more years of war. Four more years of a declining economy. Four more years of insufficient health care and neglect for Americans everywhere. Four more years of failure, embarrassment, and inefficiency. Ohio Saves America is registered by:

Sunshine Direct the same company that owns SayMe Tv.3524 Barry AvenueLos Angeles, California 90066 United States.

[There is also an advertisement on the 'Ohio Saves America' website for "SaysMe.Tv" - Non-partisan, my foot...]

I wrote Brendan Biryla, pointed out to him that what he was sending was not only unsolicited, but that if his company was claiming to be non-partisan the emails he was sending out gave a different impression. I asked him to remove my email from the list. He never responded…Now this morning, to more than one of my email accounts came this email with the subject line in bold:

Incredibly damaging video of Sarah Palin!

It’s not incredibly damaging, it’s incredibly misleading. They took a few seconds of this speech that is out there that Palin gave to the Alaskan Independence Party Statewide Convention March 2008, this is the original video:

And then turned it into this:

Read in full at the Glass City Jungle blog.

The second video was originally released on YouTube by a fellow named Ethan Winner. After the Conservative blogosphere noted that Mr. Winner works for a company associated with Barack Obama's campaign manager, questions arose as to whether the Obama campaign was involved with the YouTube video smear. Mr. Winner immediately removed the video from YouTube and deleted his account after the blogosphere revealed that he was the producer of the video. The video was then posted on YouTube again by SaysMe Tv.

There is a slight variation between Mr. Winner's video and the SaysMe Tv video. The voice-over seems to be identical but the wording is slightly different [in one video the voice-over says Palin was a supporter of the Alaskan Independence Party, in the other video it says she was a member of the party, there is no evidence to either claim], which raises questions about Mr. Winner's involvement [or perhaps the Obama campain's involvement] in the the newly revised ad. Read the Jawa Report for the full details. You may need to read some of the Jawa Report's previous posts on the matter for additional background.

According to, Lisa Eisenpresser, SaysMe.TV's CEO, says "the company reports customers' payment information to the Federal Election Commission whenever an ad promotes a particular candidate." So, apparently, it will be possible to find out who posted the newly revised Sarah Palin video when the FEC report is filed.

Lisa Eisenpresser says that "donors who have reached the maximum $2,300 campaign contribution can buy ads using SaysMe.TV to "their heart's content." Plus, the company pays a royalty to whoever creates the commercial.

However, let me re-emphasize that despite the company's claim to the contrary, SaysMe Tv is a partisan hack - a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign - as clearly illustrated by the email which the company sent to the Glass City Jungle blogger and the video it posted on YouTube - after it received the video, presumably, from Mr. Winner or an Obama employee.

Dems Using Scare Tactics?: Hastings Says Gun-Clinging Palin Poses Threat To Jews and Blacks

From CNN - Political Ticker:

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday...

“Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added.
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."
Barack Obama - San Francisco fundraiser - April 2008

"We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me."
Barack Obama - Jacksonville Florida fundraiser - June 2008

Why is Barack Obama so Eager to Meet With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright speak they sound identical to one another. Is it any wonder then that Barack Obama seems so eager to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He reminds him of Rev. Wright.

Lets review some of the statements recently made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and compare them with some of Rev. Wright's statements.

Ahmadinejad: "These are the same powers that produce new generations of lethal nuclear arms..., the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perpetrated by one of them."

Wright: "We bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."

Ahmadinejad: "Millions of people have been killed or displaced, and the occupiers... are still seeking to solidify their position..."

Wright: "What we are doing is the same thing Al Qaeda is doing..."

Ahmadinejad: "In Afghanistan, production of narcotics has multiplied since the presence of NATO forces."

Wright: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons... and then wants us to sing God bless America?"

Ahmadinejad: "In the last 3 years I have... talked to you about unjust systems governing the world..., powers seeking to trample the rights of other nations...In Africa, efforts are made to reestablish the relationships of the colonial era. By starting civil wars in large countries including Sudan... in order to serve the interests of some corrupt powers..."

Ahmadinejad: "The thoughts and deeds of those who think they are superior to others and consider others as second-class and inferior..., constitute the roots of today's problems in human societies..."

Wright: "We believe God ordained African slavery. We believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and superior to everybody else..."

Wright: "We have to got to change the way we have been doing things as an arrogant, racist military superpower..."

Wright: "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people..."

Wright: "Oh, I am so glad that I got a G-d who knows what it is to be a poor black man in a country and a culture that is controlled by and run by rich white people..."

Ahmadinejad: "God's hand of power will emerge from the sleeve of oppressed nations and will make your life difficult, and will put an end to your hegemony."

Wright: "G-d damn America... for Killing innocent people..."

Wright: "America's chickens are coming home to roost!"

Obama can't wait to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if only to relive those precious moments when he was privileged to hear his spiritual mentor spewing the most glorious and hate filled rhetoric ever known to mankind.

We can help Obama see his dream of meeting Mr. Ahmadinejad come to fruition by voting for him. Let's not disappoint him.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

The 'Clean Coal' Flip-Flop: Obama and Biden Both Waffling

At a recent campaign stop in Ohio a young woman approached Joe Biden and asked him, "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?"

The Senator replied, "we're not supporting clean coal. Guess what? China is building 2 dirty coal plants every week and it's polluting the US.... No coal plants here in America! Build them, if they're gonna build them, over there. Make them clean, because they're killing..."

Obama, allegedly, supports the development of "clean coal", and Biden had little choice but to waffle on the matter and evntually retract this statement:

From PoliGazzete:
Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology,” says Biden spokesman David Wade. “Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies. The Obama-Biden comprehensive energy plan will invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy technologies, including incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal facilities. The Obama-Biden Department of Energy is committed to developing 5 ‘first-of-a-kind’ commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration here in the United States.”
But the problem is - as I reported back in July - Obama may be on record as saying he supports "clean coal", but he is also on record as saying he supports the development of 'dirty coal' and opposes efforts to regulate greenhouse gasses.

From AZ central - July 17 - 2008:,
In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Barack Obama voted "aye."

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews....

Obama, who touts his independence from special interests, made a point of embracing the coal industry as part of his quest for statewide office. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was flanked by mine workers to proclaim that "there's always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois....

Employees of coal companies and electric utilities have contributed $539,597 to Obama's U.S. Senate and presidential campaign, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics...

"He's definitely trying to straddle two politically irreconcilable objectives: Taking decisive action against global warming while keeping a healthy coal industry," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch."...

Obama's other votes on coal in the state Senate included:

In 1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to a fund for grants to help reopening closed coal mines and "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal.

"In 2001, he voted for legislation that offered of $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal-fired power plants with no ability to control carbon emissions.... [of course, Obama now says he wants to build "5 ‘first-of-a-kind’... coal-fired plants with carbon capture", but those weren't the kind of coal-fired plants he wanted to build in 2001.]

In 2003, he voted to allow $300 million in taxpayer-backed bonds to build or expand coal-fired power plants.

Obama also drew criticism for sponsoring a bill in January 2007 to devote $8 billion in subsidies to a technology to convert coal to liquid fuel. The Sierra Club says liquid coal "releases almost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline."

As the presidential campaign was well under way in June 2007, the Obama campaign issued a clarification: He would not support liquid coal processes unless they emit a fifth less carbon than conventional fuels.

"When you're running for president and you've got environmentalists biting your head off every day, that's to be expected," said Phil Gonet, head of the Illinois Coal Association. "We're still optimistic that he may be helpful at some point in the future."
"Obama and Biden, 'Waffling' you can believe in!"

Virulent Campaign Ads Are as Old as the Sun

Barack Obama is not the first politician to air vicious and misleading campaign ads. They were airing the same type of campaign ads back in the 1800's.

What? You don't believe me? See for yourself.

Confused? Click here and listen to the audio for additional info.

In UMass an Obama plan

Perhaps some of you have already seen the following news item:

University of Massachusetts officials on Monday quashed efforts by an Amherst campus chaplain to offer two college credits to any student willing to campaign in New Hampshire this fall for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama...

Chaplain Kent Higgins told students... that an unnamed "sponsor" in the university's history department would offer a two-credit independent study for students willing to canvass — identify supporters — or volunteer on behalf of the Democratic nominee.

University officials disavowed the effort after inquiries Monday by The Associated Press. They said it could run afoul of state ethics laws banning on-the-job political activity, as well as university policy.

"We do not engage in or sponsor partisan political activity," said Audrey Alstadt, chairwoman of the history department. "We certainly do not give academic credit for participation in partisan politics." - Click
here to read in full.

But have you seen this one yet?

Excerpted from the University of Massachusetts' Daily Collegian - The article, apparently, was addressed to the University's student body:
Barack Obama has a plan to fix the tax system in this country. He would raise the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 28 percent, set the rate for estates of more than $1 million to 55 percent, raise the income tax for those earning over $200,000 to 36 percent and of some higher brackets to nearly 40 percent of an individual's income. No longer, he says, should the tax burden be laid on those who earn modest incomes. We need to further progressivize our tax system so that the rich pay more and redistribution of benefits becomes a higher priority.

Since the overwhelming majority of University of Massachusetts students will undoubtedly vote for Obama, I'm confident most of you will find yourselves in agreement with the following, consistent with Obama's plan for the country: a New Deal for UMass.

I propose the institution of a progressive grading system here at UMass Amherst. The wealthiest of earners would have a certain percentage of their hard earned GPA points taken by school administrators to be redistributed to students in need of more stable grade-point averages for the greater collective good. The growth of grade inequality at this University is such that we can no longer allow the high earners to capitalize from their privileged positions.

Obama frequently points out the gross figures from Exxon's income of $11 billion last quarter. Exxon paid 41 percent taxes on that income. The top 1 percent of income earners in this country pays nearly 40 percent of income taxes and the top 10 pay 70 percent. It is only just for the government to jack up those taxes on high earners even further, and UMass should follow suit.

Performance in college can have implications for the rest of one's life. Do we really want to leave that up to some invisible hand to work out? Do we really want to leave the inherent biases in the grading system unaddressed by administrative oversight? We can't let this competitive dog-eat-dog mentality of every man for himself determine the trajectory of success in our students' lives. Without a safety net for those who can't make it we will continue to exemplify that evil capitalist approach that each ought to be afforded according to his ability rather than his need....

Surely ardent Barack Obama supporters know, as he reminds us in his speeches, that we are our brother's keepers and that we are loathe to simply sit and watch while our fellow UMassers fall by the wayside due to the compassionless, archaic traditions of competitive academic performance.

I mentioned my philanthropic proposal to a friend, beaming with pride at how noble and caring it would make me seem (a maverick for equality I'd hoped), and he arrogantly rejected it, claiming it was presumptuous of me to claim that the fruits of one's labor belong not to him, but to the whole of the UMass community. He excoriated that those grade points ought to be left to those who have earned them. I defiantly countered, explaining that low grade point earners can't be blamed for their status. They try hard, it just isn't their fault and it is more just to punish productive high earners for succeeding academically. I think Obama and I won that battle. This is change UMass can believe in.
in full

Sunday, September 21, 2008

White House: Congress Ignored President's Warnings About Fannie and Freddie!

From the White House Website - H/T RNC:

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. - Read the rest.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Obama's 38 Lobbyists vs McCain's 7 Lobbyists - Obama Wins Hands Down!

"There's only one candidate whose campaign is being run by seven of Washington's most powerful lobbyists, and folks, it isn't me... So when John McCain says that lobbyists 'won't even get past the front gate' at his White House, my question is, 'Who's going to stop them?"
Barack Obama - Sept 20, 2008

'Barack Obama's... fundraising team includes THIRTY-EIGHT members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show. Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.''
USA Today - April 16 2008

38 - 7 - Obama wins hands down!

My only question is, 'When those 38 lobbyists try to get past the front gate of Obama's White House, who's going to stop them?'

Related post - Barack Obama and Lobbyists, Inseparable Allies

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Change the Iranians can Believe In!

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been disinvited from a rally planned for Monday to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's U.N. visit. Hillary Clinton dropped out of the event on Wednesday after learning that Sarah Palin had been invited to attend, and organizers withdrew the invitation from Palin fearing the event would be perceived as a partisan political rally if she were to attend.

According to Newsday, organizers of the event ''approached Barack Obama's campaign to find a Democratic representative of equal prominence to Palin after Clinton dropped out, even inquiring whether Obama running mate Joe Biden could appear. But when the Obama campaign made it clear it wouldn't send Biden, the groups decided to eliminate all politicians from the rally, including Palin.''

Obviously, neither Biden or Barack Obama would ever attend such a rally since it is contrary to the Obama/Biden doctrine of making nice to tyrannical regimes.

Here's what the McCain website had to say on the matter:
This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of.. pressuring the event's organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the following day.
Barack Obama has said that he would use a 'carrot and stick' approach in dealing with Iran, but unfortunately, even a teeny little stick, like protesting the Iranian regime, is way too heavy for him to carry. And Biden, well, he's received plenty of carrots from Iranian lobbyists over the years, and he's not about to pay them back with sticks [even verbal sticks] anytime soon. In response to the 9/11 attacks, in October of 2001, Sen. Biden proposed that the US send the Iranian regime a $200,000,000 check to mend fences with its enemies. That's a hell of a lot of carrots - and the kind of 'change' Iranians can certainly believe in.

Obama vs Petraeus

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Sebelius: My Remarks Are Now the Sole Property of the Obama Campaign

Ed Morrissey of the Hot Air blog reported on Tuesday that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius - responding to a question from an audience member at the Iowa City Public Library yesterday - accused Republicans of injecting race into the presidential campaign.
“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked with sarcasm. “(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness.”
Morrissey then goes on to say:
"There is nothing more dishonorable in politics than calling opponents “racists” without evidence. It not only smears people who have tried to keep race out of the election, it is a McCarthyite tactic to silence critics".
Morrissey also notes that the AP or the Miami Herald seems to have edited the original article removing the “(Republicans) will not go lightly into the darkness” quote". He then asks:
"Why did this story get changed? Did someone at the AP or Herald decide that it made the smear tactics just too obvious? Clearly, someone got second thoughts about including that quote from Sebelius, and either the AP or the Herald need to explain their sanitation of Sebelius’ remarks.
[Rush Limbaugh elaborates further on this subject. Click here to read his commentary.]

First off, let me just say that the original quote is still intact on the AP/Google news site. So who's responsible for censoring those remarks from the Miami Herald and other news sites? I don't know. But here's another interesting tidbit that you may find quite interesting.

I requested a transcript of the Governor's remarks from the the Iowa City Public Library and the Kansas State Library. I received the following response from the the Director of Public Services at the Kansas State Library:

I checked with Governor Sebelius's staff and they said that the remarks are the property of the Obama campaign.

Here is the contact information for the campaign.

C---- R----
Director of Public Services
State Library of Kansas
300 SW 10th Ave Rm 343-N
Topeka KS 66612

Now, I've already noted how the Obama campaign has been stifling free speech here in the US and employing communist style suppression in order to protect Barack Obama, but apparently it goes much further than that. Not only do we not have the right to speak out against Senator Obama, but apparently anything we say, now belongs to him. That's right, the very words you utter and the remarks you make are now the property of Barack Obama and his campaign - according to Governor Sebelius' staff.

Is it possible the Governor now regrets uttering her McCarthyite remarks? Perhaps, but they are no longer her remarks anymore - they are now the sole Property of Barack Obama.

Obama Snubs Lohan, Prefers Rezko, Ayers and Ahmadinejad Over Her

From TMZ:
John McCain has weighed in over Barack Obama's reported slap in the face to Lindsay Lohan. The Chicago Sun-Times quotes an unnamed high-level Barack source who says they rejected Lohan's offer to host an event because she "is not exactly the kind of high-profile star who would be a positive for us."

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign tells TMZ, "So let me get this straight -- they turned away Lindsay Lohan, but Barack Obama has friends like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and convicted felon Tony Rezko? Maybe LiLo is just too upstanding for Barack Obama."
Meanwhile, over at Phily Burbs they're wondering:
Why Obama is so quick to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, yet he won’t go anywhere near Hannity and Colmes.

David Freddoso: The Case Against Barack Obama

The Obama campaign recently sent out an e-mail to its supporters asking them to call the WGN radio station in Chicago to protest an interview the station had planned to conduct with David Freddoso, author of the best selling book,"The Case Against Barack Obama".

"Anyone familiar with Freddoso's work knows that he is a by-the-book reporter, and... not much of a bomb-thrower." says Powerline blogger, John Hinderaker.... "Perhaps the campaign is so bothered by him because his careful recitation of facts and caution against overstating the evidence makes his book more persuasive to fence-sitting votes."

However, this is not the first time the Obama campaign has tried to stifle free speech. The Obama campaign recently sent out a similar e-mail to Sen. Obama's constituents when WGN invited the National Review's Stanley Kurtz to appear on its "Extension 720" radio show to discuss Barack Obama's ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers and his collaborative work with Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge.

The Obama campaign recently warned several television networks, including Fox and CNN, not to air a television ad produced by the American Issues Project that scrutinized Obama's ties to Bill Ayers. At the time, I noted that a London law firm, working on behalf of Nadhmi Auchi - the British billionaire who allegedly supplied loans to Barack Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko - had been flooding American and British newspapers and websites with letters demanding removal of material they deemed “defamatory” to their client. And I noted that both Barack Obama and Nahdmi Auchi, in typical communist/socialist style suppression, were trying to stifle free speech and silence their opponents.

But apparently,WGN refused to be intimidated by the "Obama Thought Police", and conducted the interview with Mr. Freddoso as planned.

In the interview [which can be heard by clicking here] on Tuesday, which included not only Mr. Freddoso, but also a Liberal activist by the name of Dan Johnson-Weinberger, Freddoso said that the entire central premise of Barack Obama's campaign that Obama represents hope and change is a great lie. For example, he noted that at the recent Saddleback forum, Senator Obama was asked to name a specific instance when he had worked against his party's interest for the country's common good. Obama cited the time he worked together with John McCain on ethics reform.

"Obama's reply was fictional", Freddoso said. In fact, McCain and Obama actually had a highly publicized fall-out on ethics reform. They never did work together on ethics reform, Freddoso said.

Here's what the Hotline blog had to say about Obama and McCain's "bipartisan" work on ethics reform. This was written in February of 2006, well before Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency:

An outraged Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today called Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) insincere and partisan, suggesting the Illinois freshman as much as lied in private discussions the two had about ethics reform last week.

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain wrote to Obama.

Obama attended a meeting with McCain and senators committed to a bipartisan task force on ethics reform. McCain left the meeting convinced that Obama was open to working closely together, according to an aide.

But the next day, Obama wrote McCain that he preferred his own party's legislation to a task force and suggested McCain take another look at the Democratic caucus's Honest Leadership Act, which does not have a Republican cosponsor.

McCain wrote: "When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable."

"Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political... to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

"I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."

Later on in the interview, Mr. Johnson-Weinberger attempted to refute one of Freddoso's claims, namely, that Obama had engendered very little change as an Illinois Senator. Among Obama's accomplishments as Illinois Senator, Johnson-Weinberger said, was his success in bringing ethics reform to Illinois.

Freddeso, however, pointed out that Barack Obama was not the original co-sponsor of the Illinois Ethics reform bill. Obama was only added on as the Chief co-sponsor of the Illinois ethics bill on the day the bill was passed. Freddeso also claimed that as a result of what was written in the Illinois ethics reform bill, Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, who is about to retire from office, will get to take $600,000 in campaign contributions and roll it into his personal bank account - although, as Freddeso recently pointed in an article in the National Review, that is is not really Obama's fault.

"Obama cannot be blamed for any of this because he did not write this 1998 ethics law. In fact, he had very little to do with it until the day it passed. He was not the one to propose the ethics bill in the Illinois senate. He was not even a cosponsor until the day it passed.

Five months after the ethics bill was introduced, and more than one month after it reached the senate, Obama was invited by Emil Jones to become its chief Democratic cosponsor. As David Mendell writes in Obama: From Promise to Power..., Sen. Dick Klemm (D.) was removed as chief cosponsor and replaced by Obama on May 22, 1998 — the very day the bill passed."
Freddeso also points out in the article that the ethics bill did very little to clean up Illinois politics.

This ethics bill — which passed in a not-so-close 52-4 vote in the Illinois senate — did not clean up Illinois politics. It did at least bar political fundraising on state property. It blocked lobbyists and contractors from giving personal gifts to legislators. But it did not stop them from giving contributions in the so-called “pay-to-play” game. It did not prevent major political donors like Tony Rezko from influencing the makeup of the powerful boards that control the state’s pension funds, filling them with crooked allies who would help him steal. It did not prevent incumbent legislators from rolling campaign funds into their personal bank accounts.
Perhaps some of Obama's lackeys will still insist that Obama is the ultimate reformer, but don't count the Chicago Tribune's Dennis Byrne among those lackeys.

Byrne writes as follows:

For those of you who still cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is "about change," you should note how he, or his minions, want nothing to do with reforming politics in Illinois, perhaps the most corrupt state in the Union.

When the Democratic presidential candidate... was asked by a reformer if he would help get his political mentor back home to get off the dime and move the most minimal of state ethics legislation toward passage, the Obama campaign sent word back that amounted to a "no."

State Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago) is the Chicago machine politician who might have been most instrumental in jump-starting Obama's political career. Now, as Illinois Senate president, Jones is the one sitting on the reform legislation, refusing to call it for an expected favorable vote before it officially dies of neglect...

So, along comes Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, thinking that now might be a good time for Obama to parlay his friendship with Jones to do a good deed: Won't you intervene with Jones and try to get him to call the Senate back into session to get this law passed?

In response, Obama's campaign issued an oozy statement reaffirming Obama's alleged commitment to reform, while getting no more specific than urging everyone to get together and love one another right now. What Canary was asking Obama for wasn't all that much. Maybe a 30-second phone call to back up his usual pap of, "Look, ah, I've, ah, always been for, ah, reform."

Agent of change, my foot.
Well, Obama may not be an agent of change, but he is undeniably an incredibly smooth operator. In fact, Barack Obama is probably the most deceptive and smoothest operator ever to run for public office in the US. Obama possesses an uncanny ability to twist his previously stated positions without even batting an eyelash and to then wage a counter attack against his critics and accuse them of distorting his views.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media seems only happy to cover for him every step of the way. And they'll continue to cover for this charlatan, because like Obama, they are nothing more than a bunch of charlatans themselves.

Update Sept 19:
Apparently, Obama finally called Emil Jones yesterday and asked him to call the Illinois ethics reform bill up for a vote:
A recalcitrant Jones got a call from Obama - who doesn't need his home state's reputation for political corruption dogging him as he tries to ascend to the presidency - and a day later changed his mind and summoned the state Senate back to the Capitol next week to quickly decide the fate of ethics reform...

For Obama, Jones' reversal means he gets an opening to sidestep what threatened to become a major political issue along the national campaign trail... The reluctance of his political mentor to quickly address ethics in Illinois loomed as a liability for Obama.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Obama and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act

I've already discussed the following issue several times on this blog, but it's an important issue and the Left seems intent on denying it, so let's review the facts one more time - for the record.

From Born Alive Truth.Org:
As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection.

The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was modeled after the federal version, with the identical definition of “born alive.” The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950. The United Nations adopted it in 1955.

Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee and voted present on the floor. In 2002, he voted no in committee and voted no on the floor.

The U.S. Senate passed the federal bill unanimously, with Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy speaking in support of it. [Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein supported the bill too.]

The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the federal bill. On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law.

For four years Obama has said he would have supported the federal version, but that simply isn’t true. In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, Obama
voted yes on an amendment that made the Illinois version identical to the federal one. However, he then voted no on the amended bill.

Let's reiterate that final point. The Illinois bill after it was amended was identical to the Federal bill that was supported by Senators Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein. Even NARAL expressed neutrality on the federal bill. And Obama, the most liberal senator in 2007 - according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings - voted against the Illinois bill - that was exactly identical to the Federal bill he claims he would have supported.

Related posts:

Born Alive Infants Cry Out to Obama: "We Don't Want To Die!"

Obama Blocked the 'Born Alive Infant Protection Act'

Obama's Opposition to BAIPA Finally Brought to the Fore

Obama is Pro-Life?

Monday, September 15, 2008

Bumbling Incompetence: New York Times Fails to Correct Sarah Obama's "Muslim Faith" Gaffe

The New York Times is not only dishonest when it comes to reporting the news, it is also totally inept when it comes to interviewing people.

When Barack Obama accidentally referred to his "Muslim faith" last Sunday on ABC's "This Week" program, the host, George Stephanopoulos quickly corrected him and said "you mean your Christian faith", rescuing Obama from a potential blunder that undoubtedly would have provided Internet rumor-mongers with additional fodder to paint the Democratic Presidential candidate as a Muslim.

Conversely, when Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, accidentally told the New York Times in an interview last year that she was Muslim, - “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she said - the Times failed to correct her gaffe.

However, like her grandson, Sarah Obama is, by her own admission, a Christian.

In an interview with USA Today in March of 2008, Sarah Obama, affirmed her belief in Christianity, while chiding those who suggest Barack Obama is a Muslim:

From the USA Today:
"Untruths are told that don't have anything to do with what Barack is about," Sarah Obama said. "I am very against it."

Obama's grandfather had converted to Islam... and taken the name Hussein, Sarah Obama said, but... "in the world of today, children have different religions from their parents," she said. She, too, is a Christian.
So while George Stephanopoulos acted with alacrity and promptly corrected Senator Obama's gaffe when he mistakenly referred to himself as a Muslim, the bumbling New York Times Times failed to correct Sarah Obama in her interview last year when she accidentally referred to herself as a Muslim.

Ultimately, the New York Times, by failing to correct Sarah Obama's inadvertent slip of the tongue, provided additional fodder for the Internet rumor-mongers to cast both her and Barack Obama as closet Muslims.

Such ineptness from a major media outlet is simply unacceptable - even from an incompetent and disreputable news outlet like the New York Times.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Obama, the Illinois Sex Education Bill 0099 and the SIECUS Guidelines - Is this "Age Appropriate" Education?!

The New York Times on Wednesday lambasted the McCain campaign over a television ad it recently aired claiming Barack Obama had supported legislation in Illinois to teach sex education to kindergarten students. The Times went on to say that the ad was distorting the facts:
"The proposal [legislation] called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education. The McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, was to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators."

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

It is a misstatement... to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse etc., would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.
However, the Illinois bill clearly states as follows:
The program established under this Act shall...shall include age appropriate instruction in grades K through 12 on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV..., [and] sexual abstinence etc.
Is this "age appropriate material" for kindergarten students? Don't think so.

Obama claims that he "understood the main objective of the legislation' was to teach Kindergarteners how to defend themselves against sexual predators", but that is mere sophistry on his part. Because, clearly, that was not the main objective of the bill.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US [SEICUS], in its "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education for Kindergarten through 12th Grade", states that [PDF file] sex education courses should be appropriate to the "age and developmental level of the students". Sound familiar? The Obama campaign even sent the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. SIECUS, like Obama, also recommends that teachers talk with students about inappropriate touching etc.

However, SIECUS also recommends that the following be taught to students, ages 5 through 8:

Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join. Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.

Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.

Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender. Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.

Two people of the same gender can live in loving, lifetime committed relationships.

Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. Masturbation should be done in a private place.

The most common ways for a person to get an STD [sexually transmitted disease] is to participate in sexual behavior or share a needle with another person who is already infected with an STD.

SIECUS also states as follows:
While the Guidelines contain... messages for a comprehensive program, specific information is often left out. For example, the Guidelines suggest that students in early elementary school [ages 5 - 8] learn that “Each body part has a correct name and a specific function,” and that “A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.” They do not, however, explain the specific function of each of these parts to students or educators. It is the responsibility of educators to fill in this information when necessary.
Pray tell, is this the kind of "age... appropriate sex education" the New York Times wants to give 5 year old children?: 1. Penises being placed inside vaginas, 2. Masturbation; 3. Catching STD by participating in sexual behavior with others; 4. two people of the same gender can live in loving, lifetime committed relationships?!
SEICUS, Obama and the New York Slimes can talk all they want about "age appropriate" sex education - the fact of the matter is, it isn't "age appropriate"!

I bet you're probably wondering what kind of "age appropriate" stuff they recommend teaching 9 and 10 year olds. Don't even ask! You don't want to know!

Also read Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: "It's the Right Thing to Do"

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Obama on Sex Ed in Kindergarten: "It's the Right Thing to Do"

Excerpted from RushLimbaugh.Com:
RUSH: Now, this is the next McCain ad that really has the Obama camp fit to be tied. It's entitled "Education."

RUSH: Oh, this has got 'em fit to be tied. How dare they say this about Obama? Well, let's go back in 2007, on November 20th, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood event, and he said this about Alan Keyes, who was his opponent in the Senate race in 2004.

OBAMA: I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (laughter) And, you know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do.
Rush: I've got a news article that ran September 27, 2007, on the Fox News website after a Democrat debate. An excerpt from that article reporting on the debate says this:

"A fairy tale about two princes falling in love sparked a backlash -- and a lawsuit -- against a teacher and a school last year when it was read to a second-grade class in Massachusetts. But the three front-runners in the Democratic presidential race suggested Wednesday night at their debate in New Hampshire that they'd support reading the controversial book to children as part of a school curriculum. ... Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage."

This was said by Obama in a debate... that a book about two princes falling in love should be read as part of the education curriculum to school kids.

RUSH: In 2007, Barack Obama complained about Alan Keyes using this argument [teaching sex education to kindergarteners] against him in the Senate race, but then listen to how he ends up.

OBAMA: I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (laughter) And, you know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do.

RUSH: I have here in my formally nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling papers) a copy of a page of the actual bill in Illinois that Obama voted for that proscribes "comprehensive sex education" taught in grades K through 12. Here is the excerpt:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12; shall include instructions on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections including the prevention, transmission, and spread of HIV. Nothing in this section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene, or traditional courses in biology."

So, it's there. This was Senate bill 0099, and this is the Bill that Obama voted for -- and all the McCain ad says is exactly that, that Obama supported legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. It's right here. K through 12. He voted for the bill. Now, he can go out there and try to revise history all he wants, but we have the legislation.
Click here to read the text of the Illinois bill from the Illinois General Assembly website.Originally, the bill was to include only grades 6 and up, but eventually "greater minds" prevailed - the number 6 was crossed out from the text and the letter K was added to include Kindergarten students.

Also read Obama, the Illinois Sex Education Bill 0099 and the SIECUS Guidelines - Is this "Age Appropriate" Education?!

Biden Admits Hillary Was Probably Better Choice

Obama's Foreign Policy: Offering the World Our Sincerest Apologies

Excerpted from the Wall Street Journal:
The candidacy of Barack Obama seems to have lost some of its luster of late, and I suspect this has something to do with large questions many Americans still harbor about his view of the dangerous world around us. Those questions were not stilled by the choice of Joe Biden as his running mate....

The Obama candidacy... can be reckoned as the sharpest break yet with the national consensus over American foreign policy after World War II...

The Illinois senator and his devotees are disaffected with American power. In their view, we can make our way in the world without the encumbrance of "hard" power. We would offer other nations apologies for the way we carried ourselves in the aftermath of 9/11, and the foreign world would be glad for a reprieve from the time of American certitude...

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style.. Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America's shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers.

In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn't be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror... triggered more animus.
Yes, indeed. "America's chickens are coming home to roooost!"
He [Obama] proposes to repair for that, and offers himself as a bridge to the world.

Mr. McCain... shares the widespread attitude of broad swaths of the country that are not consumed with worries about America's standing in foreign lands...

For Mr. Obama, the race is about the claims of modernism... The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. The lightning overseas trip, the quick briefing, and above all a breezy knowingness. Mr. Obama's way is the way of his peers among the liberal, professional elite.

Once every four years, ordinary Americans go out and choose the standard-bearer of their nationalism. Liberalism has run away with elite culture. Nationalism may be out of fashion in Silicon Valley. But the state -- and its citadel, the presidency -- is an altogether different calling. - Read
in full
Related post: 'Temperament and Judgment'? Or Harebrained Appeasement?

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Obama Campaign Denies Candidate Plagiarized Cartoon, Says it Was an Honest Mistake

Excerpted from the Boston Globe:

Campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind. on Saturday, Barack Obama, mocking claims by John McCain and Sarah Palin that they will challenge their Republican Party if elected, got off a pretty good line. "Maybe what they're saying is, 'Watch out George Bush,'" Obama said with sarcasm... "Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"

It wasn't Obama's line, though. It came from Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles, whose cartoon Friday featured these words along with a drawing of McCain and Sarah Palin in front of the White House: "Watch out, Mr. Bush! With the exception of economic policy and energy policy and social issues and tax policy and foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments and Rove-style politics, we're coming in there to shake things up!" (See the cartoon here.)

Asked about the borrowing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama used Toles's lines unwittingly, after being alerted to them by a friend who didn't mention the source.

"This came to Senator Obama from a friend who didn't indicate where he had gotten it from, but the questions it raises certainly continue to ring true," Psaki said in an email. "He did not know it was from a cartoon and now that he does he will certainly credit the cartoonist."....

Barack Obama and Lobbyists, Inseparable Allies

Since CNN and the rest of the mainstream media have decided to mislead the public by propagating Barack Obama's fallacious attacks against Senator John McCain, I have no choice but to wage a counter-attack against Ted Turner and his crooked minions.

CNN quotes the ever elusive, Barack Obama as saying, "John McCain says that he is going to tell all those lobbyists in Washington that their days of running Washington are over, which sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are -- guess what? -- former corporate lobbyists."

"It's true," says CNN White House correspondent, Ed Henry. "Seven top McCain officials were lobbyists, though the campaign stresses that none is currently registered to lobby Congress."

Mr. Henry! Did you say that SEVEN of McCain's top officials were lobbyists?

Well, Mr. Henry, why didn't you also mention that THIRTY-EIGHT members of Barack Obama's fund-raising team were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government? That's right, THIRTY-EIGHT! I'm sure you were probably aware of that fact, Mr. Henry, but you and the rest of Teddy Turner's cronies are simply trying to prop up Senator Obama. Right?
Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.

Thirty-one of the 38 are law firm partners, who typically receive a share of their firm's lobbying fees. At least six of them have some managerial authority over lobbyists. -
Source - USA Today
[To see the entire list of these 38 fund-raisers and the minimum amount each has pledged to raise for Barack Obama's Presidential campaign, click here]

Need we go any further, Mr. Henry? How about the millions Senator Biden has received from lobbyists, lawyers and law firms since 1989, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Senator Biden recently tried to defend his lobbyist connections. "I don't meet with lobbyists, my staff does," he said. But in fact, even this argument - as ridiculous as it sounds - has already been debunked. See my earlier post: Biden: 'I Don't Meet With Lobbyists', Unless They Happen to be Iranian Lobbyists

The truth of the matter is, this discussion is simply a waist of time. Anyone who thinks there's a politician out there without lobbyist connections [especially a Chicago style politician, like Barack Obama], is a veritable fool. Unfortunately, it is Charlatans like Barack Obama and CNN who play these kind of fools as if they were a bunch of cheap fiddles to be used at their disposal as a means of furthering their own political ambitions.....

The "Crush on Obama" Phenomenon is Slowly Dissipating

"When it comes to support for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, men and women don't see eye to eye", so says the notorious Liberal mouthpiece, CNN. However, this misleading bit of information belies the fact that millions of women, who once supported Barack Obama, are now solidly rooting for Sarah Palin.

Excerpted from the Stumper:
Asked this afternoon... whether the surprise addition of... Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket has helped John McCain woo women, Barack Obama said no. "There is no doubt that.. Republicans are excited, particularly the right wing of the party... by Governor Palin's choice," Obama said."I think that has less to go with gender than it has to do with her ideological predispositions, which are closely aligned to theirs."...

However, an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken ahead of the conventions, showed Obama leading among white women voters by a..., 50 to 42 percent margin. But the latest version of the same survey, out yesterday,
shows McCain winning white women 53-41. That's a sudden 20-point net shift in McCain's direction. Obama's "analysis"--that a sizable swath of right-wing women were planning to vote for a socially liberal Democrat UNTIL they discovered that a social conservative had joined the Republican ticket--is simply irrational.

The more logical explanation is that a number of moderate white women who loosely preferred Obama last month are now attracted to Palin not because of her views on abortion... and creationism in schools, but in spite of them (otherwise, they wouldn't be moderates, and they wouldn't be considering Obama).

Meanwhile, the
latest Gallup survey shows "political independents shifting to [McCain] in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention," while Obama's share of the indepedent vote plunges to 37 percent.

In other words, McCain's new voters are coming from the middle--not the fringe. Despite what Obama says.
The "crush on Obama" phenomenon is over with. Countless women all across America are fed up with their former "knight in shining armor"and are now uniting behind Sarah Palin.

Despite what CNN says.

Obama: In Military Matters, I'm Smarter than Gen. Petraeus!

Speaking to reporters in Dayton Ohio today, Barack Obama lambasted President Bush and Sen. John McCain, saying "what President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was... Senator McCain will continue the overwhelming focus on Iraq... It's time to change our foreign policy..." - Source - AFP

Ironically, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the departing commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, said just the opposite today.

From the Washington Post:
Iraq remains "the central front" for al-Qaeda and other extremist organizations, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the departing commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, said in an interview Tuesday.

Petraeus acknowledged that extremist violence is rising in Afghanistan and Pakistan, battlegrounds he will soon oversee as the next head of the U.S. military Central Command, but said "it is still assessed that Iraq is still viewed as the central front, if you will, for al-Qaeda and extremism of that flavor."...

He said al-Qaeda leaders remain keenly interested in keeping a foothold in Iraq because of its proximity to Gulf states where they have been shunned in recent years. ..

When extra troops arrived in Iraq last spring, "the level of violence was horrific," Petraeus said. "The fact was that the situation was out of out control." ...

Petraeus said the extra troops and well-coordinated, intelligence-driven operations allowed U.S. troops to weaken Sunni and Shiite extremists and diminish their stature in the eyes of Iraqis...

He said recent intelligence reports suggest that Iranian-backed Shiite fighters who left the country in recent months to avoid a military confrontation with U.S. and Iraqi forces are considering returning to Iraq.
That's right, "they're considering returning to Iraq", if and when Barack Obama becomes President.....

Monday, September 8, 2008

Obama to Pull Out of Race, Sets Timetable for Withdrawal

On the heels of of a new USAToday/Gallup poll showing Sen. John McCain leading his Democratic rival, Barack Obama by 10 percentage points among likely voters and 4 percentage points among registered voters, Barack Obama on Monday told reporters that he would soon withdraw from the Presidential race.

Obama conceded that he had made an egregious error when he decided to run for the Presidency, considering his lack of experience in national politics, but he assured reporters that his planned withdrawal would be executed responsibly and safely.

"This Presidential race is an unwinnable race," Obama said, "it was a grave mistake on my part to send thousands of young campaign workers off to battle when we had little or no chance of winning this election."

"My staff is stretched too thin," he lamented, "many of my staffers have not seen their families since the beginning of this campaign! Hence, I have little choice, but to end this race once and for all."

"But I can assure the American people," Obama continued, "that this withdrawal will be executed responsibly and deliberately, over a period of several weeks. And let me make this perfectly clear, 'I would never jeopardize my fellow Democrats by suddenly pulling out of this race in an abrupt and precarious manner. I will work together with both the enemy and party leaders to make sure the political future of our Party remains safe and secure for generations to come'."

"Effective as of today," Obama said, "I will begin to withdraw from this race, according to the timetable proposed by my campaign staff and former General, Wesley Clark. I realize that many of you do not agree with this decision. Some of you believe that a Presidential withdrawal will only serve to embolden the enemy and leave the Democratic Party vulnerable to a ruthless Republican insurgency. But ultimately, as the current commander in chief of my Party, it is up to me to make such decisions, and I believe I know what is best for my party."

According to sources close to the Obama campaign, Vice Presidential hopeful, Joe Biden expressed vehement opposition to Obama's plan. Biden, instead, proposed dividing the country into two autonomous regions - Democratic and Republican - with Obama and Biden controlling half the country and McCain and Palin the other half. Sources say Obama ultimately rejected this proposal, insisting Biden's plan would weaken the Democratic Party and leave the divided Democratic and Republican regions vulnerable to future attacks from the neighboring Nader regime".

Meanwhile, Senator McCain, while attending a fund-raiser Monday at the igloo of a prominent member of the Alaskan Eskimo community, was asked by reporters to comment on Obama's latest announcement.

"As you are probably aware by now," McCain responded, " I have never subscribed to the policy of surrender. But sometimes you run into a formidable foe with such a compelling argument and such overwhelming force, you simply have no choice but to throw in the towel. I believe Senator Obama is facing that kind of foe right now. Surrender is his only option."

Sunday, September 7, 2008

For Obama, this Race is All About Race - and Religion too

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" program Sunday, Barack Obama continued to play the race card, alleging that Republicans have been calling him a Muslim.

Stephanopoulos, however, took issue with this claim and told Obama that "the McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections."

The following is a transcript of the interview, compliments of the Washington Times:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections.

Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.

OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...

STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections.

OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong.

OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith.

OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain's campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.

Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.

OBAMA: ... my Christian faith. Well, what I'm saying is that he hasn't suggested...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has connections, right.

OBAMA: ... that I'm a Muslim. And I think that his campaign's upper echelons have not, either.

What I think is fair to say is that, coming out of the Republican camp, there have been efforts to suggest that perhaps I'm not who I say I am when it comes to my faith -- something which I find deeply offensive, and that has been going on for a pretty long time.

The Washington Times also notes how some anti-Obama websites have been focusing upon a gaffe made by Obama during the interview.

While outlining his Christian faith, Obama accidentally said, "my Muslim faith", instead of "my Christian faith".

And of course, Obama attributes this to the McCain campaign.

Nevertheless, if Obama thinks he can win this election by playing the race/religion card, then by all means, let him continue to malign the McCain campaign. I just don't believe this kind of strategy will benefit him. He'd be better off talking about the issues, but I suppose when Obama rants on and on about race and religion, he thinks he is talking about the issues.

I also believe that if Obama ascends to the Presidency, race and religion will be a key talking point of his administration. Obama will also attempt to appease religious extremists and tyrants, in an effort to bring "peace unto the world". But ultimately, this kind of foreign policy will only bring more mayhem and more devastation upon the world. Terrorists and tyrants can never be appeased... They can, however, be emboldened by foolhardy politicians, the likes of Barack Obama and his his kindred spirit and running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.

Saturday, September 6, 2008

Self-Proclaimed Pauper, Joe Biden, is a Veritable Real Estate Millionaire

Excerpted from the Wilmington News Journal - H/T Political Punch:

Though he's considered one of the least wealthy senators... Joe Biden is a wealthy man by ordinary standards -- worth about $2 million but perhaps hundreds of thousand dollars more, a News Journal analysis found...

The former lawyer lives off Barley Mill Road in Greenville -- northern Delaware's priciest area -- on a four-acre lakefront estate in a 7,000-square-foot custom home. Biden also owns a smaller carriage house on his property, where his widowed mother lives.

Local real estate agents said the Biden property is worth at least $2.5 million -- $1.8 million more than the couple owes. In addition, his latest Senate financial disclosure -- which lists assets and liabilities in wide ranges -- shows that Biden's net worth, excluding real estate holdings and mortgage debt, is between $381,000 and minus $55,000.

Biden and his wife, Jill, an English instructor at Delaware Technical & Community College, have combined salaries of $265,500 this year. Between 2005 and 2007, Biden also received a total of $225,000 in advances for his autobiography, "Promises to Keep."

While their earnings probably would not be enough to purchase their Greenville estate today, the Bidens have managed to live in such splendor partly because of two financially rewarding real estate deals with political supporters.

In 1996, Biden sold a home in Greenville for the asking price of $1.2 million -- more than six times what he paid two decades earlier -- to John R. Cochran III, a top executive at the MBNA credit card bank that was a longtime political benefactor.... [A few months after the sale, MBNA employees contributed $62,850 to Biden's 1996 Senatorial campaign. - Source - Byron York . Biden became an early supporter of a controversial bankruptcy law, championed by MBNA and other credit card issuers..., making it more difficult for consumers to erase their debts. A report last year by Credit Suisse, concluded the law had had a “profound impact” on the country’s subprime mortgage crisis, leading directly to a rise in foreclosures. - Source New York Slimes]

In March 1996 -- one month after selling to Cochran... Biden paid $350,000 cash to real estate executive and developer Keith D. Stoltz for 4.2 vacant acres -- a long, narrow lot a few miles from Biden's old home. Stoltz had bought that same lot five years earlier for the same price.

Stephen Pyle, who sold the land to Stoltz in 1991, said he was surprised that Stoltz, who lived on a neighboring estate, did not make any profit selling to Biden. "That doesn't sound like Keith Stoltz," Pyle... said of Stoltz....

Cochran did not return numerous calls for this article...

Biden would not agree to be interviewed, campaign spokesman David Wade said in a written statement, because of "time constraints -- he's going a million miles an hour."...

A million miles an hour? How about a million dollars an hour? Heh....
Like Cochran and MBNA, Stoltz and his family have been longtime Biden supporters... Stoltz's parents, Jack and Susan Stoltz, along with his wife, Margaret, and brother Randy... have given Biden's campaigns $24,900 since 1994....

In interviews with a handful of agents, all but one of whom agreed to be identified, the value of Biden's estate, after 12 years of appreciation, was estimated at $2.5 million or higher. The land alone is now worth about $1 million, they agreed.

Agent Barbara Winnington thinks the value could be upwards of $4 million. "There's two houses and the four acres and you have to account for that," Winnington said. "That is the Greenville area, and land goes for up to $250,000 an acre." - Read in full
Joe Biden, a blue-collar candidate? Or a real estate millionaire?

Also see Steve Chapman's column in the Chicago Tribune - Joe Biden's deep (but mythical) blue-collar roots