Myth Vs. Fact: The Obama Infomercial Lies To Taxpayers About Obama Tax Hike

And the hits just keep on coming! Americans For Tax Reform have found a few "easter eggs" in the 30 minute Barack Obama Infomercial too. Let's see what they have to say:

Myth: “As president, here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the US over the next two years, and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.” Fact: According to IRS data, 33% of families don’t even have an income tax liability, so it’s impossible to cut their income taxes. Also, Obama’s summary conveniently leaves out the fact that he would bring the small business tax rate to over 50 percent and would hike the capital gains and dividends tax at a time of market turmoil. His plan is a massive tax hike.

And somewhere in there, Obama and his followers have somehow convinced themselves that taking even more money out of the American economy is going to lead to some sort of prosperity. It won't. It will lead to an even worse economic downturn, just as Jimmy Carter's misguided economic policies did from 1977 onward.

Myth: (OH Gov. Ted Strickland speaking): “Think of this. Barack Obama is going to be a Democrat in the presidency who actually cuts taxes. But he’s gonna cut taxes for the people who really need a tax cut. He’s gonna cut taxes for the struggling families. And he’s gonna do that while holding accountable those companies that take advantage of tax breaks in order to send jobs offshore and to other countries.” Fact: Obama will raise taxes by over $1 trillion by hiking the small business tax rates, the Social Security tax rate, and the nest egg tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Also, the reason companies move overseas is because our taxes are already too high. How does raising their taxes do anything but make this problem worse?

Many workers (myself included) already lost money in our 401k accounts because of the recent crisis on Wall Street. Taxing our retirement accounts is only going to make that problem worse and devalue our 401k's even further. It will certainly encourage me to move my money off-shore where the socialists won't be able to get to it.

Myth: (VA Gov. Tim Kaine) “Barack has looked at the small business side of the American economy and says ‘Look, that’s where most innovation and entrepreneurship is. Let’s give them the rocket fuel to really accelerate rather than giving tax cuts to the ExxonMobils or the big oil companies that need not one ounce of help from the government to be very successful.’” Fact: Under Obama’s tax hike, the tax rate on two-thirds of small business profits will exceed 50 percent for the first time since Jimmy Carter. If that’s rocket fuel, the U.S. economy won’t ever get off the launch pad. Also, raising taxes on energy companies won’t do anything except make energy more expensive for consumers.

Here is another economic fact that simply isn't registering with the Democrats. Taxes get passed on to consumer in the form of a higher price for the product or service. Higher taxes mean even higher prices. So, if the socialists raise taxes on companies that produce energy, the price we consumers pay is also going to go up.

Myth: “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost” Fact: We can’t say it any better than the AP: “Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by ‘eliminating programs that don't work’ masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.”

And that's true. Apart from cuts in defense spending, I can't think of anything Obama has promised to cut. Certainly not any bottomless pit social programs.

Myth: “So I’m not worried about CEO’s, I’m not worried about corporate lobbyists, I’m not worried about the drug companies or the oil companies or the insurance companies--they’ll be fine, they’re going to look out for themselves. I’m worried about the couple that’s trying to figure out how they’re going to retire. I’m worried about the family that’s trying to figure out how they can save for their child’s college education. I’m worried about the single mom that doesn’t have health insurance. I’m worried about the guy who has worked in a plant for 20 years and suddenly sees his job shipped overseas. That’s who I’m worried about. That’s who I’m going to be fighting for and thinking about every single day that I’m in the White House.” Fact: If he’s worried about the couple about to retire, Obama should be asking himself why he wants to tank their 401(k) nest egg by raising capital gains and dividends taxes. If he’s worried about the parents saving for college or struggling to afford health insurance, he should ask himself if raising their small business employer’s tax rate to over 50 percent is a good idea. If he’s worried about the longtime employee’s job getting shipped overseas, he should ask if the fact that America has the second-highest corporate income tax rate in the world has anything to do with that.

Anyone who has a retirement savings account should be concerned at this point. Money that you worked for, that you put away so that in your autumn years you could live comfortably, is going to be confiscated for Barack Obama's efforts at "redistributing the wealth" a la European socialist style.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Myth vs. Fact: The Obama Infomercial Lies to Taxpayers About Obama Tax Hike
Americans For Tax Reform
October 30, 2008

Reality Check From CBS: Obama's Infomercial Didn't Discuss The True Cost Of His Presidency

First the Associated Press and now CBS is finding fault with Obama's claims from last night's 30-minute ad. In a nutshell, Wyatt Andrews shows us that it will not be possible for Obama to keep his campaign promises (just like Bill Clinton was unable to keep his) when it came to budgets, new spending and taxes.

From the article:

Let's start with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges. Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?

And this:

Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign's own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.

But what a great time to be a worker who owes no taxes! You get a check for not paying taxes at all! Wealth redistribution, here we come!

And this:

Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.

Yep. That wealth redistribution check isn't going to mean much to the workers who will lose their jobs because their employers are getting over-taxed.

Fact: Obama's claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.

And we already know what happened in Canada and Great Britain with their versions of socialized medicine.

Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it's for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once. Remember he also mentioned rebuilding the military ($7 billion/yr); his education initiative ($18 billion/yr); and his energy initiative ($15 billion/yr). He did not mention the $188 billion that he would spend on the brand new stimulus package he has proposed. If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession. He gave us a very compelling vision with his ad buy tonight. What he did not give us was any hint of the cold reality he's facing or a sense of how he might prioritize his promises if voters trust him with the White House.

Awesome article!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Reality Check: The Cost Of Obama's Pledges
Wyatt Andrews
CBS News
October 29, 2008

Associated Press Rips Obama's Infomercial, Ad Skips Over Budget Realities

Now, the Associated Press is not what anyone would call a bastion of right-wing philosophy. In fact, it is a very leftist organization. That is why it is fairly big news when such an organization takes a leftist candidate for president to task over statements made during a half-hour long infomercial.

Calvin Woodward looks into a few of Barack Obama's claims and separates the fiction from the fact. From his article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office. Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are - beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Just like John Kerry, who claimed he had a plan, but refused to reveal that plan to the American people. Here are some examples of what Obama claimed versus the truth:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

This same system has been tried in Canada and Great Britain and each time were colossal failures. Even the Canucks and Brits admit that they don't have universal health care but rather that they have rationed health care. The quality of their care is now among the lowest in the industrialized world.

Obama's socialized health care plan is analyzed here:

Barack Obama Proposes A Disastrous Socialized Health Care System
84rules
June 18, 2008

And that plan would be rife with fraud:

Medicare Rife With Fraud: The Dems Model For Socialized Medicine
84rules
August 26, 2008

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. " THE FACTS: His proposals - the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more - cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged - although not in his commercial - that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Just a short while ago, it was a tax cut for working families making less than $250,000 per year. Joe Biden has put that figure at $150,000 per year. But history shows us that it is a campaign promise that he cannot keep. Bill Clinton promised no new taxes for anyone making less than $90,000 per year in 1992. The reality was that in order to fund his spending porgrams, people making as little as $30,000 per year were gouged for more taxes. Barack Obama would find the same problem in keeping his promise of a lower threshold. Economists from several different institutions have worked the numbers out and have predicted that families making $45,000 per year will have more taxes taken from their paychecks.

Small businesses won't do any better under Obama:

Obamanomics Is A Recipe For Recession
84rules
July 30, 2008

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Prime-Time Ad Skips Over Budget Realities
Calvin Woodward
Associated Press via My Way News
October 29, 2008

What's On The Videotape That The Los Angeles Times Is Hiding?

That's the hot question right now. Does it show Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? What did Barack Obama say to Rashid Khalidi back in 2003? Why is the L.A. Times refusing to make this tape public? What is it that the Times is trying to hide about Barack Obama?

For a good overview of the story, go see Texas Darling over at TD Blog:

LA Times Abandons Code Of Ethics
TD Blog
October 28, 2008

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations, ACORN Staffer Corroborates

Ever wonder how Barack Obama is making his campaign millions? Earlier this year, it was from foreign donors. When that was discovered, his campaign allegedly gave the money back. But now, new evidence is surfacing that Obama is skirting the law and getting his campaign cash in a way that would make corrupt Chicago politicians proud.

Untraceable pre-paid credit cards. That's right. This isn't a joke. Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post has this story:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.

And how do they know this?

The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election. Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. "That's an error," she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

Sounds just like what a Chicago-style politician would resort to in order to circumvent the law.

But it isn't just the Obama campaign that is under scrutiny for this. A former ACORN staffer named Anita Moncrief is suggesting one method of how these donations are solicited. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

Why identify them if they are "maxed out?" To get them to contribute elsewhere, or through different channels. That's why.

You can access the Washington Post article on-line here:

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Matthew Mosk
The Washington Post
October 29, 2008

And the Pittburgh Tribune-Review article on-line here:

Former ACORN Staffer Testifies
Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
October 29, 2008

Barack Obama's Plan To Force Socialism On The United States, Even Though We Don't Want It

84%. That's how many Americans think that the Marxist philosophy of "redistributing the wealth" is wrong. Thus, even if Barack Obama wins next week, he will run into a wall of opposition from the American people. So, what will he do about it?

Simple. He will stack the courts.

Steven G. Calabresi over at the Wall Street Journal has penned a great column and shows us exactly how Obama plans to do it. With a possible four Supreme Court appointments, Obama would certainly appoint socialists and other extreme leftists to the High Court. That will be majorly bad news for America since it would mean a permanent socialist government from which we may never escape and any attempts to remove such a government could be struck down by Obama's socialist judges. (I can say this with a straight face because Europe, despite the troubles they have faced, have never been able to get rid of the socialism that they are shackled under for the same reason.)

From Mr. Calabresi's column:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

And here we are, back to redistribution of the wealth, an idea that only brought disaster to the economies of any nation that has ever tried it.

And it wasn't just his comment to Joe the Plumber. Obama had designs on socialist intervention long before that:

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

The prospect of a socialist presidency should scare everybody. In his misguided attempts to bring about "social economics" to the poor, Obama is going to hurt them even more. By taking money away from those who pay the wages, those who work for the wages will be hurt. He may be giving away $1000 checks to those wage earners in exchange for their vote, but that won't make up for the jobs that wage earners will lose under a cruching tax increase.

And for those of you who don't believe that history can repeat itself:

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

It happened under Carter, and will be even worse under Obama.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution
Steven G. Calabresi
The Wall Street Journal
October 28, 2008

Obama's Definition Of 'Rich' Seems To Be Going Down

It used to be that according to Barack Obama, if you made less than $250,000 per year, you would not see an increase in taxes. Now, in his latest ad, Obama has lowered that to $200,000 and maybe even $150,000 if we are to believe Joe Biden.

According to National Review:

Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut."

Obama's Moving Tax Threshold: $250,000? $200,000? $150,000? What Next?
Byron York
National Review
October 28, 2008

And in Pennsylvania yesterday, Joe Biden said that tax relief should only go to "middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year."

It looks like Obama and Biden are finally fessing up to how much they will really have to gouge the American worker to pay for all that wealth redistribution they have planned. Chances are, anyone making over $42,000 per year is going to get gouged even further.

Check out the video of Joe Biden over at Hot Air:

Video: Biden Talking About Taxing Incomes Over $150K, Not $250K, Now?
HotAir.com
October 28, 2008

Watch Obama as he lowers the bar to $200,000 over at YouTube:

Obama Ad In Which He Breaks His Promise Not To Tax Those Under $250,000 A Year
YouTube
October 28, 2008

Joe Biden Collapses Under Tough Question About Being A Marxist From WFTV Florida News Anchor

The Dems are so used to getting a pass from the media that one could have predicted Joe Biden's response when finally asked a tough question. WFTV Channel 9 news anchorwoman Barbara West asked just such a question to Joe Biden. In response, Biden shyed away rather than actually answer the question.

From Sky News:

During a fiery interview, Florida anchor-woman Barbara West also asked if Mr Obama's comments that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," meant he was going to turn the United States into a socialist country. The Democratic nominee made the comments during his now famous campaign chat with an Ohio voter known as 'Joe the Plumber.' West said:"You may recognise this famous quote: 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,' that's from Karl Marx. "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?" After a short pause Senator Biden replied: Are you joking...is this a joke...or is that a real question."

The newsworthy item here is not that Joe Biden thought the whole thing was a joke. The newsworthy item is that it is a legitimate question given Barack Obama's stated socialist positions on economic issues and Joe Biden had a meltdown over it.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Barbara West had this to say:

"I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don't think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough. I can't believe that in all of his years in politics, and all of his campaigning and such, that he hasn't run into some tough questions before. He's certainly up to it in giving good answers."

But Joe and the Dems aren't used to getting tough questions from journalists. They are used to softball questions from supporters like Chris Matthews and Charles Gibson. One tough question and they instantly go into whine overdrive and complain that no one likes them.

In response to the interview, the Obama campaign said they would no longer cooperate with WFTV but would rather talk with media outlets that ask easy questions.

You can access the complete article and blog entry on-line here:

Joe Biden In TV 'Marxist' Row
Sky News
October 28, 2008

WFTV's Barbara West On Her Interview With Joe Biden: "I Don't Think I Was Rude Or Inconsiderate To Him"
Orlando Sentinel
October 24, 2008

You can watch the interview on-line here:

WFTV Interviews Joe Biden
HotAir.com
October 25, 2008

More On Double Standards Held By The Left

It isn't just the wardrobe. It's everything. Gov. Sarah Palin has been dragged through the slime by the leftist MSM. But, can you imagine if others were held to the same standard as Gov. Palin is held to simply because she is a woman?

Pat Buchanan looks at some of this in his latest column. From Real Clear Politics:

Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe [Biden] declared a few weeks back, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and ... said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television. Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle? Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe. ... Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary's campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama's cocaine use on "Hardball," he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard. The people apparently had a "right to know" of Bush's old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine. The media cannot get enough of the "Saturday Night Live" impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all. Can one imagine "Saturday Night Live" doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her "I've never been proud" of my country, this "just downright mean" America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent? "Saturday Night Live" would be facing hate crime charges.

Sexism reigns supreme on the left.

Is there anyone out there who still believes that the MSM is fair and objective?

I don't.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Camp Followers
Patrick Buchanan
Real Clear Politics
October 24, 2008

CNN's Campbell Brown On the Double Standard Being Applied To Sarah Palin And The New York Times Won't Name ACORN

Every now and then, even the leftist news organizations allow some nuggets of truth to slip through. I'm certain the producers at CNN are not thrilled with this, but Campbell Brown had something to say about all the attention that Sarah Palin's wardrobe was getting.

The transcript from Wednesday's Election Center:

CAMPBELL BROWN: ...[F]irst, as we do every night, we’re cutting through the bull -- a lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin’s clothes. Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup for Palin on the campaign trail. Now, these are not your tax dollars. This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it's legal to use campaign cash for quote,’personal use.’ My issue: there is an incredible double standard here, and we're ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. This is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin’s jackets, her hair, her looks. Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison. Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men, and look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it, a lot of e-mail, seriously. When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is, for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job. If Wolf or Anderson shows up on the air without makeup, do you think you would even notice? I show up on the air without makeup, trust me, you’ll notice. This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue, and it’s for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for hair, clothes, and makeup. It is part of the job. Now, you may think that’s an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair, and makeup, or you may complain, as some have, it’s hypocritical to sell yourself as a small-town hockey mom when you’re wearing designer clothes. That's fine. Just don't ignore the fact that there is a double standard here and personally, I think, in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue. I myself have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let’s keep the focus on what really matters here.

This is absolutely true. I have never seen a man running for public office put under the scrutiny that Sarah Palin has been put under simply because she is a woman.

CNN’s Campbell Brown Rips ‘Double Standard’ on Palin Clothing Issue
Matthew Balan
NewsBusters.org
October 23, 2008

---

And how about the New York Times? They can't even bring themselves to name the voter-fraud group ACORN in the headline of a story about voter fraud.

From Ed Laskey at the American Thinker:

So now the Times has to own up to the fact that its dismissive attitude towards criticism of ACORN was wrong. Why does The Times refer to a "Group"; by now, its readers are surely familiar with the "group's" name: ACORN. Will the Times own up to the fact that it was also wrong regarding the extent of the ties between Barack Obama and ACORN, which it also dismissed as so much piffle? The fact that the campaign funneled over $800,000 dollars to a corrupt group that has engaged in massive voter fraud, that illegally used get out the vote efforts for partisan purposes, that Barack Obama had ACORN as a client, that Barack Obama trained ACORN (though his campaign peddled the deceptive line that he was not ever a "hired" as a trainer. True-he thought so highly of the group he trained them for free).

Lasky also notes that nearly one in three registrations by ACORN were outright frauds and asks why anyone would not worry about it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New York Times Can't Bring Itself To Name ACORN In Its Headline On Voter Fraud Story
Ed Lasky
American Thinker
October 24, 2008

Democrats Getting More Violent, Shoot Up House In Florida

It happened back in 2004 and it is happening again, but you will never hear about it from the MSM unless the party affiliations were reversed.

A homeowner in Florida was targeted because he is a McCain supporter. From the local News Channel 6 in Seminole County:

The home of a Central Florida Republican headquarters manager was shot up and damaged over his support of Sen. John McCain, the man told police. Rog Coverely said several pellets pierced his Longwood home. Coverely showed several spiderwebbed-holes in the front windows of his home. ... "All I can tell you is this, I have a very good relationship with my neighbors," Coverely said. "I mow my lawn. The only thing that has changed is I have two McCain signs in my front yard." Coverely said he has taken about 300 calls concerning stolen or vandalized McCain signs in the area. "It says this campaign is getting vicious," Coverely said. Coverely said it appears Democrats are becoming more aggressive in the county. "I wouldn't say slipping but I would say the Democrats have become far more aggressive in Seminole County because it is such a heavy Republican area," Coverely said.

I thought the Democrats proclaimed themselves the partry of "peace" and "non-violence."

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Republican HQ Manager's Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs
Local6.com
October 22, 2008

The Dumbing Down Of America: John Stossel Highlights Why Indoctrination In Our Schools Is So Devestating

One thing that we bloggers do which, by and large, the MSM does not, is we reference previous news stories and blog entries to give a greater understanding of how certain issues affect us or to show that those issues have a greater effect than is generally acknowledged. That is why John Stossel's column about the ignorance and lack of knowledge demonstrated by certain young voters reminded me of something I posted several weeks ago.

The National Education Association held a conference during which they hammered out their agenda for what they thought should be taught to children in public schools. It was quite a long list, but what is important to note are the things that were not included. Things like mathematics, history, science, reading and writing. No, instead, they proposed that children of all ages be indoctrinated in other topics like same-sex relationships, politics of global warming (not the science, the politcs as prescribed by Al Gore), political activism, gender politics, affirmative action quotas and the NEA also proposes that only state-licensed teacher do the indoctrinating so that parents are cut out of the loop as much as possible.

The National Education Association (NEA) Spells Out Its Policies
84rules
August 6, 2008

Well, John Stossel's column, which really exposes the lack of knowledge demonstrated by kids coming out of our public schools today, shows exactly what effect the efforts of the NEA and other leftist teacher's groups are having. He talked with some of those potential voters and got some very troubling responses to his questions. From ABC News:

Some people were knowledgeable. "There are two senators from each state, making a total of 100," one young voter said. Another knew that "the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution." But many of the young voters didn't seem very informed. Some didn't know how many states are in the U.S. or how many senators there are. Few could explain Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding abortion rights. "Roe v. Wade is segregation maybe?" one new voter guessed. Another asked: "Was Roe v. Wade where we declared bankruptcy?" And still another wondered, "That was about a black person and a white person?"

How important those history lessons and civics classes seem now.

And it wasn't just the kids at rock concerts:

Maybe it's not fair to pick on kids at a rock concert. So "20/20" moved on to our nation's capital and spoke to prospective voters on the Washington Mall. Certainly people there will know more, won't they? People were shown some pictures of prominent Americans, like John McCain and Barack Obama. Everyone recognized Obama and McCain. And maybe half the people knew who Sarah Palin was. But Joe Biden? Most didn't recognize the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Few recognized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yet almost everyone recognized television's Judge Judy. "Maybe 75 percent of people can name the vice president. ... The public's knowledge of politics is shockingly low," economist Bryan Caplan said. In his book "The Myth of the Rational Voter," Caplan argues that people who know little about our government ought to stay home on Election Day. But aren't Americans always told it's their civic duty to vote?

There has been a major push for the last 30 years to dumb-down America and that push has come from leftists groups like the NEA. The effect is starting to show. Students' heads are being filled with alot of knowledge that is utterly useless to them, but useful to those who would like to control them.

We need to be taking a closer look at what our teachers are teaching our children and begin holding them accountable for failing to educate. Of course, this means that the NEA will come to their defense and demand even more indoctrination, but we have to stand firm against them too. Our children are too precious a resource to waste on the political agendas of the NEA and teacher's unions.

The end result will be voters who think there are 57 states and elected officials who pal around with domestic terrorists.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Maybe It's Your Civic Duty Not To Vote
John Stossel
ABC News
October 9, 2008

Barack Obama Would Grant Citizenship To 12 Million Illegals

How would a Democrat president who has raised taxes, opened our borders, been soft on terrorism and is now presiding over an economy heading into depression, maintain power in the next election? Simple, he and his rubberstamp Democrat-controlled Congress, will grant amnesty and then citizenship to a voting bloc of 12 million illegal aliens.

Sound preposterous? Before you start saying that, consider the following:

A Barack Obama administration would be a “nation killer” if Democrats attain a “supermajority” in the Senate, a leading conservative figure on immigration warned Tuesday. Obama also has said he wants to make the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. citizens as soon as he can — an amnesty program that would make them legally entitled to full government benefits, including Social Security and health care. William Gheen, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), says Obama’s plan would make it politically impossible to secure America’s borders. He describes Obama and a new Democratic Congress as a “worst-case scenario” for border and immigration security. “I would paint that scenario as a nation killer,” Gheen, a former campaign consultant and an outspoken advocate for stronger border control policies, tells Newsmax. “I would expect amnesty to pass within a year. That means in the next presidential election, you will have a new voting bloc of 15 million illegal aliens who turn into voters.

And the reason we can be so confident in that statement is:

As a state senator in Illinois, for example, Obama co-sponsored that state’s version of the DREAM Act, which allowed youngsters in the country illegally to receive in-state tuition. He later supported similar legislation in the U.S. Senate. ... Obama, who tends to dismiss discussion of his pro-immigration positions as politically motivated “distractions,” has demonstrated no such reticence to expand entitlements for illegals. Specifically: Obama’s plan for universal health care would include coverage for illegal immigrants, according to political strategist and Newsmax columnist Dick Morris. Morris has warned that covering illegals “adds dramatically” to the cost of universal health care. In March, Obama voted to table a Senate amendment that would support the withdrawal of federal assistance “to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists.” McCain did not cast a vote. Obama supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation that was defeated in 2006. Since then, McCain has taken the position that securing the borders must precede immigration reform. Obama continues to support a process to “bring people out of the shadows” and eventually obtain legal status (at which point they would be eligible for the federally mandated benefits available to anyone, such as Social Security). Obama also calls for enhanced border security. The Democratic candidate for president supports, in principle, providing state-funded welfare benefits to legal immigrants. While a state senator, Obama supported allocating state funds to provide Medicaid coverage to some legal immigrants, according to OnTheIssues.org. Obama has supported increasing the number of work visas issued each year, such as the H1-B visa, especially for applicants with specialized skills. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama co-sponsored, along with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a bill that would provide federal funding to help states provide health care and education to non-U.S. citizens. Obama strongly supports encouraging American children to become bilingual and, at one point in the campaign, appeared to suggest it should be mandatory. In June, he voted against a Senate provision that would declare English the national language of the United States. McCain voted for it.

If these illegals are granted amnesty and then citizenship, it would turn the United States into the economic hell-hole that is today's Mexico.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals To Get Citizenship
David A Patten
NewsMax.com
October 22, 2008

John David Powell: Don't Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President

I just got a hold of this article. It is a gem that contains nuggets of wisdom that will go a long way to helping people see clearly what is happening in the politcal arena right now and what will happen in the years to come.

John David Powell takes a look at a couple of the issues we have been facing in this election and how the Obama campaign responded to them compared to how other campaigns responded in the past.

Let's start with playing the race card:

[T]oday, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama. Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

I've even had some comments left on certain posts of this blog accusing me of racism despite the fact that the issue of race was never brought up in those postings. Just the fact that I am opposed to a socialist candidate was enough justification for commenters to bring out the race card and a braod-brushed, unsubstantiated charge. As Dustin Hoffman said in Hook: "Bad form."

And we always seem to come back to domestic terrorist William Ayers:

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust. Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today. If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves. That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.

That is a dead-on-target shot that the Obama campaign cannot dodge. If Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for being a friend and business partner to a man who committed terrorist acts when Obama was 8 years old, then neither can white people in general be held accountable for something that occurred long before any of them were even born. To hold such a double standard seems to be standard for the Democrats though. They hold a low standard for themselves and high standard for everyone else.

But what is Obama hiding by not being completely forthcoming with his past? And what is he afraid will happen if his past is brought up and scrutinized by the MSM? He certainly can't be afraid of losing the election. Powell looks at this too:

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president. The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency. The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know. And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

Yes, we knew more about George Bush in 2000 than we know about Barack Obama in 2008. We also know more about John McCain than we know about Barack Obama because John McCain is not afraid of people looking into his past.

That's trust.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Don't Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President
John David Powell
MensNewsDaily.com
October 21, 2008

A Look At What Joe Biden Meant Last Sunday And Democrats Resorting To Violence

Joe Biden let slip some very important information last Sunday when he spoke about how Obama would be tested in his first six months of his presidency and that his decisions would be unpopular with the American people.

Well, what would those situations be? And what decisions would be made?

Herb Denenberg of The Bulletin looks at that in his most recent column:

Why would they test his mettle? This was unsaid, but you test someone's mettle when you don't know what he's made of or when you suspect he's weak and you want to start testing for weakness. But here's why Sen. Biden is wrong on the world testing Sen. Obama's mettle. No one has to test his mettle. They know he is weak on foreign policy, and has a heavy tinge of appeasement, retreat, defeat, and surrender - as does the Democratic Party, which nominated him. Our enemies already knows Sen. Obama is weak and soft, as is his party, so our enemies will just proceed with their plans for terrorism and aggression. Why would the Russians want to test his mettle? They saw what he is made of by his reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, Sen. Obama called for restraint on both sides. So the Russians know, that in the face of aggression, instead of taking a firm stand with an ally and innocent victim, Sen. Obama calls for restraint on the part of the victim being invaded. Why test someone who has so clearly flunked his exam? Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama suggest the matter be sent to the Security Council. The Russians now know he is so wet behind the ears on foreign policy that he doesn't even know the Russians have a veto in the Security Council and could make sure nothing happened there. Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama observe that we'd be in a better position to complain about this aggression if we set a good example ourselves. So the Russians know he equates their illegal, unprovoked aggression against Georgia with America's legal, U.N.-sanctioned liberation of Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. This tells the Russians he doesn't approve of America using armed force to defend its national interests and he doesn't have the sense to refrain from criticizing his own country in a time of international crisis.

And on Iran, Obama is known for this:

The Iranians would lose no time in attacking one of their neighbors, most likely Israel. Perhaps by then armed with nuclear weapons, they would use them on a neighbor, or threaten to blackmail a neighbor or perhaps even a continent such as Europe, if certain concessions were not forthcoming. Obama would call for restraint, and assure the American people again, as he has already done, that Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat to the U.S. The Iranians know he said this while they were killing American troops in Iraq, sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq and serving as the headquarters of international terrorism. The Iranians know what others have already said - Sen. Obama is a Jimmy-Carter type, only worse. They know how President Carter locked himself in the White House and did not face down international lawlessness after the Iranian took American hostages at our embassy in Teheran. Why test his mettle, when his record suggests an enemy of America can invade, attack, and terrorize with impunity. Remember his reaction to 9/11 - the typical liberal, leftist response. We've got to understand why they did such a terrible thing. Anyone with good judgment would say we've got to kill and defeat all those responsible for this mass murder. When Pastor Rick Warren asked him what he would do about evil, he danced around like a confused college professor. When Sen. McCain was asked the same question, he said, without hesitation, you defeat it. Terrorists would be aware of Sen. Obama's reaction to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He said you handle it with the legal system and prosecute wrongdoers. I'm sure al-Qaeda is trembling waiting for a grand jury and indictments from Obama? Will that really deter terrorists or just give them a fat laugh? Like Obama, President Clinton believed in the law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that mistake led directly to 9/11.

And Biden should know what it means to be wrong on foreign policy issues. He has made more than his share of mistakes along the way:

Our enemies know how naïve Sen. Obama is on foreign policy, as they know he announced to the world that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was and if he were in Pakistan, he would strike him without permission of that country. Sen. Kit Bond, an intelligence expert whose comments will be discussed in more detail later, says Sen. Obama "doesn't understand how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over." His outburst on this subject betrays a lack of understanding on how to deal with a present ally in a most precarious position. And all the axis of evil would be emboldened knowing that Sen. Obama's key adviser on foreign policy would likely be Sen. Biden, who has a record of being wrong and often weak on almost all questions of foreign policy. Consider a few of his hare-brained judgments: * After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Sen. Biden opposed the first war against Iraq. He apparently was willing to cede the entire Middle East and all of its oil to Saddam Hussein. * Before Sen. McCain succeeded in turning the tide toward American victory in Iraq, Sen. Biden wanted to break Iraq into a group of separate nations that would include a Sunni state, a Shia state and a Kurdish state.

And finally this:

Sen. Bond summarized the whole Obama approach: "He [Obama] dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists."

It will not look good for the United States if Barack Obama gets into the White House. He will invite attacks against innocent Americans and then refuse to effectively respond to those attacks which will, in turn, invite more attacks.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Would Weaken, Destroy American Defenses And Bring Challenges
Herb Denenberg
The Bulletin
October 22, 2008

---

And here is a news story you will never see in the MSM unless the politcal affiliations were reversed. from Pajames Media:

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs. On a Monday afternoon, September 15, 2008, three McCain volunteers were holding campaign signs and distributing leaflets on a busy corner of 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. As they were peacefully talking to each other, they were approached by a man who, in the words of the victim, provided the impression of “a rather benign, doughy-looking guy — not a person I would have expected to assault me.”

Here is a picture of the attacker:



You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:

Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York
Pajamamedia.com
October 17, 2008

Joe Biden: Barack Obama Will Invite An International Crisis

Here is something you probably did not see on the morning news or during the evening news on TV. Joe Biden made yet another gaffe, although I think it more likely that he was speaking serously. He made some comments about what an Obama presidency would mean, especially during the first six months.

From Joe Murray at The Bulletin:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Mr. Biden said. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America." Mr. Biden was passionate in his prediction, adding, "Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said ... Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." He promised a crisis would occur, explaining, "As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate."

What Biden is saying here is that the election of Barack Obama will encourage some world actor to take some sort of action against the United States that will cause and international crisis. But that isn't all:

The Delaware senator further predicted the course of action a President Obama would take would be unpopular, suggesting Mr. Obama supporters would have to "gird their loins" as unfavorable polling data was all but certain a year from now. "I promise you ... We're going have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years," Mr. Biden. "I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us." ... While fundraisers are generally closed to the press, this Seattle fundraiser was not, and it appeared such realty had slipped Mr. Biden's mind. "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here," Mr. Biden said before ending his remarks shortly thereafter.

No, Mr. Biden. It is a good thing that you did say these things. Now we have more information about Barack Obama's lack of ability to lead the United States. We also know that Obama will probably make the wrong decisions given that you are already predicting low poll numbers.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Biden Says The World Will Test Obama If Elected
Joe Murray
The Bulletin
October 21, 2008

Hypocrisy Of The Leftist Media And The Obama Campaign

So, now that Joe Wurzelbacher has forced Barack Obama into admitting that he is a socialist, what does the media do? They attack Joe. But that is not the crux of this post.

Charles Krauthammer has penned a column that pretty much pegs Old Media and the Dems in general for their hypocritical stances on stories relating to the campaign.

From his column at Town Hall:

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association -- with total strangers, mind you -- but worse: guilty according to The New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia." But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations -- 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN -- you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association.

And it isn't just what the libs are reading into these situations. Sometimes, they make things up knowing that other libs are going to be gullible enough to believe it.

Remember McCain's Berlin/celebrity ad that showed a shot of Paris Hilton? An appalling attempt to exploit white hostility at the idea of black men "becoming sexually involved with white women," fulminated New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He took to TV to denounce McCain's exhumation of that most vile prejudice, pointing out McCain's gratuitous insertion in the ad of "two phallic symbols," the Washington Monument and the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Except that Herbert was entirely delusional. There was no Washington Monument. There was no Leaning Tower. Just photographs seen in every newspaper in the world of Barack Obama's Berlin rally in the setting he himself had chosen, Berlin's Victory Column.

These charges of racism and other bogus claims are getting tiresome. One wonders where Old Media was when Obama supporters sported tee-shirts that referred to Hillary Clinton in derogatory terms. And where are the media charges of sexism whenever Obama supporters sport tee-shirts that read "Sarah Palin is a c*nt?"

Nowhere to be found. Old Media is so deep in the tank for Obama that you wonder why they haven't drowned yet.

But, the libs are attacking Democrats too.

On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice. This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card too?

In essence, here is what has happened:

Obama has a relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers: Ols Media ignores it.
Obama has a relationship with racist, America-hating Reverend Wright: Old Media ignores it.
Obama has a relationship with scandal-ridden ACORN: Old Media ignores it.

McCain points out Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers: Old Media accuses McCain of being racist.
Talk Radio and New Media bring to light Reverend Wright's anti-American speeches: Old Media accuses Talk Radio and New Media of being racist.
Republicans point out the relationship between Obama and ACORN: Old Media accuses the Republicans of being racist.

Notice the theme here? The only ones who are bringing up race are the libs and the Dems.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am getting really tired of these false accusations being thrown around.

The parting shot shows exactly how Obama has been playing the race card:

Just weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills." McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one. What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

That's right. When confronted with the truth, the Obama campaign couldn't show any evidence of racism at all.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Betrayed Message
Charles Krauthammer
TownHall.com
October 17, 2008

Joe Biden Attacks Joe Wurzelbacher, Small Businesses And Middle America

It was pretty clear that Barack Obama was on the defensive last night and one of the most powerful hits he took was his exchange with Joe Wurzelbacher about "spreading the wealth around." Well, Joe has now become "Joe the Plumber" and is a national celebrity, whether he wants to be or not. (I don't think that was his intention.)

In fact, Joe the Plumber has become such a rallying cry that the Obama campaign has sent out Joe Biden to attack him. But Biden doesn't realize the symbolism he is attacking nor does he realize who he is attacking. Attacking Joe the Plumber is like attacking the working class. It is like attacking small businesses. It is an attack on middle America.

Here is what Biden said:

"John [McCain] continues to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber," Biden said on NBC’s "Today" show. "I don't have any 'Joe the Plumbers' in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year." "The 'Joe the Plumbers' in my neighborhood, the 'Joe the Cops' in my neighborhood, the 'Joe the Grocery Store Owners' in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year."

But what Joe Biden said about 98% of small businesses making less than $250,000 is a lie. Even Barack Obama's assertion that less that 95% of small businesses making less than $250,000 a year is a lie.

The IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin clearly shows that over two-thirds of small businesses make over $250,000 per year. That's 66%, not the 5% that Obama claims nor the 2% that Biden claims.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, other factors of the Obama Tax Plan will be significant as well. For instance, the tax rate on the majority of small businesses will go to 54.9% (39.6% individual and 15.3% Social Security/Medicare; add them together) and this would be the highest since the Carter Administration, the results of which gave us double-digit inflation and unemployment.

And what kind of small businesses will be affected? Look here: U.S. Small Business Administration - Table Of Small Business Size Standards. You'd be surprised at who is going to be paying those higher taxes.

When these taxes are enacted by a President Obama with a Democrat-controlled rubber-stamp Congress, 116 million jobs will be put at risk.

That is going to be one of the worst all-out assaults the socialists have waged against the working class. And Joe Biden, by attacking Joe Wurzelbacher has sounded the clarion call.

You can access the video of Joe Biden on-line here:

Video Of Joe Biden Attacking Joe Wurzelbacher
YouTube.com
October 16, 2008

Joe Wurzelbacher: The New Symbol Of American Small Business

ABC's Teddy Davis has a report about Joe Wurzelbacher, the plumber who asked Barack Obama about taxing small businesses, and the plumber's views on those taxes. Joe has come to symbolize the small business in America and the frustration small businesses deal with when having to face government bureaucarcy and tax laws.

Here is a recap of the exchange between Joe and Obama:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream." "It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

In a moment of unscripted speech, Barack Obama let slip that he is, in fact, a socialist and wants to redistribute America's wealth by taking money away from those who worked to earn it and giving it to those who did not work to earn it.

Thus, it is completely understandable why Joe Wurzelbacher is so infuriated. Here is what he said on Nightline:

"To be honest with you, that infuriates me," plumber Joe Wurzelbacher told Nightline's Terry Moran. "It's not right for someone to decide you made too much---that you've done too good and now we're going to take some of it back." "That's just completely wrong," he added. Wurzelbacher, who says no one from the McCain campaign got in touch with him before Wednesday, was a centerpiece of the third and final presidential debate.

And a majority of small businesses across the American landscape feel the same. Why work to succeed and grow if the government is going to come in and confiscate your earnings? Barack Obama's tax plan would effectively put a roof on how large a business can get, which in turn, also limits how many people a business can employ and how much those employees can get paid.

Joe was trying to make Barack Obama aware of this, but socialists don't listen to such rational arguments.

Now, some libs in the media are starting to parse words and argue semantics over who would get taxed for how much, but they completely miss the relevent point that the Obama plan is still a socialist tax increase that will have devastating effects on our economy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'
Teddy Davis
ABC News
October 16, 2008

Memo To Chris Buckley: Don't Let The Door Hit Ya ...

... where the good Lord split ya!

I know. I should probably be thinking about the story of the Prodigal Son or something like that, but Chris Buckley didn't just squander his inheritance, he tossed it under the bus forever. He will never again be trusted as a Conservative (or Libertarian) simply because he thrust, not a dagger, but a machete in the backs of his former fellow Conservatives.

And he didn't do it lightly. He was on Hannity a few weeks ago and during the interview he mentioned to Hannity that he might end up voting for Barack Obama. His reasons? He didn't like McCain. He didn't know who John McCain was.

He even said as much in a Daily Beast column he wrote to endorse Barack Obama and that excoriates John McCain.

A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

Well, Chris, McCain might have been thinking about something you wrote earlier this year for the New York Times:

And yet the sum of Mr. McCain seems (to me, anyway) far greater than the parts. How many elections offer such an inspired biography as his? And who among “us” ... would not sleep soundly knowing that the war hero was on the job calculating how to dispatch more Islamic fanatics to their rendezvous with 72 virgins, without an interlude of waterboarding, while in his spare time vetoing Senator Cochran’s latest earmark.

Sounds to me like Chris has changed, and not for the better. In the fit of a temper tantrum he has decided to embrace a socialist who has admitted that he will work to redistribute wealth a la Karl Marx, has worked with unrepentent domestic terrorists, attended a racist, America-hating church for 20 years, and worked his way up through the corrupt Chicago political machine.

Given all of that, here is what Chris has to say about Barack Obama:

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest. I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets.

Balanced budgets? Has Chris ever read any of Obama's economic plans? The social programs are going to send our deficit through the roof!

And as for Chris' contention that he himself is a "small government Conservative," I am sure you can see how transparent that claim is given that he in endorsing a large-government socialist!

More:

If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

And somehow Chris has naïvely missed the fact this is exactly what Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress intend to do!

Chris actually has the audacity to paraphrase Ronald Reagan by writing: "I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me." He even went so far as to say that Reagan was a "real Conservative."

Real Conservatives don't endorse tax-hiking, large government socialists, Chris. In fact, the man you are endorsing for president represents everything that Ronald Reagan stood against! What twisted logic did you follow in order to invoke the words of Ronald Reagan so far out of context? What blinders do you have on that prevent you from seeing the fact that you just abandoned all of your Conservative principles in one single column?

Chris, I can only say "Good-bye" to you and hope that we never have to deal with your naïveté again. I also hope you find a nice new home among all those left-over hippies from the 60's and that they don't make you pay too much for whatever it is that you have been smoking.

And please, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

You can access the complete articles on-line here:

The Manchurian Conservative
Chris Buckley
New York Times
February 19, 2008

Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting For Obama
Chris Buckley
The Daily Beast
October 10, 2008

How Much Will Your 401k Be Worth In The Next Four Years?

While Barack Obama is promising a tax cut to a majority of Americans, the truth is that his economic policies will send us spiraling into a deep recession if not a depression. One of the ways to see this clearly is to look at your 401k or other savings that you may have for retirement.

Americans For Tax Reform (ATR) has a 401k calculator that predicts what your 401k would look like under four different tax schemes. There is the Barack Obama plan, the John McCain plan, the House Dems' plan and the ATR Fantasy plan. Check it out:

If you know the value of your 401k, enter it in the box and then click "calculate." You'll see how much the value will go up or down as a result.

As bad as Barack Obama's plan is, the plan presented by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Congressional Democrats is actually worse.

To find out what the ATR Fantasy plan is go to the following website:

Americans For Tax Reform

New Sexist Campaign From The Left: Tee-Shirts That Say "Sarah Palin Is A ..."

Care to guess what word they used? Take a look at this picture:



Now, if you were a Democrat, would you want fellow your Democrats talking about your wife, daughter or mother that way?

This irrational hatred of Sarah Palin has taken the Women's movement back several steps. It used to be that all those "tolerant" people on the left would accuse Conservatives of promoting negative images of women or of judging according to sex rather than ability.

Well, today the Democrats are blatently doing exactly what they've accused the Republicans of for the past 30 years. I guess that means the Democrats are saying it's okay to use derogatory terms to refer to women. At least, I have yet to hear about or read anything from the DNC or the Obama Campaign condemning such behavior.

There is a word for the actions of Democrats like Steve Sims, Kristy Benjamin, Lindsey Hager, Drew Forni, and Lindsay Woods (the five pictured in the above image): chutzpuh.

I don't ever again want to hear one little peep from any Democrat accusing me of being any kind of sexist ever again!

UPDATE:

Turns out that this tee-shirt is also depicted on barack Obama's website. I guess Barack Obama approves of the sexist message:

Barack Obama's Socialist Agenda Revealed By His Own Words

I've known for a long time that Barack Obama and the vast majority of Democrats in this country are socialists. It's in their policies, it's in their rhetoric and it's in their anti-American stances.

But, Barack Obama finally made that admission in no uncertain terms when he answered a question this past weekend from a small business owner, a man who happens to be a plumber in Ohio. Here is a transcript of what transpired:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream." "It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

So, Obama wants to take money away from the people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's it. That's his whole economic plan in a nutshell and he even admitted to it. Look at his words: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." That is a one-hundred percent endorsement for wealth redistribution a la Karl Marx.

Punishing people for being successful is precisely what socialists do because it discourages success. Obama says he wants everyone to have a "chance for success?" Why work to succeed if the government is only going to tax away the fruit of your hard work?

This leads to a very important question that Dr. Bobby Eberle asks:

Does Obama really understand the essence of America? It is strong because of the American spirit of invention and the bravery to undertake new endeavors. Those at the economic bottom DO NOT create jobs. Those at the economic bottom get hired for jobs. When the economy is robust, more jobs are created, thus more people get hired. There's not a business existing in America today that doesn't want to "do more business." In order to grow, more workers must be hired, and more capital purchased... both of which benefit the economy. Doesn't Obama understand this??? Let's just do a little simple math to see how taxes really work. Let's say there is a person making $50,000/year and paying 15% in federal income tax. Thus, the person's yearly tax burden is $7,500. If someone making $1,000,000/year paid at the same tax rate, they would pay $150,000 in taxes. So, the person making $50,000 pays $7,500, and the person making a million pays $150,000. Those who make more money, pay more in taxes. It's only logical.

But, since Barack Obama and the Dems are socialists, let's look at the way they try to twist the economy to their own benefit:

However, that is not how a socialist thinks. Rather than each person truly paying "their fair share," the socialist says that the "rich" person should not only pay more because he or she makes more, but they should also pay a higher percentage. So, the person making $1,000,000/year instead pays 35% in taxes for a tax bill of $350,000. That's an extra $200,000 that the government takes out of circulation to pay for their social engineering.

Now, that's $200,000 that will be taken out of the general economy which means it will not be used for capital investment nor for creating jobs. It will simply be squandered on some government hand-out program which does nothing more than reward able-bodied people for not working. In other words, the people who work to earn and produce will be supporting the people who sit back and live off of the government dole.

That's the socialists' dream. Get as many people on the dole as possible and then buy off their votes with more welfare checks. Of course every government that has tried this ended up with an enduring unemployment rate of anywhere between 10 and 20%. That too seems to be the vision Obama has for America.

Are you listening?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Socialist Agenda -- Is Anyone Listening?
Dr. Bobby Eberle
GOPUSA.com
October 14, 2008

ACORN Tries To Register Mickey Mouse In Florida

ACORN has got to be the biggest news story of the decade and Old Media outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post and New York Times) are completely ignoring it. I say "ignoring" because the information is out there and everybody knows it's happening. But, because of the bad press it would give to the Democrats and Barack Obama, the news outlets won't touch it.

This is from the St. Petersburg Times:

Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer. Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which was stamped with the logo of the nonprofit group ACORN. ... Nationwide, ACORN is a favorite GOP target for allegations of voter registration fraud this year. That's not new. Similar complaints followed the 2004 elections. A criminal investigation in Florida found no evidence of fraud. ACORN even has a cameo role in the scandal over the 2006 firings of several U.S. attorneys by the Bush Justice Department. ... Brevard County elections officials have turned over 23 suspect registrations from ACORN to prosecutors. The state Division of Elections has received two ACORN-related complaints, in Orange and Broward counties. ACORN wasn't active in the Tampa Bay area. Last week, however, Pinellas County elections officials gave local prosecutors 35 questionable registrations from another group, Work for Progress. The GOP accuses ACORN of registration fraud all over the country. In Las Vegas, authorities said the group's petitions included the names of the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys. "This is part of a widespread and systemic effort … to undermine the election process," says Republican National Committee chief counsel Sean Cairncross, who describes ACORN as a "quasicriminal organization."

If you aren't paying attention, you should start doing so. Bogus voter registrations for names like "Mickey Mouse" are easy to spot. But what if bogus voter registrations had names like "William Jackson," "Jennifer Hanson," or "Robert Hopkins?" (I randomly made up these names. My apologies to anyone who actually has them.) They wouldn't be so easy to detect. As such, it would become possible for one person to cast more than one vote.

We need to vigilant about this stuff. We need a President who will stand against voter fraud. Right now, Barack Obama doesn't stand against it. He simply complains about people rightfully linking him to ACORN.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Vote Drives Defended, Despite Fake Names
Richard Danielson
St. Petersburg Times
October 14, 2008

Even More ACORN Voter Fraud

Barack Obama must have been smiling ear to ear ... until the investigations began and the exposition of ACORN got underway. Even his website about "fighting the smears" had to be modified to try and put distance between him and the vote fraud group that he supports and who is endorsing him.

Check out the following screen shots. Here is what the original read:



And here is how they doctored it:



Notice the difference? the first image says he "never worked" for ACORN and the second says that he was "never hired." What are they trying to hide? Why the cover-up?

Maybe because of this:



Seems pretty silly for the Obama to go around trying to deny that Obama had any involvement with ACORN.

But here are some of ACORN's latest antics. From WNBC in New York:

A Cleveland teenager who claims he registered to vote 73 times over a five-month period has set of alarm bells among election officials in Ohio's most populous county. The bipartisan Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland voted unanimously Monday to ask Prosecutor Bill Mason to investigate multiple registrations by four people, including 19-year-old Freddie Johnson. All four said they signed forms at the behest of a community organizing group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, known as ACORN. Johnson said he was trying to help paid ACORN solicitors collect signed registrations. He said he has not voted, and said he filled out the cards because he was given cigarettes and about $20.

Thus, you can see why the Obama camp wants to lie their way out of the ACORN connection.

Check this out too:

Thousands of voter registration cards are in the middle of a national investigation. Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita says there's significance evidence that voter registration recruiting group ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards. ... "They've made up names before turning them in. They've used the names of people who have unfortunately been deceased or in a less fradulent fashion turned in ilegible voter registration or incomplete ones," said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. We caught Indiana Secretary of State and Chief Elections Officer Todd Rokita at a charity event Saturday night. He says those ineligible registration cards have shown up across the country including some in Lake and St. Joseph County. "I don't care who you vote for. I just want a 18 year old that's a United States citizen to vote, but I just want them to vote once," said Rokita. ... "The election will go on. We intend to have a fair and accurate election and the fact of the matter is it looks like we caught this nefarious action," said Rokita.

Yep. Obama has really stepped into this one. It's too bad Old Media isn't reporting on these things they way they should be.

You can access the complete articles on-line here:

Teenager: I Registered To Vote 73 Times
WNBC Channel 4
October 13, 2008

Voter Registration Fraud Under Investigation
Fox28.com
October 11, 2008