Saturday, October 11, 2008

Hope for defeating Obama

An email from

Our TV ad, which went on the air last week, was on YouTube for 3 months and garnered over 4 million hits, far more than any other 527 TV ad. We have one-minute and two-minute ads featuring footage of Obama mocking and ridiculing the Bible, and condescendingly telling Americans that they don't understand the Bible as wisely as he [Obama] does. Despite being on the air, the Obama campaign incredibly is claiming in their "Fight the Smears" website that we are NOT really on the air and are scamming contributors. We hit them back with a press release [see attached] detailing where our ads are airing now and on which shows [if you are unable to open the attachment, please write back and we'll send it in the body of another e-mail]. This press release also exposed the Obama campaign as liars for claiming our ad would never air. We began airing in Pennsylvania, and are hoping to continue to raise enough money to go into more key swing states that are now leaning towards Obama.

Despite Obama pulling ahead of McCain in the last few weeks, he still only leads McCain by 5 points, and his lead in 11 key swing states [Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina] is five points or less in each state. All those voters who were with McCain a few weeks ago but have switched to Obama could easily switch back to McCain if they are given a compelling enough reason not to vote for Obama. Obama's support in all these swing states where he is currently leading is very soft.

The Obama campaign is petrified at the fact that our ad is now airing on TV after it received 4 million hits on YouTube in 3 month, far more than any other political ad. The Obama campaign also realizes that our ad is striking a chord. And they also realize that the other 527 ads being used against Obama, as well as the McCain camping ads are all very ineffective, mostly using ideological issues; whereas our ad will appeal to voters of ALL political persuasions who go to church or synagogue and read the Bible. The Obama campaign is going to do everything in their power to discredit our 527 group between now and the election, hoping when the truth comes out it will be too late.

We are going to air our ads in blue-collar states that are leaning towards Obama right now, but are possible McCain takeaways, since the swing voters who will decide who wins those states are white, blue-collar Democrats who sometimes vote Republican; what they used to call "Reagan Democrats." These voters are now leaning towards Obama, but they are leery of him and have their doubts. Hopefully this ad will convince enough of these voters in the key states to abandon Obama, once they see the side of him exposed in our ad that they've never seen before.

These white blue-collar voters in all the key swing states are church-going folks who take the Bible seriously. Because of this, we believe our ad is the only 527 ad that could make a difference in this election. Obama is pulling ahead day by day, and now has a slight lead in states that two weeks ago seemed a lock for McCain [Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina]. We believe the only thing that can stop Obama [besides McCain hopefully becoming more aggressive in his attacks against Obama] is our ad.

If this ad is seen by all the swing voters in all the key swing states, it would not only anger anyone who reads the Bible, but will make anyone who sees the ad re-think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco as well as Obama's remarks in April that "small town America" is so bitter that they have to "cling to their guns and religion."

Most Americans have thus far given Obama a pass on those two issues, but after seeing our ad, it will make many, if not most folks think "Now I finally understand why Obama would belong to such a radical church", and "Now I finally understand Obama's true contempt for people of faith regarding his 'cling to their guns and religion' remark."

I believe you will agree that this ad needs to be aired as much as possible in as many key states as possible in order to have any impact on the election and stop what today appears to be Barack Obama's inevitable victory.

Obama's Magic

Presto, change-o!

And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world's most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.

For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.

Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules. Presto!

Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we'll get to that marvel later.

We're back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!

And for tonight's finale, the Great Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat! Tada!

You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun.

We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate "greed," and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.

As for that show, we'd love to invite you all back for next week's performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will . . .


McCain casts doubt on Obama's honesty

JOHN McCain and Sarah Palin have cranked up a searing character assault on Barack Obama, but another day of punishing losses on Wall Street further dented their White House hopes. The Republican nominee and his vice-presidential running mate railed against Senator Obama's personal honesty, but the deepening financial crisis played into the Democratic nominee's hands as he slammed Republican economic policies.

Trailing badly in the polls just over three weeks before the November 4 election, Senator McCain and Ms Palin accused Senator Obama of not telling the truth about the extent of his relationship with 1960s radical William Ayers. "Look, we don't care about an old-washed up terrorist ... the point is Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighbourhood," Senator McCain said in a town hall meeting in the swing state of Wisconsin. "We know that's not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Senator Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not."

Ms Palin also raised Mr Ayers on conservative pundit Laura Ingraham's radio talk show, saying Senator Obama had not told the "total truth" about an "unrepentant domestic terrorist" as the campaign debuted a hard-hitting negative advertisement on the issue.

The Obama camp said the ad was a "desperate and dishonest" attempt to distract voters from the worsening economic crisis and the McCain campaign's darkening prospects in the run-up to voting day. The Democratic nominee, 47, has repeatedly said he is not close to Mr Ayers, 63, an assertion backed by independent fact-checking organisations, but said he served on philanthropic boards with him and lives in the same Chicago neighbourhood. Mr Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a radical faction that carried out bomb attacks in the United States at the height of the anti-war movement in the 1960s. Today he is an education theorist and professor at the University of Illinois.

Senator Obama meanwhile fired up large crowds on a two-day bus tour of Ohio, warning that Americans could not afford four more years of Republican economic policies. He accused Senator McCain, 72, of showing "erratic" leadership in uncertain times. "We need steady leadership in the White House. We need a president we can trust in times of crisis," Senator Obama said. He also ridiculed Senator McCain's plan to buy up $US300 billion in bad mortgages as a waste of taxpayer money. "It's now clear that John McCain would rather launch angry, personal attacks than talk about the economy or defend his risky bailout scheme," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Senator McCain trails Senator Obama by widening margins in battleground state polls, in national surveys and even on some reliable Republican turf, and time is fast running out for him to turn the race around. For the second straight day, Senator Obama led Senator McCain by 11 points in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, and two new polls by USA Today and Rasmussen found he was the clear winner of the second presidential debate earlier this week.

Senator McCain's relentlessly negative attacks come after a Republican aide was quoted as saying in a newspaper article the campaign wanted to turn the spotlight away from devastating economic news. The character attacks may be an attempt to leverage cultural suspicion among white working class voters in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where the economic crisis has hammered Senator McCain's hopes.

Senator McCain's wife Cindy has taken up the assault, accusing Senator Obama of voting against legislation funding troops in Iraq while her son was serving in the war zone. "The day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son, when he was serving, sent a cold chill through my body," she said. Democrats, including Senator Obama, voted against the troop funding bill on the grounds that it did not include withdrawal timelines. At the time, there was little realistic prospect that funding for the war would be halted.

Also today, a warm-up speaker for Senator McCain and Ms Palin spoke about "Barack Hussein Obama." Democrats accuse Republicans of mentioning their nominee's middle name to fan inaccurate suspicions that Senator Obama, who is a Christian, is a Muslim. The McCain campaign said in a statement it did not condone such comments, but it was the latest in a sequence of occasions when Senator Obama's middle name has come up at Republican events. Senator McCain himself was accused of being disrespectful towards Senator Obama in the debate, referring to him dismissively as "that one".


News Flash: The Media Back Obama

Its activist role has been the single constant in this eternal election

Both time and events have dimmed those defining moments that early on revealed the difference between the two presidential aspirants. Not only did the financial crisis arrive but so, in her uproarious way, did Sarah Palin. Tuesday's debate between two candidates paralyzed by caution altered nothing. It was a relief, of course, not to hear about Sen. McCain's record as a "maverick" -- a word that would, in a merciful world, be banned from public discourse for the next decade. It was too much to expect Barack Obama to spare us further recitals of the McCain-Bush connection.

The single constant in the eternal election remains the media, whose activist role no one will seriously dispute. To point out the prevailing (with honorable exceptions) double standard of reporting so favorable to Mr. Obama by now feels superfluous -- much like talking about the weather. The same holds true for all those reports pointing to Mr. Obama's heroic status outside the United States -- not to mention the cascade of press analyses warning that if he fails to win election, the cause will surely be racism.

None of this means that the media's role will go unremembered -- who will forget MSNBC news, voice of the Obama campaign? Never has a presidential election produced more fodder for the making and breaking -- or tainting -- of reputations.

The same is true of news sources making far greater claims to fairness. So it was only slightly startling to read a New York Times forecast (Sept. 22) about the presidential debate to come in which reporter Katharine Q. Seelye declared, " . . . Mr. Obama should expect Mr. McCain to question his credentials for the job at every turn -- and to distort his views, as Mr. Romney insisted he did."

That first debate brought the usual legions of commentators -- among them CNN foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour. John McCain, she pointed out, had stumbled over Ahmadinejad's name, and as he was supposed to be the expert on foreign policy, it made her giggle. "That's not fair -- people make mistakes all the time," Anderson Cooper shot back. But Ms. Amanpour, whose capacity for sustained levels of bombast is one of the wonders of the world, was having none of it.

She would go on to raise the theme so central to the Obama campaign, and held, as revealed truth, by the politically progressive everywhere -- that the U.S., fallen low in the eyes of the world, is now in dire need of moral salvation. Everywhere she went in America, Ms. Amanpour declared, she found "desperate Americans" -- desperate, that is, about the low esteem in which the country was held, desperate to have a president who would lift America up.

Mr. Obama could not have said it better himself. He is the leading exponent of the idea that our lost nation requires rehabilitation in the eyes of the world -- and it is the most telling difference between him and Mr. McCain. When asked, in one of the earliest debates of the primary, his first priority should he become president, his answer was clear. He would go abroad immediately to make amends, and assure allies and others in the world America had alienated, that we were prepared to do all necessary to gain back their respect.

It is impossible to imagine those words coming from Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama has uttered them repeatedly one way or another and no wonder. They are in his bones, this impossible-to-conceal belief that we've lost face among the nations of the world -- presumably our moral superiors. He is here to reform the fallen America and make us worthy again of respect. It is not in him, this thoughtful, civilized academic, to grasp the identification with country that Mr. McCain has in his bones -- his knowledge that we are far from perfect, but not ready, never ready, to take up the vision of us advanced by our enemies. That identification, the understanding of its importance and of the dangers in its absence -- is the magnet that has above all else drawn voters to Mr. McCain.

Sen. Obama is not responsible for the political culture, but he is in good part its product. Which is perhaps how it happened that in his 20 years in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- passionate proponent of the view of America as the world's leading agent of evil and injustice -- he found nothing strange or alienating. To the contrary, when Rev. Wright's screeds began rolling out on televisions all over the country, Mr. Obama's first response was to mount a militant defense and charge that Rev. Wright had been taken out of context, "cut into snippets." This he continued to do until it became untenable. Then came the subject-changing speech on race. Such defining moments tell more than all the talk of Sen. Obama's association with the bomb-planting humanist, William Ayers.

These sharp differences between the candidates as to who we are as a nation may not seem, now, as potent an issue for voters as the economy, but they should not be underestimated. This clash -- not the ones on abortion or gay marriage -- is the root of the real culture war to play out in November.


Barack Obama is Herbert Hoover

With a little more than three weeks to go until Election Day, the major game-changer is yet to come. Obama's radical associations, lack of experience and voting record of raising taxes on the middle class, will come into the equation as November 4th draws nearer and people start to use their brains. The major issue now is the economy and people who have lived through the depression or whose parents have, understand that Barack Obama is Herbert Hoover in many ways.

The consensus is that there were no game-changing moments in Tuesday night's town hall debate in Nashville. The candidates traded jabs and talking points focusing on the economy, which is now distressing the McCain campaign, as he slips further in the polls and in battleground states. The economy dominated the debate as Obama continued to tie McCain to the unpopularity of the Bush administration which started with a surplus when President Bush came into office, as Obama remarked and now the national debt has nearly doubled. Some people saw what they wanted to see in each candidate as illustrated by the following exchange from a young unregistered undecided colleague:
We all know that McCain is equal to Bush. If you did watch the last night Presidential Debate you should have well noted that McCain is done for now. He repeated many many times the sentence "look at my record my friends" but he didn't say a word on how he is going to change "in better" this country and how he is really different from Bush. It is like when I come to a job interview and you, the interviewer, ask me "Do you know how read blue prints?" and I reply "look at my resume". What would you think about my professionalism? .Ok if you are good person you will probably give me a chance but guys, here we are electing the President of the United States of America not a McDonald Manager. Obama doesn't have any important experience but he knows what to say and how to act, something that for someone like McCain, with is impressive record, doesn't. I am sorry for who is blind in this country and doesn't want to understand that the Bush (Republican) administration has destroyed the American and world Economy..Be a smart voter and do the best for your country.

Another colleague responded as follows:
I won't share my political views with you, but in my opinion and with all due respect, if this is the logic you're applying in your choice for the next President of the U.S., then I am hopeful that you are not a registered voter!

McCain and Obama aside, your decision to cast your vote should have little to do with an hour of sound bites on TV from these candidates and more about where the candidates stand on the issues through their past performance...their track record, their voting record, their ability to get things done. If you believe only what you hear, then it is probably safe to say that you will hear only what you already believe.

Answer these questions for me...What has Barack Obama done for America to deserve your educated vote for President?? What has John McCain done for America that deserves your educated vote for President?? When you have those answers I will listen to your opinion. Keep in mind that some of our greatest Presidents were not great debaters. I send your words back to you..Be a smart voter and do the best for your country..use your brain...

International terrorism and national security issues were off the radar screen. The focus of the debate was on the economy and the unpopularity of the Bush administration. McCain never broached the topic of Barack Obama's radical associations and unsavory friends, including terrorist William Ayers, Amerca-hating pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, anti-Semitic Minister Louis Farrakhan, convicted criminal Tony Rezko and many others. Neither did he attack Obama on his voting record of tax increases across the board and massive spending programs as the treatment for times of financial distress which would plunge the country into the likes of another depression. This is the game-changer.

I was speaking to my good freind, Professor Gerald Matacotta tonight and he explained that the major issue we are now facing is the economy and on this issue Barack Obama follows in the footsteps of Herbert Hoover, who was a Republican in name only (RINO). Rather, he was a progressive and a social engineer, who funded massive public works programs with monumental tax increases. The stock market crashed occurred in 1929 during the first year of the Hoover administration. Hoover raised corporate and income taxes and imposed tariffs which sunk the country deep into the Great Depression. He instituted the Revenue Act of 1932 which was the largest tax increase in American history raising the income tax from 25% to 63% on the highest earners. The result of his tax increases took money out of the economy decreasing consumer and business spending, as homelessness, poverty, and bank failures grew out of control and unemployment soared to 25%. Hoover's prescription for the stock market fall was to tax the people more and use the funds for public works, as government took over more and more of the private sector.

This sounds similar to Obama's prescription for the present financial predicament we are facing. Some of the details of Obama's vague plan reveal that it would be the largest tax increase in over a decade, raising taxes on the incomes of those earning $250,000 or more. This would fund universal healthcare and other massive government programs. But looking at Obama's record in the U.S. Senate where he voted for higher taxes at least 94 times, and his support for hundreds of tax increases in the Illinois State Senate, we see a dangerous character very much like Herbert Hoover emerge.

We should "use our brains" and not let history repeat itself. As we get closer to Election Day, people who now say they support Obama should wake up and realize that Barack Obama is mysterious and unknown. The worse thing for a troubled economy is to increase taxes on wage earners and businesses. Judging from his record, if Obama gets elected, he will increase income taxes across the board, raise corporate taxes, and impose tariffs when the revenues from those earning $250,000 or more fall short of the mark, not only to fund his massive government programs, but also to lift us out of a financial recession. He will blame the Bush administration and deliver a somber address to the American people on sharing the burden of sacrifice. He will declare that it's the patriotic duty of all Americans to pay more taxes as his running mate Joe Biden has mentioned. We should learn from history and not let a repeat performance of Hoover's perilous reaction to the stock market crisis of 1929 recur in 2009.


Obama and Health-Care Equity

Barack defends tax subsidies for the rich

For someone running as the tribune of "change," Barack Obama showed again in last night's debate that he sure is comfortable with the status quo on health care. He continued his recent assaults on John McCain's health reform even though it is precisely the kind of plan that someone of Mr. Obama's professed convictions ought to support.

The attacks include swing-state TV spots and Joe Biden's multiple distortions, though the most over-the-top come from the candidate himself. Over the weekend, Mr. Obama called the McCain plan "radical," "out of line with our basic values" and, in case he wasn't clear, "catastrophic for your health care." Since Mr. McCain offered only a once-over-lightly defense of his plan, allow us to give it a try.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is so agitated because Mr. McCain's proposal is highly progressive. The Republican wants to readjust the subsidies that Congress channels into health coverage for business so that lower- and middle-wage workers aren't shortchanged, as they are now. Currently, people who get insurance through their employers pay no income or payroll taxes on the value of the benefit. This is revenue the government forgoes to encourage certain behavior. If those losses were direct spending, the tax exemption would have cost more than $246 billion in 2007.

But all that money props up only employer-provided insurance. For reasons of historical accident and lobbying clout, individuals who buy policies get no tax benefits and pay with after-tax dollars. Mr. McCain is proposing to make the tax benefits available to everyone, regardless of how they purchase their insurance.

He would offer a refundable tax credit of $5,000 for families, $2,500 for individuals, and the benefit isn't dependent on where people work or what they earn. Some would stick with their current job-based coverage. Given the option, others -- especially the uninsured, armed with new health dollars -- would decide to buy coverage on their own. That in turn would stimulate a market for more affordable insurance.

Mr. Obama doesn't want to let people make this choice. He even claims it would amount to "taxing your health-care benefits for the first time in history," which is a wild distortion. His point seems to be that because companies wouldn't have to pay for health care, they could raise wages and thus taxes would also increase for workers on those higher incomes. But doesn't Mr. Obama want higher wages?

All in all, workers would come out ahead with the McCain plan. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, the average taxpayer would see his tax bill drop by $1,241 in 2009. On average, lower-wage workers have more limited coverage as part of their compensation, mostly from small- or medium-size businesses. But the more generous the employer health plan, the more the tax subsidies increase. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the current employer benefit is only worth between $600 and $3,000 for people making under $100,000. The upper-income brackets save between $4,000 and $5,000.

The most affluent -- i.e., the top quintile of earners -- would be slightly worse off after 2013 under the McCain plan, though they'd still have plenty of options. Even as he routinely promises to raise taxes on "the rich," Mr. Obama is leaping to their unlikely defense here only to frighten everyone else. The McCain plan is fairer than the status quo, which subsidizes the most expensive employer (and union) insurance plans.

But don't take our word for it. Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser agrees with the McCain critique of the current system, or at least he once did. "This massive program of tax breaks is ineffective and regressive, wasting money on those who have health insurance while doing little for those who can barely afford it and nothing at all for those without it," wrote Jason Furman in 2006 in the journal Democracy. Before he joined the Obama campaign, Mr. Furman championed a health reform that relied on many of the same tax tools as Mr. McCain's.

In contrast to Mr. McCain, the Obama plan is all about expanding government health care. Mr. Obama is proposing a "public option" that is similar to Medicare but open to everyone of any age. With this new taxpayer-funded entitlement, private insurers would be crowded out as the government gradually paid all of the country's health-care costs.

Yet according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid already takes up 4% of GDP today and will rise to an unsustainable 9% over the next two decades. Mr. Obama wants to add even more costs to this taxpayer balance sheet. The inevitable result as spending explodes would be price controls and rationing.

On choice, portability, quality and especially equity, the McCain health plan is far superior to Mr. Obama's. The Democrat is merely offering Canada on the installment plan.


(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)


Patrick Roberts said...

The candidates have a major difference in their leadership styles: McCain tends to say, "Follow me because the other guy can't get it done" while Obama says, "Follow me because I can get it done." Ideally, the candidates should say, "Follow me because i will help you get it done" ... in any case, of the two of them Obama demonstrates a better leadership mentality

John Surname said...

Ah, John Ray, you're a sad, angry little man. It must kill you to see a black man riding a wave of popularity that is almost certainly going to lead to the White House, despite your best efforts.

You want a reasoned argument backed up with links? My source for your hatefulness, bitterness, propaganda, lies, and character assassination:

Quick question - did you serve in Vietnam (like you claim) while you were a member of Australian Nazi organisations? Your blog isn't clear. It says you "volunteered", but doesn't say whether you served there or not. Was the Army aware of your activities? Do ASIO have a file on you?

I'd love to stay and chat, but, you know, I'm going off to an anti-mining riot, because I hate miners.

johnsmith said...

The Obama campaign also realizes that our ad is striking a chord. And they also realize that the other 527 ads being used against Obama, as well as the McCain camping ads are all very ineffective, mostly using ideological issues.