Sunday, December 14, 2008

28,636 Christmas Lights.

I've finished installing my christmas lights for 2008. I believe I have 28,636 lights this year, although I could have lost count somewhere so I could be off by a few hundred one way or another.

I guess I could demand a recount.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Coming to Kings Dominion

One side-effect of being a theme park junkie is that new rides are not always so new.

In 2007, we spent two days at Geauga Lake in Ohio. It was a lovely little park -- I even wrote a column about it.

At the end of that season, Cedar Fair Properties (which owns many parks) shut down the Geauga Lake theme park, leaving only the Wildwater Kingdom water park.

They actually had been sending rides from Geauga to other parks even before they shut it down, but in 2008 Kings Dominion got the "Dominator" roller coaster, which we had already ridden in GL.

This year, Kings Dominion will get, for the first time ever, a ferris wheel. When Kings Dominion first opened, they vowed to never have a ferris wheel, which they associated with country fairs. I love ferris wheels, so I always wished they had one.

This spring KD will get the ferris wheel from Geauga Lake, along with another interesting ride shaped like a huge Cadillac.

Here is a picture I took of the ferris wheel when we visited GL:

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

How the Democrats will steal the Minnesota Senate seat.

It seems that the recount in the Minnesota Senate race will conclude with Norm Coleman still up by a couple hundred votes.

Further, while the Al Franken team will make a big deal about absentee ballots, it is unlikely the courts will agree to count ballots which clearly do not meet the legal requirements for acceptance.

But I don't think Franken really cares. I mean, it would be easier for the Democrats if he could manufacture enough votes in the recount to win, but they have a plan which will work in any case.

The first part of the plan has already succeeded. Al Franken got a judge to violate the sacrosanct rule of the "secret ballot", providing the Franken campaign with the names, and addresses of every absentee ballot that was rejected.

Franken's team has now contacted all those people, asking them if they were Franken supporters. No doubt they are finding Coleman people, but they will be ignored.

The next step will be for Franken's team to get every Franken voter to sign an affidavit asserting that they voted for Al Franken in the election.

Simple probability suggests that about half the rejected ballots will be Franken supporters, so they should easily be able to find over 3000 people to sign.

Normally, this wouldn't be any help. I mean, you could also call registered voters, and ask if they voted, and if not, get them to sign affidavits that they WANTED to vote and WOULD have voted for Al Franken. The courts still wouldn't accept them as actual votes.

But that's not the point. See, the Democrats have control over the Senate. And the constitution puts the Senate as the final arbiter of elections for the Senate.

So next January, when it's time to seat the new Senators, the Senate Democrats will note "irregularities" in Minnesota, and will bring the question up for a vote. And then the affidavits will be presented. And the DEmocrats will note that, while the law in Minnesota didn't allow those votes to be counted, it is CLEAR that those votes WERE cast and were for Franken.

And since the Senate doesn't have to abide by the Minnesota law, the Democrats will vote to count the extra ballots, and award the election to Franken. It won't matter that nobody checked the OTHER absentee ballots. The Media will go along with what the Democrats do, so there won't even be an outrage.

It's happened before -- the Democrats once refused to seat a republican House candidate winner, putting in the losing Democrat instead. And nobody batted an eye.

I suppose the Coleman camp could try to counter this by calling all the absentee names and getting THEIR supporters to sign affidavits. But there's no reason to suspect the Democrats in the Senate would accept them.

Friday, November 21, 2008


I'm just back from seeing the movie "Twilight". I'm not going to give away the movie or the book plot, but if you don't like people commenting on the nuts and bolts, you can skip this anyway.

I didn't think I'd like the Bella character after watching the trailers, but I liked her in the movie.

I also liked Alice, and we didn't see enough of her. If there are "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" (and apparently a warped "Team James"), I'm definitely "Team Alice".

Characters weren't very developed in the movie. One of the things I liked about the book was the character development -- it wasn't deep, but I felt like I got the essense of the characters. That was not well-translated to the movie. I don't feel like I really know any of the people based on the movie.

They ignored Jasper, which given how little development any other characters got isn't so surprising, but I would have hated to have been given that role hoping to make it into something.

I don't like spinning camera shots. I got dizzy a couple of times in the movie -- in both cases NOT during "action" sequences, but when the characters were basically standing or lying still.

In general, I felt the book survived the movie. My son, who has not read the book, said he got lost in the movie, and I guess there are times where having read the book is probably necessary to really understand what is happening.

Sparkling Edward could have used some better CGI or something. I know I'm a guy, but my daughter agrees that he looked worse sparkling, when it was supposed to be "magnificent".

In general, I think they could have spent more money on makeup. The vampires too often looked like people with way too much makeup. I actually think Powder made the guy white better than they did in this movie.

There were a few things that simply didn't match what my mind had imagined when reading the book. The two biggest are that I pictured Bella's house to be in the woods a bit, not on a street with curbs; and I pictured the school as being out on a plain and being a bunch of small buildings you had to walk outside to get from one class to another -- not an urban-looking building in the heart of the "city".

They did catch the essence of the "dreary small-town" otherwise. I loved the logging truck.

I thought Edward's car was sufficiently cool, but my daughter did not.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Vote McCain -- Obama 1.5 hours late for his rally.

McCain is no conservative, and I disagree with him on a lot of issues. He loves to work with Democrats, and to compromise, and to do all those things that the media always tells us are important in a good leader.

I disagree with Obama on everything, and he's a liberal who never works with Republicans on anything, and would if he was republican be dismissed as a far-right extremist.

But because the media wants a Democrat, they pretend McCain is out of the mainstream and they hide everything about Obama so people might think Obama is just an ordinary moderate.

Vote McCain.

I'm stuck here within a mile of Obama's "final rally", I've had to listen to their music, and all their speeches. Obama was supposed to be here at 9pm, but it's 10:30 and he's not there yet.

Obama can't even show up on time for his own rallies. He is no way ready to be President.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Minutemen get it.

Unlike some people who seem too full of themselves to understand what is at stake in the November elections, the Minutemen show that they know exactly what needs to be done for the good of the country. From an e-mail alert:

Fellow Patriots,

Early in the presidential race we announced our intentions not to endorse anyone for president. And we’ve strictly adhered to that policy throughout this long and arduous process.

But . . .

What we did NOT announce is any intention to refrain from opposing a particular candidate for president! It has been clear from DAY ONE that we have in Sen. McCain a potential president who -- at the very best -- would be indifferent to the dire need to secure our borders.

And -- at the worst -- McCain would be a rubber stamp for a blanket amnesty program from the leftist Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Despite McCain’s recent proclamations regarding securing the border as a first priority -- as the saying goes -- his actions speak so loudly, we can’t hear a word he’s saying.

. . . So an endorsement for McCain is absolutely out of the question!

That said, recent and VERY ALARMING DETAILS have surfaced about Sen. Barack Obama’s plans for our country, should he be elected president on Nov. 4th.


These radical socialist plans include the following:
*Giving drivers licenses to ALL illegal aliens in the U.S.
*Passing a sweeping amnesty program, giving citizenship to 12 million illegal aliens
*Giving a tax rebate [i.e. free money] to illegal workers here in the U.S.
*Dialoguing with terrorist nations and regimes without precondition
*Forcing banks to lend money to illegal aliens
*Registering illegal aliens to vote in EVERY state of the union

. . . And those are just the details we know about so far!

My fellow patriots, we CANNOT afford an Obama presidency! Barack Obama’s unapologetic association with known terrorists, racists, criminals, and the politically corrupt may be the final nail in the coffin of our once great republic.


The Minuteman PAC has already invested key independent expenditures (IEs) in several of the battleground states to aid efforts to inform voters about Obama's true socialist agenda.

AND, we are making serious headway! Polls have suggested that Obama’s approval rating is set to drop back down in the days preceding the election! That’s why we need your help! NOW!!!


It’s hard to imagine the United States under an Obama administration. But, make no mistake! Barack Obama will stop at nothing to throw our national sovereignty and security under the bus...

If Obama is elected:
-We can say goodbye to secure borders . . .
-We can forget any last vestige of national sovereignty . . .
-We can expect more terrorist attacks on our own soil . . .
-We can kiss away our individual freedom and free enterprise . . .
-And we can toss the 10th Amendment into the dust bin of history . . .

In short, when Barack Obama leaves the White House, the U.S. will resemble France more than the republic for which our founders sacrificed their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

In fact, everything the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord fought for will be lost!!!

That’s why in these last weeks and days before the election, we need your help more than ever! Many of you have given to the Minuteman PAC efforts time and again, just as the Minutemen patriots of 1776 fought battle after battle.

FIGHT WITH US! Click Here!

We have to stand firm against the forces of the left, just as our forefathers stood against the tyranny of the Red Coats!!!

Nothing less than the future of our republic is at stake! THERE ARE LESS THAN 3 WEEKS LEFT!

Please stand with us now and fight alongside the Minuteman PAC! We MUST put everything on the line NOW!

For America,
Brett Farley
Executive Director
Minuteman PAC

P.S. Barack Obama’s radical agenda of open borders, drivers licenses to illegal aliens, free money to illegal aliens, sweeping amnesty, and appeasement for terrorists is marching toward victory on Nov. 4th. But we’re already engaged in an entrenched battle to stop him! We need your urgent help to reveal the truth about Obama to voters in key battleground states.

EVERYTHING is at stake this election. Please join us now!

They are right. You don't have to like McCain's position on Illegal Immigrants to know that Obama will be worse. in 2006, too many voters decided to turn their back on conservatives and republicans and elect Democrats, figuring the republicans needed to be taught a lesson.

Now we can look back at the last two years, and see all the "lessons" we taught -- to our selves.

Now is no time to teach any more lessons. We cannot afford 4 years of Barack Obama with a Democratic congress.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Temporary Blindness

Well, not quite.

I had a minor tear in my right retina. I noticed the blood on Wednesday, and they lasered it Wednesday night (Wonderful doctor). It tore a tiny bit more Friday night, and I got a little more laser treatment Saturday morning.

I'm not allowed to do computers much at all, so I've dropped off the net. I hope to be back by this weekend.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

The difference between a leader and the Obama succubus.

Obama is a succubus, doing nothing except living off of the acheivements and ideas of others. If anything good happens, he takes credit. If something bad happens, he has no idea what you are talking about.

McCain is a leader.

You can see this on the bailout. When McCain is asked if he should get credit for the final bill (and believe me, he deserves all the credit for backing the house Republicans and making this a much better bill, AND bringing everybody to the table to make it happen), McCain refused to give himself any credit.

Meanwhile, Obama not only takes all the credit, but he specifically says McCain doesn't deserve any credit.

Obama never learned about not blowing your own horn. Obama is his own orchestra. Obama needs more hands so he can slap himself on the back more.

Fox News covers the ever-bragging, never-acheiving Obama:

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Sunday his Republican rival deserves no credit for helping to forge a tentative agreement on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
Instead, Obama said he deserves credit for making sure the proposal includes safeguards for taxpayers. Obama said he is inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.

The sad thing for Obama is that, if he just waited a day, the Media would give him all the credit anyway, because the media is entirely in the tank for Obama. He didn't HAVE to falsely claim credit, the Media would have done the work and he could has said "oh, shucks", except I doubt he even knows what that means.

The story instead slaps Obama down for his self-aggrandizement:

The safeguards were supported by many in Congress, including Democrats and Republicans.

Obama asked for what everybody wanted. That's what Obama does -- he never seems to do the hard thing.

Meanwhile, McCain is being a true leader, from This Week:

Stephanopoulos: "What role did you play? How were you helpful do you believe in the process?"

John McCain: "I will let you and others be the judge of that. I did the best that I could. I came back because I wasn't going to phone it in. America is in a crisis of almost unprecedented proportions. I should be doing whatever little I can to help this process. I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I got to get in the arena when America needs it, and if that judgment wants to be made whether I helped or hurt, I'll be glad to accept the judgment of history. But I'm never going to not get engaged when the taxpayers and middle class of America are in danger of losing everything literally that they've worked all their lives for. I'm going to be out working on it. I won't claim a bit of credit, okay, if that makes them feel better. But I'm going to be there working and trying to help solve this crisis. And I'm proud of John Boehner and Roy Blunt and Adam Putnam and all of the guys and men and women, Marsha Blackburn and others who in the House of Representatives stood up and got into these negotiations and became part of the solution."

McCain came to Washington when Obama said "call me if you need me". The democrats realized Obama was making a fool of himself, and called him in to "speak" for them. That nearly derailed the meeting and the bailout. It took serious work by McCain to undo the damage, while the democrats ran around playing politics. Eventually, we got rid of all the left's playtoys, and McCain deserves all the credit, even though he won't take it.

Obama exploits dead soldier against parent's wishes.

In Friday's debate, Obama fumbled repeatedly. The most obvious example is that, when he tried a simple tactic of saying "me to about wearing the bracelet of a dead soldier, he couldn't even remember the man's name.

But now it turns out that the family of that soldier and hero, Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, had asked Obama not to wear their son's bracelet, because they didn't like him using it for his political gain.

From "Family told Obama not to wear bracelet":

Shockingly, however, Madison resident Brian Jopek, the father of Ryan Jopek, the young soldier who tragically lost his life to a roadside bomb in 2006, recently said on a Wisconsin Public Radio show that his family had asked Barack Obama to stop wearing the bracelet with his son's name on it. Yet Obama continues to do so despite the wishes of the family.

Jopek supported the war in Iraq, and he and his family oppose Obama's surrender strategy. The mother gave Obama the bracelet simply so he would remember her son:

Jopek says his wife gave Obama the bracelet because "she just wanted Mr. Obama to know Ryan's name." Jopek went on to say that "she wasn't looking to turn it into a big media event" and "just wanted it to be something between Barack Obama and herself." Apparently, they were all shocked it became such a big deal.

Now, of course, Obama exploited their son's death for his own political gain. Obama exploits a lot of people for his own gain. Worse, since the mother actually supports Obama, she's gone into hiding, meaning Obama is exploiting her support as well:

To pile insult onto injury here, the Mother doesn't even want to force the issue of telling Obama to stop exploiting her son because she wants to see him win the election. Obama is not only taking advantage of this brave soldier's death, he is taking advantage of the good wishes of the man's Mother who doesn't want to hurt the campaign.

If I can find this story, why can't the Washington Post? Could it be the news media has decided that, whatever it takes, Obama has to win this election?

Update: The Obama camp knows how to put pressure on people. Too bad the media simply ignores this. Nobody will ever know what the Obama campaign did to Jopek's mother, but they got her to come public with a statement that she was happy Obama mentioned her son's name at the debate.

So now the media can ignore all the stories from earlier this year where the family told him to stop talking about him. Because Obama can do no wrong. No matter how many crucial foreign policy issues he messed up at the debate, he's ready to be President. If anybody says otherwise, the Obama gestapo will find some way to make them "see the light".

Update again. OK, turns out AP was a little bit too much in the bag for Obama with their headline about his Jopek's mother being "ectstatic". Here's the AP story now:

MILWAUKEE - After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.

But Jopek told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's satisfied with how Obama discussed it during last week's presidential debate.

So, she confirms that the bracelet was NOT meant as a campaign prop. Obama obviously ignored her wishes, and used it as a Campaign Prop. Now, because she really wants Obama to win, she says she is "satisfied" with how Obama discussed it. What else would she say -- she doesn't want to hurt him, even after Obama has hurt her, her family, and the memory of her son.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Killing 2 Babies to detect 3 Down's babies

Sarah Palin's VP candidacy shines the light of truth on the issue of Down's syndrome babies. Often the discussion focuses only on the hardships for parents, suggesting that Down's babies should be killed to spare the parents the trouble.

Others argue that the Down's baby itself should be killed to save the baby from a lifetime of being a Down's child. Four million living Down's cases today seems a reasonable counter-argument to that bizarre claim that humans would be better off dead than alive.

But now a study in the UK shows that there is a far greater toll exacted by the modern-day biogenicists who seek to breed a more perfect humanity by brow-beating mothers into killing their unborn on the off chance they will be down's children.

From lifesitenews:

LONDON, September 17, 2008 ( - The invasive procedures used to detect Down syndrome in unborn children result in the miscarriages of two healthy children for every three Down babies detected, a British study has found.
The DSEI research, which authors admit is only an "estimate" of the number of deaths of non-Down children, is backed up by findings published last year by Dr. Hylton Meire. Meire calculated that for every 50 children with Down syndrome successfully identified and killed by abortion, 160 non-affected babies are lost by miscarriage after the test.

Note that the referenced previous findings are actually much worse than 2 deaths for 3 aborted Down's kids.

This is an estimate, because, as the authors note:

The NHS admits of a miscarriage rate of only one to two percent following the invasive testing. However, the NHS only tracks statistics for Down syndrome children killed by abortion or who subsequently die as a result of miscarriage. The DSEI researchers said that the official statistics do not count the number of healthy children lost to miscarriages caused by the tests.

If you use the NHS numbers, for every 100 amnios, there would be one dead child. But since they only track dead Down's children, the statistics for healthy babies are hidden from the public.

According to this study:

The study's researchers, from the charity Down Syndrome Education International (DSEI), estimate that in the process of detecting and aborting 660 Down babies annually, screening leads to the deaths of 400 babies who do not have the disorder in England and Wales alone. Based upon their findings, the researchers are calling into question the ethical standing of the government's policy of offering screening to all pregnant women.

I remember having the discussion of Amnio for one of our children, because of an "abnormality" detected in an ultrasound which later proved to be a false reading. They did tell us there was a serious risk of losing the baby.

Now, imagine a test on a born child, which detects something for which there will be no treatment, that is done solely for the pleasure of the parent, and which has a 1/100 chance of killing the child.

We'd not only ban the process, we'd banish those who thought to do such a thing.

But because we are talking pre-born children, our medical profession seems to see nothing wrong with killing thousands of healthy, wanted babies in order to enforce their new world order where down's children are wiped off the face of the earth.

Governor Palin chose life for her Down's child. Barack Obama says he wouldn't want his children to be "punished" for a mistake, so he supported killing babies that are already born, if they are born as a result of a botched abortion.

But I wonder if he supports killing thousands of wanted healthy children simply to identify the "undesirable" children to be killed by abortion.

Obama Attacks McCain for TRUE charge McCain did NOT make

I think Obama says so many things wrong so that we can't possibly keep up.

In this latest news, Obama is really upset about an advertisement which truthfully exposes his vote against the Born Alive Act in Illinois, which I wrote about some months ago.

So Obama has lashed out, attacking McCain for "lying" about Obama's position.

Two problems. First, as I've shown before, it's not a lie. Heck, even the Obama campaign itself had to admit it's true he opposed the bill, and that the bill was exactly what was in the Federal bill. And there is tape of Obama specifically saying he opposed the bill because it might force government between the doctor and the patient if a baby is born alive after an abortion -- which clearly shows he's fine with the doctor killing an aborted baby, without interference from the government.

But more importantly, John McCain has NEVER attacked Obama about the Born Alive bill. In fact, the advertisement running against Obama is from a woman who actually WAS born alive, and is paid for by a 527, not the McCain campaign.

But the media has printed Obama's charges against McCain, and not one mainstream media outlet has chosen to inform their readers that Obama can't even listen to a 30-second advertisement without getting it's facts wrong. That's a pretty important thing if you want to be President, and the readers and voters deserve the truth, not the whitewash the media is doing.

Obama Scares Seniors, Lies about McCain's plan to save Social Security

The Obama campaign has no plan to save Social Security. Like so many Democrats, and many Republicans, they are content to lie to the American People, promising benefits they can't deliver in exchange for taking people's money.

Obama's only suggestions on this problem are to raise the social security contributions by eliminating the cap. He doesn't say if he would likewise raise the payout limits. Social Security is supposedly an insurance-type program, where people pay in, and then get benefits out. based on how much they put in.

The cap is simply where we decided the benefits were enough. Raising the cap and the benefits won't help the system. Raising the cap without raising benefits makes SS into just another welfare program.

In either case, it won't fix the problem.

But rather than encourage debate on the issue, the Obama campaign has decided to scare our parents with a false advertisement claiming McCain will cut their benefits in half.

The Obama ad is SO OUTRAGEOUS that even, which is owned by the Annaburg foundation, the foundation he is closely associated with and run by his friends, had to call him on it.

From, harsh words for the candidate who promised he would run a clean, positive campaign, in their article "Scaring Seniors":

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

That's not "Misleading", that's "Lie".

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

Remember, on Friday Obama said that in these difficult times, we shouldn't be playing politics, or scaring people with our economic plans.

But now we find out that Obama is quietly running these ads, using the current turmoil to scare our parents, grandparents, and others, by lying about what McCain has supported, and will do as President.

I say "quietly" because apparently Obama's campaign didn't announce these ads. Normally, the campaign makes a big deal about ads. It's clear they knew these ads were false, and they wanted to keep their "distance". As FactCheck says:

The Obama campaign made no announcement of this ad and won't say where they intend to run it. It was first aired on a station in Flint, Mich. on Sept. 16, where it was recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNSI Media Intelligence. According to CMAG, the ad has been running in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Factcheck had to get a recording of the ad. I don't know if that means it isn't on YouTube. If it was NOT put out on YouTube by the campaign, that would be further evidence that the campaign was trying to hide the ad for as long as possible, to take maximum advantage of last week's stock market turmoil to scare seniors, McCain's best voter group, into voting for Obama instead.

Here are the MANY DIFFERENT WAYS that Obama's secret ad lies:

The three votes featured in the ad are from 1998 and 2006. ... None would have actually resulted in changing Social Security without additional, specific legislation.
The ad implies that Bush's plan bets the whole lot of Social Security funds on unstable stocks. In fact, it would have "privatized" only a small portion of Social Security taxes that Americans could have invested in private accounts, if they chose to do so.
The ad goes on to claim that the Bush (and McCain) plan would cut "benefits in half." This is a rank misrepresentation: Nobody now getting benefits, or even close to retirement, would have seen any reduction in benefits or cost-of-living adjustments under the plan Bush proposed in April, 2005.

Factcheck also explains that only future higher-income workers would see a reduction in benefits from the current unpayable projections. Low-income people would not have a reduction. And that reduction doesn't include the extra money from the private accounts.

Factcheck then examines the "cut in half", and shows that it's based on a false premise from one of Obama's MANY economic advisors:

The Obama-Biden campaign attempts to document their "cutting benefits in half" claim by citing a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities written by Jason Furman, who is currently one of Obama's top economic advisers. This won't do.

What Furman's study actually says is quite different from what the ad claims. Furman's report says that the "progressive price indexing" plan Bush supported would result in benefits for the average worker who retires in 2075 that are 28 percent lower than under the current formula. Obviously 28 percent is not "half."

The Obama-Biden campaign notes that Furman's paper also says that full price indexing of benefits – even for low-income workers – would result in benefits 49 percent lower than the current formula in 2075. But that's not the plan Bush supported, and we find no evidence that McCain ever supported it either. We asked the Obama campaign to show us where McCain has ever supported full price indexing of benefits, but so far they have not done so.

Note that they don't even raise the objection of a campaign citing the statement of their own campaign worker as "proof", just that they couldn't even get that right. Now, think about that -- what kind of economic advisor would allow a campaign to misuse his own supposedly scholarly work? Is that the kind of economic advisor we need right now, when our system is teetering precisely because economic advisors allowed the decisionmakers to misuse their scholarly work?

Factcheck closes with an admission that while McCain is TRYING to fix Social Security, Obama is making it harder by playing politics:

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Obama is DIshonorable (Obama Admits Talking to Raines)

UPDATE: in, Obama admits he did talk on the phone to Raines, but says that doesn't count as getting advice. I do sympathize -- whatever advice he got from Raines, it was probably bad advice. But with 300 advisors, I hardly see how Obama talks to ANY of them for more than about 5 minutes, unless he has a lot of free time on his hands.

I don't generally like to attribute negative characteristics about "honor" to a candidate. I know that John McCain wouldn't throw around "dishonorable".

But the Obama campaign has decided to make sure they call McCain "dishonorable" at least once a day. And since most of their attacks on McCain are actually lies, I think it's clear WHO it is who is dishonorable.

The latest comes today. First, some background. Two articles in the Washington Post from July:

On The Outside, Watching Fannie Mae Falter, Washington Post, July 16, 2008:
In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae's chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case's D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.
After this article came out, Obama said nothing, and Raines said nothing.

Then the WP had an editorial "Tough Decision Coming", Washington Post , 8/27/2008:
Two members of Mr. Obama's political circle, James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, are former chief executives of Fannie Mae.
Response from Obama, Johnson, and Raines? None at all. James Johnson was actually picked by Obama to vet his VP candidates, but then fired.

OK, so fast-forward 3 weeks. McCain, wanting to highlight how Obama and the Democrats had a hand in our current financial crisis, QUOTES THE WASHINGTON POST (h/t Corner at National Review):
Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy."
Note that this exactly matches what the WP said: That Obama called Raines for "advice on mortgage and housing policy."

In other words, McCain's ad is absolutely true. Note that his ad is true even if Obama never spoke to Raines -- because McCain does not say "Obama was advised by Raines". He says "The Post says it's Franklin Raines".

Surely, no Media Outlet would put up with Obama calling THIS advertisement a lie, since they can all read English, they can see that the claim by McCain is true, and they can see that Obama has NEVER ASKED FOR A CORRECTION from the Washington Post.

But, the Media LOVES OBAMA. So of course, when Obama sends his campaign manager out to say it's a lie, they don't laugh him off the stage. Again, from the National Review:

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything — ever...

Note the word "dishonorable". Also note that I STILL have not found a single example of an actual LIE against Obama from a McCain ad.

Franklin Raines also now denies he talked with Obama. Maybe Obama and Raines are lying -- remember that 3 days ago Obama said it was a lie that he spoke about holding up negotiations with Iraq, but then his campaign advisor admitted that he HAD asked to hold up negotiations, while insisting this somehow different from what he was accused of.

Also remember Obama lied about McCain not knowing HOW to use e-mail, attacking McCain for his war injuries. And Obama lied about Palin, calling her the "former mayor of Wasilla" when she was in fact the current Governor of Alaska.

Also, Obama lied about McCain's being out of touch on the economy, quoting half-sentences from McCain who said that our economy was fundamentally strong because of the strength of our workers, but ALSO said the economy was hurting now.

Which leads me to wonder if Obama thinks the American worker is fundamentally weak. But if McCain ran an ad and said that, I'm sure Obama would call him a liar again.

Because calling people a liar without evidence is what dishonorable people do.

Barack Obama was supposed to be a new kind of politician -- one that rose above partisanship, and heralded a new, positive message of hope and change. But all we see now is biting partisan, lying, false attacks.

And a dope-smoking-crack-taking kid who never served a day in the military has no place calling a decorated war hero and servant of our country "dishonorable".

Of course, since Joe Biden just called all of us who oppose tax increases "unpatriotic", I guess it's fair game.

UPDATE: Oh, and the left-wing 1984-style "newspeak" police have done their job at Wikipedia, deleting all references about Barack Obama from the Franklin Raines entry.

Here is the entry from two days ago:

Franklin Delano Raines (born January 14, 1949 in Seattle, Washington) is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton. He is currently employed by Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign as an economic adviser.
In June 2008 Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines was one of several politicians who received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae. [5] Franklin Raines is currently one of Barack Obama's chief economic advisers.
Here is the same entry today:
Franklin Delano Raines (born January 14, 1949 in Seattle, Washington) is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton.
On September 18, 2008 the McCain Campaign claimed in an ad critical of Obama that based upon reports from the Washington Post, Franklin Raines is currently one of Barack Obama's economic advisers. Both Raines and the Obama Campaign claim that Raines is not an Obama advisor and has never advised Senator Obama. [9]
(UPDATE AGAIN: Wiki page has been updated again, to include the WP articles. I guess a battle is brewing)

At least it correctly notes that McCain's ad is based on the claim in the Post, proving that Obama is lying when he calls McCain a liar.

BTW, it's almost laughable to believe Obama never contacted Raines, since Raines gave him thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, and Obama actually picked Johnson to vet his VP nominee. Obama has been tied closely to this bank failure.

Obama of course can't deny that he received more money from Ginny Mae and Freddie Mac than every other senator except Chris Dodd. He can't really deny he's in the pocket of the special interests who caused this problem.

All he can do is get Raines to deny what the Washington Post reported, so he can call McCain a liar. He can't deny the bigger truth, so he'll try to change the subject.

Obama Commercial Misleads about Corning Company.

Update: A commenter notes that the Obama ad, while it clearly implied and meant to mislead viewers into thinking that Corning opened a new plant overseas, replacing the plant in the U.S., it never actually SAYS this. So I have changed the word "lie" to "mislead".

Obama doesn't just lie about John McCain.

In an ad trying to scare people into voting for him, Obama mislead voters about the Corning company.

from the story "Corning Inc. Blasts Obama":

CORNING - A campaign ad by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has drawn fire from Corning Incorporated over its reference to the 2004 closure of a Corning glass plant.

Now, Obama was attacking Corning as a way to attack Bush for "allowing" jobs to go overseas, and then to blame McCain because he's an old white guy just like McCain and Obama knows that all white people are the same (even his grandmother, who he called a "typical white person").

"Corning shuts down its plant in Pennsylvania, hundreds lose their jobs, then the workers are rehired to disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China. "

A perfect sob story for the whining Democratic Presidential wannabee.

Except it's not true:

However, Corning Inc. spokeswoman Kelli Hopp-Michlosky said those jobs were never sent to China. She said the plant closed because it made cathode ray tubes, and since the company no longer makes CRTs, those jobs were not needed elsewhere.

But Obama wouldn't let truth get in the way, making a misleading campaign ad falsely attacking McCain, or the hard-working companies that make this country go.

"We have been in touch with the Obama campaign on this expressing our displeasure and presenting all the facts so they see how misleading the ad appears. We will continue to speak with them on this," Mopp-Michlosky said.

Good luck on that. Obama doesn't have to apologize, he's the One. Media bows to his every whim. The media will help.

The Ad is about McCain shipping our jobs overseas. Using as an example a company that did NOT ship jobs overseas is telling in two ways. First, it shows that Obama won't let truth get in the way of a good yarn. Second, one wonders why the Obama campaign couldn't find a good example of a company that actually shipped jobs overseas. Why use a fake claim?

The President can't vote "Present" (Obama punts on AIG)

Jonathan Marks, from the Politico, reports that the Obama campaign is adamant that their candidate has no position on the AIG bailout (at least Obama finally figured out what AIG stands for, after an embarrasing press release which got the name wrong while not giving Obama's position on the bailout).

In an article titled "Obama outraged at being accused of not supporting something he doesn't support":

Obama, on the trail in New Mexico, had this to say of McCain:"And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said."

(Apparently the teleprompter was on a potty break. I don't know where anybody got the idea that Obama is a communicator.

But apparently Obama doesn't think that refusing to support something is the same as not supporting it:
To recap, when I wrote earlier today that Obama supported the bailout, I quickly was instructed by his staff that this was not the case. He just didn't oppose it, I was told.

So Obama says he doesn't support the AIG bailout, but he doesn't oppose it either. McCain then says Obama doesn't support it, and Obama goes off on another of his hissy fits -- even though that's exactly what Obama said.

Jonathan finds this somewhat amusing:

Now he's so adamant about not opposing the Fed's move that he's complaining about McCain's portrayal.

Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting.

The fact is that in all of Obama's speeches, he has yet to say if he supported the AIG bailout, or opposed it. He is afraid to take a position, in case (like the surge) he comes up completely wrong again.

On the other hand, the much more experienced Sarah Palin, who has HAD TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS in her job, has made a clear statement on the bailout, as has John McCain. (Joe Biden said something about giving people toasters and how we are unpatriotic if we don't pay more taxes).

We can't afford a President who votes "Present". Obama keeps casting blame around, but has yet to say what he would do. Meanwhile, the leadership of the Senate and House (Democrats Pelosi and Reid) both announced earlier that they had no idea what to do, so they were going to adjourn and go on vacation and let Bush figure it out.

Which shows that, in the end, the DEmocrats have no idea how to run anything, and are just praying that Bush can rescue them.

And now I guess they won't have a vacation, since the Bush administration, while the democrats ran around screaming "it's not our fault" took McCain's advice (again) and have put together a short-term plan to halt the bleeding and maybe get us on the road to recovery.

I'm sure the Democrats, and Obama, will do everything they can to make sure the fix isn't in place until after the election. After all, Obama tried to get Iraq to stop negotiating for our troop force plan until after the election, so why wouldn't he also support waiting until later to fix the economy.

The Democrats need troops in Iraq, and a failing economy, to have any chance of winning in November.

Obama Welcomes Donor who stormed stage at RNC Convention

Barack Obama is always talking about a "new kind of campaign". Well, that seems to include welcoming campaign supporters who steal press credentials and storm the stage at the RNC convention.

Here is part of the guest list for Obama's $28,000 a plate elitist fundraiser:

Table No. 29 Jodie Evans, Amanda Fairey, Shepard Fairey, Ellen Grinstein, Rami Kolahi, Ken Luskin, Jonathan Palevsky, Max Palevsky, Sylvie Rabineau, Frank Smith

Jodie Evans is the Code Pink activist who, as reported here, stole credentials from an RNC delegate, and used them to illegally enter the convention, where she STORMED the stage during Palin's address, and had to be subdued by Secret Service agents.

But apparently Obama supports this woman's actions, because far from returning her donations, he invited her to give more money.

And according to this report, Obama shook posed for pictures with the guests and shook their hands. There were no reports of anybody storming his stage while he spoke.

The event gave Obama a chance to make another stupid statement, when he said to a group of people sitting OUTSIDE in a COURTYARD:

“is about those who will never see the inside of a building like this and don't resent the success that's represented in this room, but just want the simple chance to be able to find a job that pays a living wage.”

Turns out the courtyard they were in is opened to the public, and even the building he was talking about has public tours one month a year. So it seems that anybody who could afford a trip to California could see the inside of a "building like this".

It's nice of Obama though to presume that all of his supporters don't resent the multi-millionares spending thousands of dollars on dinner while they worry about their mortgages and bank accounts which are threatened because Obama's friends made bad loans and Obama and the Democrats stood in the way blocking McCain's efforts to correct the problem before it was too late.

Obama IS the candidate for people who have no ambition, have no desire to move up in life, and want nothing more than government to guarantee them a minimum wage and punishment for the wealthy, so long as they aren't Democratic supporters.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Obama "I was instrumental in the sun rising this morning"

If Obama were to say that, I doubt there would be much media outcry, so much are they in the tank for his Presidency.

We have a serious problem in this country -- our media has stopped doing it's job, and has instead become a wholly owned subsidiary of whatever politicians they agree with. And since a vast majority of the media are liberals, that usually means Democrats, except when there is a really good socialist or far-left candidate like Nader.

The media has proven it CAN be critical -- unfortunately it's proven that it's criticisms are not based in reality. For example, the media attacked McCain for "lying" about Obama supporting sex ed for Kindergarten, and now we know that's true. The media has also had to issue multiple corrections for their coverage of Sarah Palin the last couple of weeks, having fallen for the Obama campaign/DailyKos talking points without question (Palin slashes teen mother budget, Palin cut WIC budget were the two latest false news stories apologized for by Newsweek; see earlier stories about book banning (including publishing a list of books that didn't exist at the time of the purported censorship)).

On the other hand, Obama can say anything he wants, and if he's corrected at all, it's not front-page news. For example, in July Obama took credit for work in a senate committee he isn't on:

“Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon,” Obama said at a press conference in Sderot, Israel.
Except that he isn’t a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

But because it's Obama, CNN makes excuses for him, not only allowing him a correction, but offering without question an excuse for his gaffe:

In a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday, Obama told the former Israeli Prime Minister, “I could fall asleep now standing up,” after Netanyahu asked him how his whirlwind trip to the Middle East and Europe is going.

The most recent attempt by Obama to claim credit for someone else's work came today, when Obama falsely said he was the creator of the stimulus package:

In Golden, Colo., today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., took credit for the stimulus package that passed earlier this year.
Is that true?

Democrats on Capitol Hill who support Obama say no.

Wanting Obama to win, however, none will say so on the record.

But media accounts from the time make it clear that even though Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., all offered legislation to provide stimulus to the economy, congressional leaders looped them and their legislation out of negotiations.

Apparently, Obama wasn't even there to vote on this bill:

In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. That’s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didn’t even show up to vote."

That's true. (McCain was there, and he voted for it.)

Moreover, Obama today was guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.

Of course, most of the media can't be bothered with reporting that a Presidential candidate is once again inflating his almost non-existant resume. They are too busy reporting that Governor Palin (along with thousands of Alaskans) owned a tanning booth -- that she paid for herself.

I wonder if Joe Biden owns a big-screen TV? If he does, Obama will probably insist he invented it.

Obama Lying about McCain Lying (Sex Ed).

The big example Obama uses of a "lie" McCain told in an advertisement is that Obama voted for a bill that offered sex-ed to Kindergartners.

I've covered the bill previously, showing that the bill did indeed change "6th" to "K", thus applying sex ed to the kindergartners. The text also showed that it was NOT about "inappropriate touching", as Obama insists, but education about sexually transmitted diseases, and other of what Obama insists are "age-appropriate" lessons.

Obama said that the bill applied the "SEICUS" guidelines, suggesting that these guidelines would prove that Kindergartners would only learn about "inappropriate touching".

Maybe they thought we were too stupid to read. After all, the media accepted their memo and never bothered to check the facts, so maybe they could get the average person to be as naive and gullible as the mainstream press.

Well, here are the guidelines. In those guidelines, we find "level 1" applies to ages 5-8 (Page 17), which is the Kindergarten through 3rd grade. And the levels indicate when the topics "should first be discussed" (page 18).

OK, since Obama said he voted for lessons on "inappropriate touching", let's search on the word "touch". We find on page 51, for level 1 (Kindergarten):

Touching and rubbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation".

Whatever you think about this, it is clear Obama's "age-appropriate" guidelines for K-level sex ed was NOT just about "inappropriate touching". Obama is lying, McCain telling the truth -- based on Obama's OWN words, and his OWN reference to SEICUS.

But there's more references to "touching". All of these are level 1 items, to be discussed by 5-8 year olds:

Page 25: Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.
Page 51: Bodies can feel good when touched.
Page 52: People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
Page 54: Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.

That's 5 times the guidelines have told teachers to tell 5-year-olds that touching their sexual organs will make them feel good. What 5-year-old doesn't want to feel good? This isn't teaching children about "inappropriate touching".

Page 65: A person cannot become infected with HIV by being around, touching, or hugging someone who has HIV or AIDS.
Page 67: Topic 7: (This is the section about inappropriate touching).

Ok, what about all the other things in the Level 1 (age 5-8) discussions? Here are a bunch of them. Ssnce Obama thinks this is all fine for 5-year-olds, I figure no liberal can attack me for this:

Page 26: Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
Page 26: Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
Page 27: Babies usually come out of a woman’s body through an opening called a vagina.
Page 27: Some babies are born by an operation called a Caesarian Section.

Do we need to teach a 5-year-old about putting a penis in a vagina? Or that their pregnant mother might be cut open?

Page 29: Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
Page 29: Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
Page 29: Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
Page 29: Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.

Remember, Obama voted for a bill that said THIS teaching was more important than whatever they were currently teaching in Kindergarten.

Page 37: Dating is when two people who are romantically attracted to each other spend their free time together.
Page 37: When children become teenagers, they spend more time with their friends and may begin to date.
Page 37: Some adults, including single parents, may date.

Why does a 5-year-old have to know about dating?

Page 51: Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
Page 52: Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
Page 52: Masturbation should be done in a private place.
Page 52: People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.

Why does a 5-year-old need to know that people "often engage in sexual behavior with one another to feel good"? Or to masturbate in private?

Page 53: Topic 4: Sexual Abstinence (NO LEVEL 1)

So we teach a 5-year-old that masturbation feels good and should be done in private, but we can't teach them about abstinence. Hmmm.

Page 61: Sometimes women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.

Why do they have to teach THIS to a 5-year-old? To prepare them for Level 2, age 9, when they justify killing babies. Got to start young to convince humans that killing is OK:

Page 62: A woman faced with an unintended pregnancy can ... have an abortion to end the pregnancy.
Page 62: Abortion is legal in the United States up to a certain point in a pregnancy.
Page 62: A legal abortion is very safe.

OK, a few more level 1 items:

Page 72: Men and women are capable of doing almost all the same jobs.
Page 72: Some men and women may be told that certain jobs and tasks are only for women or only for men, but this is beginning to change.

OK. Don't presume that because I listed something, I oppose teaching it, or even oppose teaching it to a 5-year-old. Some lessons in this plan were appropriate. Others were not appropriate for a 5-year-old, in my opinion.

But this isn't about whether I think something is appropriate or not. This is about whether the Illinois law that Obama passed out of his committee required teaching sex ed to Kindergartners.

Obama says McCain is lying, and that the law ONLY taught "inappropriate touching".

He offered as proof the SEICUS guidelines.

And as you can see, FROM THE SEICUS guidelines, Obama was lying. The law DID teach sex education, including masturbation, homosexuality, details about body parts, and even a little indoctrination in cultural change.

Somehow, the mainstream media was incapable of reading the document he claimed would verify his claims. If the media did this, they would KNOW that Obama was lying, and McCain was telling the TRUTH.

Maybe it is a stretch to call this an Obama "accomplishment" (the bill failed). But he certainly supported and voted for the bill. And now he's lying about it.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Obama Sought to delay Troop Reduction Talks

Update: To be clear: The Obama "response" is that while he did interfere, and while he did try to stop this negotiation, he doesn't believe such interference really would slow down troop withdrawal. Zebari seems to feel differently. And since the force status agreement that Obama was trying to delay WAS the official agreement governing when our troops would come home, it seems Zebari has a better argument.

But in any case, my objection, and the real problem, isn't Obama back-stabbing his base. He's already done that publicly, when he admitted that in the end he won't bring all the troops home, and that he'll re-think his plans after talking with the generals when he's president. The objection is that Obama had no right to interfere in ongoing negotiations, or to argue with Zebari that Iraq should refuse to bargain with the existing administration.

OK, Back to the original post:

What an interesting story. First, the NY Post breaks this story from an Iraqi official. Then the Obama campaign denies it. But then it turns out there is a news story from earlier in the year where Obama actually admitted this (but not the details).

Remember when Canada said Obama had told them not to worry about NAFTA? Obama denied he had given assurances, but then Canada offered proof, Obama had to admit he lied, and got crushed in Ohio?

The media doesn't remember that, because the media has great amnesia when it comes to Obama.

Well, here we go again.

First, from the NY Post. Obama Tried To Stall GI's Iraq Withdrawal:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

Well, I think most people can see why this is bad news for Obama. To interfere with the Executive's constitutional job, to undermine an ongoing negotiation, is bad enough. But the way this is worded, if Barack had his way, it could delay when our troops come home.

Obama's campaign decided to deny the story, hoping their media buddies would simply believe them. And it almost worked. Here is the Fox news version of Obama's denials:

Barack Obama’s campaign denied a New York Post report Monday that said the Democratic presidential candidate privately tried to persuade Iraqi political leaders to stall an agreement on scaling back American troops in Iraq while publicly campaigning for a speedy withdrawal.

What did Obama offer for proof?:

A top foreign policy adviser to Obama sat in on the meetings between the candidate and Iraqi officials this summer and said no such conversations occurred, the campaign said Monday.

OK. Look at that sentence, and tell me what is wrong with it.

There is a "top foreign policy advisor", but he is not named. He sat in on the meetings. But the reporter didn't talk to this advisor -- the CAMPAIGN simply said "our advisor says it didn't happen". You have to wonder why the campaign didn't just say "Obama says it didn't happen." Point is, this isn't "two people" against one, because the advisor didn't have to actually say anything.

Anyway, the campaign has one little problem. Turns out that Obama already SAID he did exactly this. So the campaign is literally denying a conversation it has already confessed to previously. (Meaning that they have already admitted that Obama did this prior to his trip, which makes it much harder to believe he didn't say in person what he already admitted to saying in a phone conversation.

Here is the article from June, on MSNBC, Obama's talk with Iraqi Foreign Minister:

He said he told Zebari that negotiations for a Status of Forces agreement or strategic framework agreement between the two countries should be done in the open and with Congress's authorization and that it was important that that there be strong bipartisan support for any agreement so that it can be sustained through a future administration. He argued it would make sense to hold off on such negotiations until the next administration.

"My concern is that the Bush administration--in a weakened state politically--ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain's administration," Obama said. "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made."

So in June, Obama confessed that he argued with Zebari that Zebari should hold up the negotiations for Troop Withdraw until the NEXT ADMINISTRATION. Which is exactly what Zebari says Obama did in July, which Obama is now denying.

I suppose it's possible that Obama, having tried to throw a wrench into the negotiations in June, might have then NOT said anything in July. In which case his "denial" is simply an obfuscation, like if someone says "He confessed to the murder last sunday night", and you respond "I did not confess to a murder last sunday night", but it turns out you confessed Sunday afternoon.

BTW, this was reported by the New York Times as well:

While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached before the summer’s political conventions, Mr. Obama said today that he opposed such a timetable.

“My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it’s my administration or Senator McCain’s administration,” Mr. Obama said. “The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that’s currently made.”

Obama can try to muddy the waters by calling Zebari a liar, and trotting out campaign staffers to insist that Obama's handler at the meeting assures them Obama didn't say this AT THE MEETING. But now that we are focused on this story, we KNOW that Obama said this to Zebari, and confessed to saying this back in June.

So while the Government of the United States was negotiating with Iraq on a plan to get our troops home as quickly as safely possible, Barack Obama argued, urged, and called on Iraq to hold off on the negotiations until he was elected President -- over 6 months.

Obama can protest the story now, but his own words convict him.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

There's something perversely funny......

About Raising Kaine, or any left-winger, actually quoting Karl Rove.

Of course, in the RK case, they actually lie about what Karl Rove said. (There's something simply perverse about lying in a post where you are trying to say someone else is lying).

See, Karl Rove and John McCain are not really that friendly, but the left loves to pretend Rove works for McCain. Of course, in 2000 the left loved to talk about how Rove treated McCain so badly, and how great McCain was and how bad Rove was).

So today, when Rove makes the perfectly rational observation (which I wish more pundits would make) that political advertising is going too far, that hardly seems like big news. But Raising Kaine somehow thinks that is the same as calling McCain a liar. Of course, Rove did say both campaigns went too far.

And Rove gave an example -- Obama falsely attacking McCain for being stuck in the 1980's technologically. Oddly, Rove did not provide any specific examples of McCain lying about Obama. And he didn't give a specific example of where McCain went too far, but I think the whole "lipstick on a pig" would be a great example.

The media is going to work for the Democrats. So the Democrats can make up things about Republicans, and will only get called on it when they are so out to lunch that it offends the sensibilities -- like the whole "Trig is Bristol's child" story.

But the media loves to jump on anything a Republican does wrong -- so Republicans DO have to be better, and we should be. There was no reason for McCain to push the "Obama is insensitive to women. Hillary Clinton's supporters are doing a great job of it, and everybody who wanted to believe Obama's "pig" was Palin already believed it.

The rest of of knew that Obama was calling Palin "lipstick", meaning she was just a pretty face, not to be taken seriously. Which itself would have been a great message, but not after you tried to pretend he called her a pig.

So, which is worse. Obama lying about Palin when he failed to note she had been a Governor (thus misleading people into thinking she was simply a former mayor), or McCain saying Obama called Palin a pig? I don't know.

But I do know that when the liberal democrats start lying about what Karl Rove said in order to make their points, something has gone seriously wrong in liberal-land.

The Bridge to nowhere, in a nutshell.

The Obama campaign calls the "bridge to nowhere" some of the worst example of pork.

So, let's get this straight.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden both vote, TWICE, to force Alaska to build the Bridge to Nowhere, which they now claim is useless pork.

Through the hard work of Republicans, the final bill allows Alaska to spend the money elsewhere.

Sarah Palin, running for Governor, is asked about the Bridge, and says that in general she does support infrastructure projects. Not a ringing endorsement, but let's stipulate she supported the bridge before she was in a position to see the details, like Barack and Joe would have seen before they voted TWICE to force Alaska to build the bridge.

Once Sarah takes office, she is presented the full picture of the the bridge and other projects. She takes the money that Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to give to her, but decides to say "No Thanks" to the bridge project.

So Governor Palen takes the money that Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to give her -- and SHE is the one that they think is the problem?

If Obama was caught giving out walking around money to pay people to vote for him, I guess he'd say the real criminals were all those poor people who TOOK the money he gave them -- but we would all know better.

The problem with "pork" is the perception, and often the reality, that legislators VOTE TO SPEND OUR MONEY, in the hopes it earns them votes from the people who benefit.

This is the first time I've ever seen a campaign try to blame the people who GET the benefit for their pork spending. Obama and Biden voted to send our money to Alaska, in exchange for Ted Stevens voting to send our money to Delaware and Illinois.

And now Obama and Biden want to pretend THEY are change agents, and the problem is the people of Alaska, Illinois, and Delaware who took the money they sent.

This probably makes sense to the DailyKos/RaisingKaine folks. But the only way the media falls for this is if they are in the bag for Obama.

Barack OBama, Still Crazy

(I'll stop this when Obama apologizes for mocking a vet's disabilities).

Why Johnny Can't E-mail and Obama is shameless (Not mine)

When Will Obama Apologize for Mocking McCain's War Injuries?

This story is beginning to pick up steam. Of course, it Obama was a Republican, the Washington Post would have already ran 3 front-page articles about it (remember Macaca).

Some on the left have insisted that, since McCain didn't say it personally, that his war wounds aren't really the reason he doesn't do his own typing.

Well, Jack Tapper at ABC news has picked up the story. And he notes how reluctant John McCain was for him to report it:

Assuredly McCain isn't comfortable talking about this -- and the McCain campaign discouraged me from writing about this -- but the reason the aged Arizonan doesn't use a computer or send email is because of his war wounds.

I realize some of the nastier liberals in the blogospher will see this as McCain once again "playing the POW card," but it's simply a fact: typing on a regular keyboard for any sustained period of time bothers McCain physically.

He can type, he occasionally does type, but in general the injuries he sustained as a POW -- ones that make it impossible for him to raise his arms high enough to comb his hair -- mean that small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise.

Again, it's not that he can't type, he just by habit avoids when he can repetitive exercise involving his arms. He does if he has to, as with handshaking or autographs.

Now, Jack wants to be as fair as possible to Obama, so he offers that they might not have known this:

It's certainly possible that the Obama campaign did not know this, since McCain makes it sound in interviews as if this is a matter of choice, not discomfort because of his war wounds.

"I read my e-mails, but I don't write any," McCain told Fortune Magazine in 2006. "I'm a Neanderthal - I don't even type. I do have rudimentary capabilities to call up some websites, like the New York Times online, that sort of stuff. No laptop. No PalmPilot. I prefer my schedule on notecards, which I keep in my jacket pocket."

When this happened Friday, I was willing to believe this. At that time I thought the story was that Obama was mocking McCain but had been unable to use Google to find the facts.

But it's Sunday now. Obama certainly knows the truth -- he certainly had people who heard Mark Levin Friday, he's read the e-mails and the blogs. He KNOWS now that he has falsely attacked McCain, and mocked his war wounds.

But Obama still has NOT APOLOGIZED. Obama KNOWS, and hasn't pulled the ad, and hasn't apologized.

Jack Tapper is being way to kind to Obama. Of course, a lot of the media is -- because Obama needs to be treated with kid globes, due to his inexperience and lack of ability to be President.

Unfortunately, our enemies won't take it easy on Obama when he messes up -- as he does often on his campaign which he says we should use to decide if he is able to be President.

Fortunately, now that it's hit the major news outlets, this story might actually get to the common man. I know the media is doing their best to keep a lid on ALL of Obama's mistakes. But at some point they will have to come clean.

Obama to run Anti-Vietnam-Veteran Ad in Virginia

A sane person would have apologized for mocking a war veteran's disabilities. But the Obama campaign believes the best way to win the military-rich state of Virginia is to run their advertisement that mocks John McCain for being disabled and unable to type on a computer:

It amazes me that they would bring Obama's false, petty, childish and offensive commercial here:

... David Plouffe told reporters in those states on a conference call Friday. “We’re very confident in our strategy and in our message, and we are focused like a laser beam on states like North Carolina and Virginia,” he said. Plouffe added that Virginia’s viewers will see two new television ads — one talking about change and another calling McCain “out of touch” for, among other things, not knowing how to send e-mail.

Remember, we've known for 8 years (see Forbes article here) that McCain is actually a very technologically savvy person. Obama's claim that he doesn't know how to send e-mail is a flat-out lie:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

The mainstream media has imposed a lockdown on the truth about McCain's injuries, I presume hoping that Obama will apologize before they have to admit he's lying about McCain.

But I'm guessing a lot of military people here in Virginia know all about McCain's torture and his subsequent physical limitations. And they won't like that a young anti-war civilian snotnose campaign guy running the campaign of a guy who just recently said "I'm so great, I THOUGHT about joining the military" coming to Virginia to make fun of disabled Vets.

Heck, I'm betting if a reporter had the guts to break with his buddies pushing for Obama and actually ASK JAMES WEBB what he thinks of this attack on McCain, Senator Webb would denounce it.

As should ever right-thinking person here in Virginia. Obama thinks that the ability to type on a keyboard is essential to be President. Fact is, McCain probably knows more about the internet than Obama could ever hope to know.

Maybe next Obama can attack Sarah Palin for not being able to father children. It would make about as much sense as THIS attack.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Palin gave up $130,000 year job on principle.

OK, let's talk about a real issue -- character. Obama likes to talk about how he gave up a 6-figure job as a lawyer to take a "$12,000 a year" job as a community organizer. While in fact Obama's job paid $20,000 after he finished training, and he got significant raises each year, it is certainly true that at that point in his life, Obama saw something more important than money.

Well, I'm watching the MSNBC show about Sarah Palin. And I learned something I didn't know. It turns out that the job she had on the Alaska oil commission paid $130,000 a year (at least according to MSNBC).

As you may know, when she found corruption in the organization, she turned in the head (a republican). She then RESIGNED. Sarah Palin, hardly a rich person, gave up a $130,000 a year job ON PRINCIPLE. Not for another lower-paying job that would enhance her political career.

Because the person she turned in was the Head of the republican party, she had supposedly destroyed her political career. But she saw a chance for change, so she looked for more corruption, and took out another corrupt politiican who had to resign.

THen she runs against a sitting Republican Governor, and beats him. And of course that's the rest of the story.

But there is no way in 2004, when she gave up the dream job paying $130,00 a year, and a certainly bright political future, that she would know how it would turn out. All she knew was that what was happening was wrong, and she stood up and was counted.

Now the Democrats want to call her character into question, just as they try to call McCain's character into question. Character assassination is hardly what you'd expect from a campaign that is about issues, but I think her story belies the untruthfulness of the attacks.

In the end, while Palin was sitting in her modest home with her husband and family, wondering what they would do now that she had given up a 6-figure salary, her character was revealed.

Argue over whether she is experienced enough. Challenge, if you dare, her position about gun rights. Try to discuss the issue of aborting down babies against her. But let's not falsely smear the character of a good woman simply to win an election.

As another commenter said in another post -- this is not some game that you "win" at any costs. And it's not worth destroying the personal lives of our candidates.

Apology Watch: Day 2: Obama silent on Mocking War Injuries

It's now been almost 24 hours since Obama, who keeps promising he's going to talk about real issues, instead ran a paid advertisement falsely mocking John McCain for his war injuries.

This was an ad which lied about McCain's knowledge of technology, making fun of him because he had someone else type into his computer. McCain does this because it hurts him to type, because of injuries inflicted on him when he was a Prisoner of War.

Stories have been written about McCain's trouble with the use of his arms, and also about how technologically savvy McCain actually is. If Obama's campaign had done ANY research, they would have known that in the Senate, McCain is a leader on technology issues (Obama might have known that if he had spent any significant time actually IN the senate).

Instead, they picked up some news item where McCain, self-deprecating as always, made fun of his injuries, talking about how he needed others to do his e-mail. And Obama, being an elitist, and looking down on anybody who isn't Obama, immediately thought -- "What a great idea for a commercial -- we can make fun of McCain and make him look stupid".

Which itself deserves an apology. For whatever else you can say, McCain has never said Obama was stupid.

But if Obama wants to make fun of every old person who doesn't use the internet, I guess that's a "campaign strategy". Some would call that age warfare, pitting his largely young and inexperienced supporters against the older, wiser general populace.

Some can't believe Obama would be ignorant of McCain's injuries -- which would suggest he purposely attacked McCain for being disabled. Yesterday, I didn't think so. I figured Obama was simply to naive to realise what he was doing.

But if that were the case, Obama, once it was pointed out that he had committed the unpardonable sin of mocking an injured war hero, would have pulled the ad and apologized. And frankly, I expected him to do so. Obama may be naive, may be inexperienced, and certainly is in no way ready to be President. But he's not suicidal.

But shockingly, we have now gone 24 hours, and Obama has NOT pulled the false, dispicable ad from YouTube. And he has not issued an apology to the wounded veterans of our country who are unable to do what people like Obama, who never served, can do easily.

As someone said, it would be like attacking the blind governor of New York because he can't drive.

So, Obama has an advertisement that says that wounded Veterans who can't use their arms to get on the internet are not qualified to be President, and are instead to be objects of ridicule. And he has refused to apologize. And that is NOT someone we want as President of the United States.

Why don't they just count people?

Every time there is some sort of campaign event, everybody argues over how many people there were. The latest is the McCain/Palin rally, where numbers have ranged from less than 10,000 to 28,000.

Well, at the McCain/Palin rally, the entire area was a security checkpoint. I'm guessing so are the Obama rallies.

Why not just put someone at the entrance to the security area with a little clicker, and click each person coming into the place? Then you would know. So why don't they do this?

Probably because nobody really wants to know.

Anyway, I stood in line for an hour waiting to get into the rally. I could believe there were 20,000 people. I've got pictures which I could probably count if I had to.

But frankly, I'd love for the Democrats to believe that only a thousand people showed up, that we are all really demoralized, and that, as one local opinion columnist wrote, the race is over and Obama already won.

Equal Pay, in Practice (Obama doesn't practice what he preaches)

Recently, Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been talking about "equality" for women, as measured by what he calls "equal pay for equal work".

There are a lot of numbers thrown out comparing how much women get paid, as compared to how much men get paid.

The first problem of course, is how you compare jobs, situations, performance -- what makes two jobs "equal". It's easy if you have two assembly workers that both do a weld. Of course, in that case there is "equal" pay, although it might be based on seniority.

The second problem is how do you account for personal choice when making a comparison? For example, in most cases some jobs are preferred by men, while other jobs seemed to be preferred by women. So, if more men want to collect trash, and more women want to work in the local library, how do you compare "equal pay for equal work"?

In a perfect free-market society, equal pay wouldn't be an issue. The market would dictate how much each job was worth. If one company insisted on not paying women as good as men, they would tend to get workers that were less qualified, and a competitor who paid women equally would win the competition.

And in fact, a lot of what is seen as discrimination toward women is simply the market reflecting the employer's ability to find an adequate pool of workers. If I advertise a job for $10 an hour, and no man wants to work for that money, but several women do, I will hire the woman. If down the street someone offers $15 for the same job, and they hire a man who is more qualified than any women, my hire will look like she is "underpaid" for the same job, but the problem was that she was willing to work for that amount.

A great example of the difficulty of "Equal Pay" in practice is the senate staff for the two presidential nominees. Deroy Murdock, national columnist, examines the pay practices of Obama's and McCain's Senate Staff, and finds an interesting disconnect. While Obama attacks McCain for not supporting "equal pay", Obama actually pays HIS female staff less than his male staff, while McCain pays his female staff MORE than his male staff, and more than Obama.

From his article Obama’s female staffers shortchanged:

Based on these calculations, Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama’s highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama’s five best-paid advisers, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

Again, on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama’s campaign Web site condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama’s rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

So, how does McCain stack up?:

McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart - while adding $10,726 to her annual income - by leaving Obama’s office and going to work for McCain.

(btw, note that McCain, in the Senate for over 20 years, has a total of 42 staff. Obama, a 1st-termer, has 58. McCain pays out about $2.2 million, Obama $2.9 million. It is clear which one is more likely to hold down spending in government).

Also, McCain apparently values the opinions of women more than Obama. For while only ONE of Obama's top 5 advisors is a female, THREE of McCain's top aides are female:

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain’s highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women - much more than men - for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

But what this shows is that, in practice, even a guy who pretends to be for "equal pay" doesn't seem to be able to achieve it, because in fact the staff don't all do the same job, and can't be "equally compared".

But Obama favors laws which would allow the Federal Government to build a registry of "comparable jobs" and force employers to pay women more for work than is necessary to make them satisfied employees. This will make our country even LESS competitive, and will discourage the hiring of women (I'm sure Obama will make quotas for that as well to solve the problem).

Friday, September 12, 2008

Why Hasn't Obama apologized and pulled the Ad?

Why do you think it is that Obama has not come out, apologized for mocking a war hero for his injuries, and had the advertisement pulled?

Surely he must know that this could be a campaign-killer. How many candidates for President would survive making fun of a man for his disabilities?

Imagine if the Republicans really had run an advertisement making fun of Max Cleland because he couldn't "run as fast as Max Chambliss"?

That's what Obama just did -- he mocked McCain because he couldn't type on a computer, and dirisively said this meant McCain was a technical illiterate.

Obama must know this. He must know he can't say it was a mistake, because it was an actual campaign commercial. It was planned, researched, and he personally approved it. He can't say they just messed up, because that would admit that they ran an ad without thinking -- and since he just said that we should see how he runs his campaign for proof he's ready to lead, it would look bad.

Plus, he can't be the post-partisan candidate if he's seen mocking his oppoents for his personal injuries.

So he has to apologize. He must know this. So what is he waiting for?

Doesn't this show that Obama is indecisive? Presidents must make quick decisions. It's taking Obama over 5 hours to figure out he needs to apologize for mocking McCain's war injuries?

If it takes him 5 hours for this decision, how is he ready for that 3am phone call?

So, When do the Democrats replace Obama?

Obama is done. If he wasn't done before, surely he is done now that he has attack John McCain for his war injuries.

In Obama's latest ad, "still", Obama approves the "message" that McCain doesn't "know how to use E-mail", saying that McCain is just technology impaired.

But it turns out that McCain not only knows how to use E-mail, but does so extensively, as we find in this Forbes article from 2000, Net Vs. Norm:

In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate's savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy.

If that was all there was to the story, it would just be another of the many times Obama has lied about McCain, has made a false personal attack while pretending he is some new kind of candidate. I mean, it's pretty stupid to attack someone for being "technologically in the past" when they are known as one of the savviest technologists in the Senate. You'd think Biden could have helped Obama here -- isn't that why he picked Biden, to fill in for Obama's youthful inexperience.

But there is a kernel of truth here -- McCain doesn't actually do his OWN e-mail. And the reason why is also the reason why Obama is done. This is Obama's "Macaca" moment, except that "Macaca" was a 3-second mistake by a candidate, and Obama's "Macaca" was a premeditated advertising buy:

The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits.

Got it? The reason McCain does not use a computer keyboard is because HE WAS TORTURED AS A POW IN VIETNAM. Obama just attacked a Veteran for his disabilities, he just RIDICULED the Senate's Technologist because of his war injuries.

This is the left's "new politics"? No, this is the worst kind of politics of personal destruction. Mocking a man for not using a keyboard was already juvenile. Mocking a man who CAN'T use a keyboard because he gave up his mobility in service of his country is a DISQUALIFIER for the Presidency.

Of course, if Obama knew how to use the internet, as he falsely mocks McCain, he'd have been able to find this story, and others, like THIS BOSTON GLOBE STORY:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

The AP of course is in bed with the Democrats. They ran THIS STORY allowing the Obama campaign to falsely mock McCain, and didn't even bother to research to see if Obama was lying:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."
McCain has said he relies on his wife and staff to work the computer for him and that he doesn't use e-mail.

That's it. The AP never bothered to call McCain and ask WHY he didn't work the computer, or to search for old stories that would explain it. Nor did they even THINK to question the absurd notion that McCain is a technological idiot.

So, the question is, when the Democrats replace Obama, will Hillary keep Biden as VP?