Do you believe you know Barack Obama well enough to vote for him because you have heard his speeches?
Are you apolitical? Do you not care about politics? Do you wish to stay neutral? Are you planning to vote Independent? If so, what do you think will happen to that vote? What do you think will happen if you don’t vote, or cast your vote for him thinking it’s just one of millions?
Barack Obama’s connections and ideology are not in line with the traditions and standards that have made this great nation successful and a sought-after destination, for immigrants as well as visitors and investors. His economic plans are fiscally unsound, he wants to meet with a dangerous Holocaust denier (and lies about Henry Kissinger giving him the thumbs up on this), and the ways he campaigns are reminiscent of Hitler Youth and Cultural Revolution-era thugs.
If you don’t know Barack Obama, get to know him. Neither party is going to have all the right answers, but Barack Obama’s is the only one that seeks to impose his “solutions” on others, whether they are willing or not.
A flattering earthy shade of brown, perhaps?
“For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”–John F. Kennedy
Jennifer Joyce, a high-profile prosecuting attorney, is one of two who will be “reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than 250K$ a year.”
The video above repeats what I have previously said: this is impossible given the fact that not everyone even pays income taxes.
Aside from that, I want to know why people in Missouri or any state should tolerate prosecuters proseletysing for the Barack Obama campaign or go after ads that are “misleading”–subjective to begin with–or false, especially when Obama himself not only has lied but been caught at it.
Joyce says, “[W]e’re here to respond to any character attacks, to set the record straight,” and prosecutor Bob McColloch declares: “If they’re not going to tell the truth, then somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s not true, this is the truth.'” So what happens when Obama’s own campaign lies? Is this the kind of oppressive rule he intends to force of the American people?
The people of the United States have the right to hear from both parties and make determinations on their own. Not only is Obama’s technique another step towards a nanny state–deciding what is good for us–but also is a reprehensible and flagrant violation of our right to information, free speech and freedom to assemble.
Is this the beginning of the “national security force” he proposes to establish?
More and more every day, each time Barack Obama opens his mouth I am reminded of two scary words: Cultural Revolution. Mao had people getting in the faces and business of those he didn’t like and going after people who made critical discussions on the actions of the state. He had bands of people running around engaging in “keeping order” as well. Now Obama is advocating that his minions get in people’s faces and form a group called the “truth squad” to silence his opponents by shouting them down and attempting to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights.
So how long until he asks for criticisms and recommendations and then gulags those who respond? When comes the day in which some of us will be required to publicly account for our sins and beg for the holy status of rehabilitated?
I’d like to believe all of this is as absurd as it sounds. Fear mongering is never an effective strategy, nor is a hyperventilating kind of activism. However, questions as addressed above, extreme as they appear on the surface, should give pause to those who like or dislike Obama and consider the effects of such behavior on the part of the Illinois senator, even if no one actually is jailed or prosecuted for their dissenting views.
As Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:
[N]o one actually has to be prosecuted for this to work. Prosecution will be impossible anyway in most cases thanks to the First Amendment. The point isn’t to jail critics but merely to price the cost of prospective litigation into their decision on whether to publicly criticize The One. Add this to the threatening letters his lawyers sent to station managers over the NRA ads, the flash-mob smearingof David Freddoso, and the appeal to the Justice Department to prosecute the American Issues Project for its perfectly factual yet devastating Ayers ad. Oh, the fun we’ll have with a deep blue Congress and an Obama-run DOJ and FCC. He promised you a “new type of politics,” didn’t he?
It’s stated well and I agree, but there also should be the caution to those who will silence or be silenced on the basis of fear.
We have seen time and again how Barack Obama ridicules John McCain’s policies and tries to duck when people ask him questions. In fact, he never really answers, but instead maneuvers the conversation over to what he thinks his opponent is doing wrong.
In the 2008 presidential debate aired Friday, Senator Obama checked off a series of proposals to protect taxpayers, including his assertion that “we’ve got to make sure we’re helping homeowners because the root problem here has to do with foreclosures that are taking place all across the country.” He went on to blame the current crisis on “eight years of economic policies promoted by George Bush and supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says we can shred regulations and consumer protections.”
Now I have a couple of questions about this. Exactly which homeowners is Senator Obama trying to help? The ones who can’t afford houses they should have never been approved to buy in the first place? Or are we talking here about the homeowners whose tax dollars may go to covering the cost of illegal immigrant and other homeowners whose subprime loans went into foreclosure?
And which regulations and consumer protections is he talking about when he accuses Bush and McCain of shredding them? Perhaps those of the Community Re-investment Act, which triggered lawsuits against banks that didn’t loan to people with bad credit or too-low income? And did the “consumer protections” he referenced include the charges of racism levelled at those who did not meet the CRA standards and quotas for loans to guarantee “affordable housing”?
It’s not that difficult to see a lack of substance in the speeches and panderings of Barack Obama, and in this reply he did not answer the question at all. His points (which were stretched to create more of them, by the way) were mere echoes of what the public has been critisising and not at all close to what he has been calling for in the past. His call for “oversight,” for example, is nothing more than posturing. Where was he when McCain was speaking out against these practises? The Democrats struck down McCain’s proposal in favor of “affordable housing,” but all Obama can do is repeat ad nauseum “Wall Street and Main Street” while he attacks the alleged “shredding” by Senator McCain.
The following video goes into great detail about how this current crisis came to pass. Please note it moves a bit fast and you should hover over the pause button to click when you want to read something before it moves to the next frame.
Reverse Spin has a lot more about how the MSM has essentially become Barack Obama’s press agent.
Not having TV (by choice) I’ve had to rely on the radio for this debate–the feed was about a minute off real time and the break up was slightly annoying, so I chose to forego that as well. It was a bit of a disadvantage since I’m a very visual person, but I was trying to pay close attention for audible squirms, and Obama provided me with many.
First of all, as Ed Morrissey points out below, what’s with this “John” business? Senator McCain is many years Obama’s senior in age as well as experience and the reference by first name really put me off. I am aware this doesn’t matter to some people who don’t believe being an elder can actually mean something, so I will grant that and move on.
Next, Obama was at a clear disadvantage when it came to Georgia–which he wouldn’t be if knew what he was talking about…or maybe if he hadn’t spoken first. He spoke in very general terms about Aggressor Russia with phrases and logic any high schooler could have posted on a chat forum. (No offense to high schoolers.) I wasn’t really sure what to expect from McCain, but when the hits came they were sure and swift. Point after point he hammered into Obama’s holes and I could practically hear the sweat poring from the Obama pores. When the Illinois senator began to speak, he seemed to borrow some of his newfound knowledge to make some talking points. If he thinks he gained any momentum it’s because he used what McCain had said to do a quick study.
Obama also seemed in the attack mode with his frequent interruptions, which McCain was tactful enough to indulge. Perhaps he knew he didn’t need to win the “I can talk louder than you” game because his victory would come later when people talked about how insecure Obama was with all that jumping into McCain’s points. It’s a bit of a shame I couldn’t see what the facial expressions were that each wore, but I did hear how secure and authoritative were the words of McCain, whereas Obama–especially in the latter half of the debate–stammered relentlessly. Clearly he had lost his cool. It seemed perhaps most apparent when he couldn’t remember the name of the serviceman whose mother had given him a bracelet, and I believe this will not be forgotten by the American people. There simply are too many who have contact with the military, whether they be families and friends, or neighbors, civilian-military contacts or even passing encounters in stores, fairs, parent-teacher meetings and so on. Over a year ago a Fort Richardson soldier tore a patch right off his shoulder and gave it to my son (now five). Children remember lots, of course–parents complain about it all the time. But at that age they also prioritise their memories, just as we do. Nevertheless, even more than one year later my son still recalls the soldier’s name and rank, as well as many of the details about that night at the airport. And he is not a United States senator. In my estimation it is shameful, degrading and disrespectful that of all names Senator Obama could not remember off the top of his head, it would be this one.
I also was incensed that Barack Obama claimed to have all along been saying Iran is a danger. (Note the date references in upper left corner of video below.)
This is an appalling claim to make given not only what he said, but also what he didn’t say. He didn’t bother to show up at the New York rally to demonstrate against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said nothing about how Sarah Palin was so shamelessly disinvited because the left considers partisan politics more important that defending the United States against a madman who can stand on our own soil and plan our destruction. Melanie Morgan wrote about how Obama has campaign connections as well to a group who brags about having met with Ahmadinejad, thinking they are actually achieving somethings besides putting this country at risk.
“Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans’ attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.”
I’m sure others will have many more things to say about this than I did, and I await them all. Now on to Debate # 1 wrap up.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the presidential debate tonight, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had to fly more than they expected in the last couple of days, and neither got a chance to focus on preparation, at least not to the extent they planned. I figured we’d see at least one major gaffe or breakdown from one of the candidates, and honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it.
However, I think both men did better than I expected. Neither seemed to show any effects from the hectic pace of the past week, and both appeared ready and relaxed at the start of tonight’s debate. I’d also include Jim Lehrer in that description, even though he had to rewrite part of his script to accommodate the economic crisis. Lehrer gave the debate a light touch as moderator, allowing the candidates plenty of space to talk and encouraging dialogue rather than speechmaking. It was perhaps one of the best presidential debates I’ve seen in this cycle, maybe the best.
With that said, McCain clearly got the best of Obama tonight. After a shaky couple of minutes to start the first question, McCain jabbed at Obama all night long — and he got Obama obviously flustered. While McCain kept his equanimity and never raised his tone or pitch, Obama got visibly upset, his voice pitched higher when responding to McCain, and Obama interrupted more. Obama also kept calling McCain “John” while McCain used the more proper “Senator Obama”, a difference that grated as the evening wore on.
Substantially, McCain also bested Obama on both economics and foreign policy. On the former, it was most apparent when Lehrer asked both candidates what they would cut as President after the bailout package passes. Obama could not bring himself to commit to one single cut, and instead talked about all of the funding he wanted to create for pet programs. McCain noted that he has long championed spending reductions and proposed a spending freeze on all but the most vital programs. When challenged on this point, Obama refused to say whether he would accept a freeze.
I did have a moment of frustration with McCain on the first question, a round I think Obama won. He never challenged Obama’s assumptions that the current credit crisis came from too little regulation. I kept expecting McCain to talk about the disaster of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the mandates from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage bad lending by buying up bad paper. Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.
On foreign policy, Obama did better than expected, but still fell short. I think his response on the decision to go into Iraq was quite good (even if I disagree with it), but he kept trying to argue that he didn’t demand a precipitous withdrawal in 2007 when the record clearly shows he did — and he beat Hillary to death with it in the primaries. McCain drew blood when he pointed out that for all of Obama’s talk about the priority of Afghanistan, he never once bothered to visit that front until last July, even though his Senate subcommittee has jurisdiction on NATO issues. Obama spluttered in response but never did explain why such an important theater wasn’t worth a single visit from him.
On Georgia, Russia, and eastern Europe, McCain proved himself the master of detailed foreign-policy thinking. While Obama talked briefly about the potential for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and pledged to “rebuild Georgia’s economy”, McCain explained the geopolitical realities of the entire region, and Russia’s intentions for it.
If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight. McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance. This one is a clear win for McCain.
September 26, 2008 6:17 PM
The Obama campaign is circulating a YouTube clip of Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. — the No. 2 House Republican — talking about the role of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the disastrous White House meeting, on MSNBC today.
In the Obama campaign clip, Blunt says of McCain: “Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing.”
Said Obama spox Bill Burton: “Congressman Blunt just confirmed what’s been clear since John McCain rode into Washington at the eleventh hour -– Sen. McCain’s political theatrics succeeded only in stopping a bipartisan deal. During the most serious economic crisis of our time, we don’t need erratic posturing, we need steady leadership to protect American taxpayers and put our economy back on track.”
But that’s not the full quote. What Blunt actually said is quite different.
REP. ROY BLUNT: I do think that John McCain was very helpful in what he did. I saw him this morning, we’ve been talking with his staff. Clearly, yesterday, his position on that discussion yesterday was one that stopped a deal from finalizing that no House Republican in my view would have been for, which means it wouldn’t have probably passed the House. Now, Democrats are in the majority. They can pass anything they want to without a singe Republican vote, but they don’t seem to be willing to do that. I’m please we can have negotiations now that get us back towards things that we think can protect the taxpayers better, create more options, and frankly be better understood in the country than the plan—the path we were on a couple of days ago.
Lars Larson, conservative radio talk show host, interviewed NYT columnist Roger Cohen, who mocked Sarah Palin for not having had a passport until last year, not enough credentials for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” and “overuse” of the word exceptional.
Larson asked Cohen what Obama has done that could be considered significant and Cohen, after an uncertain pause, had to know he was hard pressed. Eventually he stammered, “He’s a guy who was born into pretty simple circumstances in Hawaii…and in 47 years he’s achieved a fair amount.”
Larson pushed Cohen on this: “What has he achieved? Name a significant achievement of Barack Hussein Obama”
“A significant achievement?”
“Well, I think he’s put himself in very close range of, uh, of the White House.”
“So his achievement has been–”
“He’s spoken out on issues…”
Dear readers, I cannot go on. It pains me that someone who is supposed to have some intellectual base can only come up with these “qualifications” for handing someone the keys to the White House. Oh there was something about two bills he has passed, bills that, as Larson says, “don’t require a lot of heavy lifting” because everyone agrees on it.
But there you have it, the same thing time after time after time after time after time…ad nauseum. Someone is asked what Obama has ever done that is worthy and if they can come up with anything at all, it is something as lame and insignificant as, “He spoke out.” If they can stop stammering and acting like they are trying to convince their mother they were at the library and not smoking under the railway bridge.
Obama Campaign Threaten Legal Action Over NRA Ads
Fairfax, VA-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has sent threatening letters to news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio to stop airing ads exposing his anti-gun record sponsored by the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF).
The kicker? NRA-PVF’s Ohio’s ads have not yet begun running.
“Barack Obama and his campaign are terrified of the truth,” declared Chris W. Cox, Chairman of NRA-PVF. “Sen. Obama’s statements and support for restricting access to firearms, raising taxes on guns and ammunition and voting against the use of firearms for self-defense in the home are a matter of public record. NRA-PVF will make sure that everyone knows of Obama’s abysmal record on guns and hunting.”
The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama’s anti-gun record.
Obama Campaign Cease and Desist Letter
NRA-PVF Response Memo
NRA-PVF Response to Washington Post “fact check”
“Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in our nation’s history. That’s the truth,” concluded Cox. “NRA-PVF has the facts on our side. No amount of running from or lying about his record and then intimidating news outlets in the hope of deceiving American gun owners and hunters is going to work. Those strong arm tactics may work in Chicago, but not in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not as long as NRA-PVF has anything to say about it.”
I understand some people reading this might not be interested in guns, or believe in gun control. In that case I would urge you to consider the erasure of rights we have been hearing about over the past few years include the right to information–what the Obama campaign here seeks to quash. Whether you agree with gun control or not, no campaign has the right to keep information from the public, or use insidious methods to intimidate others into doing the same.
If you believe this to be a small or insignificant matter, consider the consequences of government violation of any other of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections? Would you tolerate it? It is not the nature of a responsible citizen to pick and choose which guaranteed rights may apply to fellow citizens, but this is what the Obama campaign seeks to do.
The Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy had as its key findings:
* that secrecy is a form of government regulation
* that excessive secrecy has significant consequences for the national interest when policy makers
are not fully informed
* the government is not held accountable for its actions
* the public cannot engage fully in informed debate
The people of the United States are entitled to and demand better than such insidious forms of public control.
A Sarah Palin impersonator hired by the New York Daily News was charged with walking around the city as a test to see how locals and tourists respond.
People waved and cheered at her, some even asking for autographs. A gaggle of tourists gathered round and others aimed their cameras from tour buses. A Lehman Brothers employee stopped to chat and a passer-by shouted, “You’re hot! But I hope you lose!”
One man out for a stroll allowed his granddaughter’s photo to be made, but only after an opposition button was prominently placed on the child. “If her parents see her with anyone who even looks like Palin,” he said, “they’ll strangle me.”
So, does this mean New Yorkers have switched to milk from their favorite wine?
Not quite. Somehow New Yorkers never struck me as mean-spirited or absurd enough to boycott something for a resemblance. They bicker with each other when trying to give out-of-towners proper directions (I’m speaking from personal experience here) and old ladies pass out hard candies to people who give up their seats for them. (With the looks people get when they try to ignore them, you might be hard pressed to find someone unwilling to relinquish that seat!)
But let’s be realistic. I am sure the Daily News, whose rag factor remains unknown to me, thought they were having a spot of fun, but a few random passersby a survey does not make. And the “‘Palin’ by Comparison” table they inserted in the article’s center is designed to bias. I know, I know, to some it might seem I have no sense of humor. But the truth is bias trickled into society, in deliberately small amounts, has a real effect. Such entries as “countries visited”–which recalls the outlandish assertion that somehow having obtained a passport only last year is practically a personal deficiency–combined with the table’s title disregards the fact that millions of Americans are not in possession of a passport.
And, shocking as it may seem to lots of New Yorkers, some Alaskans have never been Outside. So what? They would be able to spot Kristy Webb as a fakester from opposite ends of Manhattan, as she in reality looks nothing like the real Sarah.