Thursday, 18 September 2008
OBAMA'S DISHONEST AD - AIMED AT LATINOS
We all know, of course, that John McCain does nothing but lie in his ads and
Barack Obama would never do such a thing. George Washington himself would
envy Mr. Obama's veracity level.
At least that's what our wonderful, "neutral" mainstream media would have us
That being the case, I would love a journalist or two to explain the following, which comes to us from Jake
Tapper of ABC news, via John Hinderaker at www.powerlineblog.com:
Hateful Ad Ever?
Barack Obama's thuggish campaign has exceeded
itself with a Spanish-language ad that is dishonest at several levels. ABC's
blows the whistle:
Sen. Barack Obama has launched a new
Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain as anti-immigrant,
even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush
As first reported by the Washington Post,
Obama's ad features a narrator saying: "They want us to forget the insults
we've put up with...the intolerance...they made us feel marginalized in this
country we love so much."
The screen then shows these two quotes from
"...stupid and unskilled Mexicans."
"You shut your mouth or you get out!"
The narrator then says, "John McCain and his
Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our
vote...and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush
that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain...more of
the same old Republican tricks."
I don't think I've ever seen a more deeply
contemptible political ad. Apart from the fact that the ad slanders Rush
Limbaugh--the second statement, for example, describes Mexico's immigration
policy--Limbaugh and McCain were opponents on the subject of immigration.
McCain's stance on immigration, more than anything
else, alienated him from his party's conservative base, precisely because he put
the interests of illegal immigrants ahead of a commitment to enforce our laws.
McCain's position on illegal immigration, rightly or wrongly, is the
opposite of Limbaugh's--as, for that matter, is that of President Bush,
whom the ad casually maligns.
In the mainstream media, the last week has been
consumed by tut-tutting over the supposed "lies" perpetrated by two McCain
ads--which, however, were inconveniently true. It will be interesting to see how
liberal pundits react to what must be the most dishonest, racist and hateful
campaign ad published in many years.
The level of hypocrisy displayed by media in this election campaign is
Last week, when John McCain put out an ad saying that Barack Obama voted to
allow sex education to kindergartners, he was attacked throughout the media as a
liar. The extensive backup for that claim (which I posted here just a few
days ago)? Ignored.
Yet here is Barack Obama trying to fool Latino voters with an utterly
fraudulent ad, and those same media are busy doing something else - anything
else - but noticing it.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
SEXUAL PREDATORS GET A FREE PASS THIS YEAR, ON BEHALF OF BARACK OBAMA
I can't tell you how much I regret to say that the above title is 100%
correct. And while Barack Obama, so far as I know, has nothing to do with
this despicable action, he is clearly its beneficiary.
The culprit is Senate Majority Leader harry reid, who appears to be
utterly useless when it comes to getting things done but very capable of
blocking legislation, even when it designed to protect adolescents from sexual
Brian Faughnan of www.redstate
Is Oprah Winfrey Being Duped?
Last December, the House passed the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation Online
Act by a resounding margin of 409-2. The bipartisan
bill expands reporting requirements for child sex exploitation and child
pornography, requires providers to disclose the identity of anyone who appears
to have violated child pornography laws, directs the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children to report child pornography violations to law
enforcement, and grants service providers and NCMEC limited immunity from civil
and criminal liability for reporting information.
When the bill passed by such a huge margin, it
seemed that Senate action was sure to follow soon. But one thing went wrong:
John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination. And since he was the
sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, the
measure was suddenly dead. It didn't even matter that McCain's bill was
cosponsored by HIllary Clinton and Chuck Schumer; it could not pass.
Fortunately, another good bill was also
introduced, addressing some of the same issues. That bill -- S. 1738 -- creates a National
Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, as well as a
National Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, and a
National Internet Crimes Against Children Data System. It simplifies prosecution
of child pornography cases, and increases funding for this effort. The bill is
sponsored by Joe Biden. One of the cosponsors is Barack Obama. And wouldn't you
know it -- Harry Reid is planning to hold a vote on this bill.
Senator Tom Coburn tried to make a silk purse out
of a sow's ear. He introduced a third bill that essentially
combines the other two. Senate Democrats have blocked the bill from coming to a
vote -- twice. It seems that only Senator Biden's bill will see action before
And what about the reforms in the
McCain/Schumer/Clinton bill -- to find and identify those who spread child
pornography? Maybe they'll get enacted somewhere down the line -- once Senator
McCain can't take advantage of his bipartisan work on the issue.
A sidenote: Oprah Winfrey is a party to this --
although it's unclear whether she's been duped. She devoted her show on Monday
to pushing for action on
the Biden bill. Perhaps once she gets up to speed on the issue, she won't push
so aggressively for a bill that seems to put politics over children's
The saddest fact by far is that this legislation is not law already, and will
not be enacted until after the election (when you can bet reid will allow a vote
and proudly take credit for his involvement in its passage).
But the other sad fact
is that this legislation, which is so basic that virtually everyone in the
house of representatives on both sides of the aisle voted for it, is
being held up for entirely political reasons.
harry reid is a despicable excuse for a human
being. The predatory actions which he is personally responsible for until he unblocks this legislation, will continue
unchecked until congress reconvenes next year. Every success of every sexual predator is on reid's
head. His, and the Democrats who are closing their eyes and their
ears and not speaking up because it might get their candidate a
few more votes in November.
It makes me want to puke.
THE CBS POLL
A new CBS poll shows that Barack Obama has jumped back to a 5% lead over John
McCain. If that is accurate it is a very strong comeback for Mr.
Just a little point to be made here, however:
The sample size was 1,133. This included 326 Republicans, 437 Democrats
and 370 Independents.
In other words, 29% of the sample was Republican and 39% was Democrat
-- at a time when the latest data show only a few percentage points separating
membership in the two parties.
Hey....I think I just found out where that 5% lead came
TAKING ACTION, DEMOCRAT-STYLE
Politically the best thing Democrats can do about the energy shortage and the
financial crisis is attack Bush and McCain, then run away and not address either
in the congress that they control.
And that is exactly what they are doing, as Ed Morrissey of www.hotair.com shows us:
Democrats to adjourn again?
You have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi and Harry
Reid. Once they decide on a strategy, they stick with it. Bloomberg
reports that the Democratic Congress will take action in the face of this
economic crisis by beating a hasty retreat:
The Democratic-controlled Congress,
acknowledging that it isnt equipped to lead the way to a solution for the
financial crisis and cant agree on a path to follow, is likely to just get
out of the way.
Lawmakers say they are unlikely to take action
before, or to delay, their planned adjournments Sept. 26 for the House of
Representatives, a week later for the Senate. While they havent ruled out
returning after the Nov. 4 elections, they would rather wait until next year
unless Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S.
Bernanke, who are leading efforts to contain the crisis, call for
One reason, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
said yesterday, is that no one knows what to do at the
The stench from this hypocrisy is
overwhelming. Reid, Pelosi, Barack Obama, and every Democrat who could
bitterly cling to a microphone over the last four days has spewed invective at
the Bush administration, blaming the credit-market meltdown on Bushs
policies. Now, at the height of the crisis, not only do the Democrats
admit they havent a clue as to how to address it, to whom do they turn to solve
The Bush administration! After all,
Henry Paulson serves on the Bush administration Cabinet, and has been Bushs
Treasury Secretary for over two years. In fact, Paulson was one of the
CEOs that Democrats love to demonize, having run Goldman Sachs for years at
salaries over $15 million a year for the two years prior to his
appointment. Joe Biden just got done blaming the meltdown on people like
Paulson. Now Democrats want him to rescue America.
First Pelosi adjourns the House in the middle of
an energy supply crisis that hammered the working class with sharp hikes in fuel
and food costs. Now both Pelosi and Reid want to adjourn both chambers of
Congress rather than deal with the credit crisis that Washington created with
its heavy-handed mandates to issue credit to marginally qualified borrowers and
lack of oversight over government-guaranteed entities. Given their
ineptitude, we probably should be grateful as Bloomberg notes. But
considering their rhetoric over the last few days, their retreat may be one of
the most cowardly acts in domestic policy seen in a very long time.
Is this the best thing Democrats can do for the country? Obviously the
answer is no. But it is the best thing they can do for the party.
So what if both problems continue to fester and get worse.
Remember this on election day. Because if you elect a Democrat to the
presidency, we will have one party governance. And if that happens, who
will be able to stop these people from continunig to put politics ahead of party
for at least the next two years?
THE RACE CARD
Here it comes. The race card. We knew it was going to be played.
But please note who is playing it.
Weeks ago Barack Obama pre-emptively ridiculed people who would attack him
"because I don't look like them". No such attack had been made by
any Republican opponent, but he said it anyway.
Then Governor Kathleen Sebelius bitterly attacked racism that she could not
specify one instance of.
Then a John McCain ad was called racist because, in it, Barack Obama was characterized
And now we have reliably left wing Jack Cafferty of CNN
putting the following on his political blog:
Race is arguably the biggest issue in this
election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.
The differences between Barack Obama and John
McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain
is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain
close. Doesn't make senseunless it's race.
magazine's Michael Grunwald says race is the elephant in the room. He says
Barack Obama needs to tread lightly as he fights back against the McCain-Palin
Translation: You better vote for Barack Obama or you're a
racist. Why else would you vote against him?
If you fall for this absolute BS you are out of your mind.
Warner Todd Huston has addressed Cafferty's racist comments (that's right, HE
is a racist for saying what he did) and dismantled them. With the
exception of his use of the Limbaugh term, "feminazi", which I find highly
distasteful, Huston is right on target.
Here are the key excerpts from Huston's
commentary about what Cafferty said. I hope that it will help you
to see which side is really playing the race card:
Lets devastate this absurd argument line by
(Cafferty's) first line after the initial question
claims that nobodys talking about the race factor in Obamas bid for the
White House. What planet is this guy watching the campaign from, anyway? Nearly
every single pundit, political maven, and news caster has brought up the race
angle since the day Obama announced his intention to run.
Since day one it has been claimed that Obamas run
for president is an historic one. Well, what does historic mean if it isnt
because hes the first black man to win the nomination of a major political
party to run for the top job? It sure isnt because hes male or a Democrat. In
case Cafferty isnt aware, there have been more than a handful of male Democrats
that have run for the White House in the past.
On top of that, Obama has thrown out the race card
dozens of times, himself. Where Cafferty gets the crazy, uninformed idea that
nobody is talking about race is anybodys guess. All Jackie would have had to
do was Google Race plus Obama and my guess is hed get more than a hit or two
(NOTE: I did google it and got 43,900,000 listings)!
Now, paragraph two is so free of reason and logic
that it boggles the mind. And it serves not only to make his argument absurd, it
shows what a failure he is as a political analyst.
Cafferty says that the difference between the two
candidates couldnt be more well-defined. That is a fair statement. Then he
follows that with a lie so brazen that it chokes in the throat.
Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a
part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy.
Cafferty just plain lied here. McCain has an
actual record of challenging Washington. Hes done it for decades and raised the
ire of his own party by being the maverick too many times to mention. Obama
has talked a lot about change, sure, yet he has no history not one scintilla of
a record of ever having changed anything. Hes never challenged the Senate.
Hes never challenged his party. He never even challenged the status quo of
corrupt Daley machine politics of Chicago when he was in state government back
in Illinois. In fact, he benefitted quite handsomely from that corrupt
Then Cafferty, employing his Einstein-like powers
of observation, gives us this trenchant analysis:
Yet the polls remain close. Doesnt make
senseunless its race.
First of all, Einstein, the electorate itself has
been closely hewn in half since the Clinton years heck even since Reagan
realigned politics in this country. So, that reason alone could easily account
for the close split in the polls today. But to ascribe it solely to race, while
at the same time offering no real proof, demonstrates Caffertys utter lack of
understanding anything in this campaign or this country.
Further, his sheer astonishment is based on a
central assumption that also proves he has no capacity to understand American
culture and politics and should, therefore, never be taken seriously as a
political commentator. Caffertys amazement that anyone could possibly want to
support McCain is based solely on his assumption that Barrack is clearly 100%
right on all points. This assumption is so blindly partisan that it admits not
one shred of understanding that there truly is a substantive difference between
the philosophy behind Republican thinking and that of Democrats. It assumes that
Democrats are all 100% correct in their political philosophy and that
Republicans are merely racists for not following along.
Are there people who wont vote for Obama because
hes black? Surely there are. Is it the predominant reason that millions
wont vote for him? What proof of this is there? Further, there were many
millions who didnt vote for Obama in the primaries for the reason that he isnt
a woman. Did Cafferty attack every femenazi for their assertion that people
should vote Hillary because she was a she and not a he? If so, Id like to see
Cafferty completely misses the salient fact that
millions of Americans stand against Barack Obama because they feel his ideas are
anti-capitalist, anti-military, pro-Eropean policies that pull against American
exceptionalism. They see his terrorist pals, his racebaiting pastors, his wife
who isnt proud of her country and they wonder why they should vote for such a
Cafferty is so blind to the real reasons that
people vote the way that they do that he simply blows off the whole closely
split political balance with the shadowy excuse of rampant American racism.
This failure of Caffertys totally discredits him as a political
Now, it is perfectly possible to assume that the
other half of the electorate is wholly wrong in its thinking as Cafferty
clearly does, and still be an effective political analyst (Michael Barone and
Brit Hume are prime examples of this). For example, the philosophy behind the
Democrats has long ago strayed from what it once was to a philosophy closer to a
Euroesque amalgam of socialism, and populism. Democrats ceased being truly
American in their thinking many decades ago. So, yes, they are horribly wrong.
But to discount that those ideas exist and are a major player in American
politics is simply absurd. So discounting that other side that it interferes
with your ability to see the whole of the electorate dooms serious political
This, in truth, is where Cafferty has ended up. He
so hates traditional American conservatism, so despises and discounts the
Republican Party that he cant even admit that many millions of Americans hold
to those principles and will vote that way because of them. To Cafferty, no one
is voting McCain because they adhere to Republican principles, they are just
racists against Obama.
JOE BIDEN'S IDEA OF PATRIOTISM
Do you feel patriotic when you are told to pay more taxes? Or do you
If you earn $250,000 or more a year you are already shouldering a far higher
tax burden than your percent of the population. But, in an Obama
administration, you'll pay more -- a lot more. Is that patriotism or
redistribution of income?
Following is the Associated Press article which first reports Joe Biden's
position on this issue and then immediately defends it in a way the DNC
would use word for word. (Great job guys, what a fine demonstration
of neutral journalism at its best):
Biden: Paying higher taxes
patriotic for wealthy
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated
Press Writer 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - Democratic
vice presidential candidate Joe
Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to
do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims
about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax
Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a
year would pay more in taxes while those earning less the vast majority of
American taxpayers would receive a tax cut.
John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent
Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S.
households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
"We want to take money and put it back in the
pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good
Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay
more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be
part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
McCain released a television ad Thursday charging
that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic
crisis. Contending that "a big
government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a
shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the
Obama tax proposal.
"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a
massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says.
"And we would pay painful income
taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating
oil. Can your family afford that?"
The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run
Let's see if we understand this "logic". Obama has proposed so many new
social programs that there is no way they can be accomplished without
still more tax money coming in. So let's raise taxes on the most
well-to-do as if they aren't paying a ton already. Just tell 'em that it's
a show of patriotism, not a way of picking their pocket.
Maybe they'll buy it and maybe they won't. But what the hell, who cares
anyway? There are a lot more people making less than $250,000 a year than
people who make that much or more. So we'll gain votes by proposing
The fact that it will make the population segment which pays most of the
taxes more likely to find ways of sheltering their money (this is why higher
taxes often result in less tax revenue and lowering taxes often
raises revenues)? So what.
The fact that it will make the most productive segment of the population
less likely to build businesses in the USA instead of overseas? So
Blame it on Republicans, baby. Media won't give us any trouble on
Well, at least we now know how Joe Biden defines
CHARLES RANGEL: PROTECTED SPECIES
charles rangle is the chairman of the house Ways & Means Committee - the
committee that writes tax law.
He has cheated on his taxes for years.
He illegally holds at least three and possibly all four rent-stabilized
apartments in a very nice building in Harlem.
And Democrats are making damn sure that he doesn't pay for it, at least until
after the election.
Here are the specifics, courtesy of an excerpt from an
article by Susan Crabtree, writing for www.thehill.com.
Posted: 09/18/08 03:44 PM [ET]
Democrats shot down a second GOP attempt
in as many months to punish Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) for a series of
alleged ethics violations.
Democrats easily tabled
a motion House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) offered that was
aimed at forcing Rangel to give up his chairmanship of the powerful Ways
and Means Committee while the ethics committee investigates the charges.
It also would have ordered the ethics committee to establish an
investigative subcommittee to look into the matter. The motion went
down, 226-176, with only the five Democrats on the ethics panel voting
present and eight Democrats not voting.
They do not come dirtier than charles rangel. But no one will touch a
hair on his head, at least not until the election is over.
Why would someone this dirty be protected at all costs? That seems
obvious. Democrats don't want to be embarrassed by rangel during an
election, while votes are out there to be mined.
Now, why would media be protecting charles rangel? Where are the
condemnatory articles? Where are the daily "troubling information about
...." features every morning on The Today show? What does this tell
you about their "neutrality" level?
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them
ROVE VS. COLMES: YOU PICK THE "WINNER"
Here is the transcript of a fascinating back-and-forth which took place last
night, between Karl Rove and Alan Colmes of Hannity & Colmes. I will
post it without comment. You decide who "won":
Colmes: I don't know how
John McCain and Sarah Palin present themselves as reformers. she took oil
money when she ran for Lt. Governor. John McCain has oil lobbyists.
Davis who's campaign manager..
Rove: You know Alan..
Colmes: was a lobbyist..
Rove: Alan with all due
respect you can rattle on all you want about this. But if this is the standard
then you have to tell me why Tom Daschle is in charge of the transition for
And why Jim Johnson the former head of Fannie Mae was the
head of his Vice Presidential Search Committee?
And why is Franklin Raines
one of his close advisors?
We can get in this tit for tat all day long.
Colmes: But Karl..?
Rove: The fact of the matter
is John McCain are reform minded mavericks and the American people see them as
Colmes So all candidates have oil related lobbyists? They
all have people in the financial community running their campaigns?
has more lobbysists.. McCain..
Rove Look Alan. With all due
respect Axelrod the Chief consultant to the Obama campaign makes his living by
having a grassroots lobbying firm to even out his billings in between
Please do not sit there and lecture me that the special
interest money from trial lawyers and labor unions somehow disappears because
you found 19 people inside the McCain campaign who've been lobbyists.
Colmes: Well actually it's 59. That's more than any other
Presidential candidate running this time.
You can't paint a one sided
picture and say McCain's the only reformer and he's done none of this stuff
and he's totally clean and everybody else is on the take and..
Rove: Alan you sound suspiciously like that Obama commercial
that calls McCain dishonorable. Nobody believes that John McCain who took on
Jack Abramoff and Campaign Finance Reform is in the pocket of lobbyists.
Colmes: I'm not saying he's dishonorable I'm saying he's got
Rove: You're better than that Alan. Alan
please. You are embarrassing yourself. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.
Colmes: I think that's a rather insulting thing to say when I'm
pointing out a fact that he has X number of lobbyists working on his
Rove: SO WHAT!! He probably has 2 or 3-thousand
fundraisers raising money for his campaign.
mumble.. mumble.. let's move on.
Rove: He has 10's of thousands
of Volunteers.. so what Alan!?!? So what if 19 of them are lobbysists?!
Colmes: Well if you campaign as a sole reformer here.. We'll be
back with more from Karl Rove after the