Obama's incessant lies

A letter to the Messiah from Michael Master, McLean, Virginia

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clear ly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position .

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows tha t John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your bridf 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.

During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'They cling to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America.

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America, but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn.

Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else. Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4. You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty?

Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And fo r whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

Source





The Audacity of Lies

by Mike Gallagher

I understand what it means to fight hard, but fight fair. After a lifetime of making my living offering opinions on the radio, I try and follow that philosophy each and every day. Many of us wear our beliefs on our sleeve. You know where we stand on issues, ideology and politicians. But we don't lie. We don't make stuff up out of whole cloth in a desperate attempt to win the argument. We find it repulsive to try and trick people into believing things that aren't true.

And after this week's third and final presidential debate, I was dumbfounded by the audacity of lies that came from the Democrat candidate on that Hofstra University stage. I know that calling someone - anyone - a liar is a serious charge. But in just one brief period of time, Sen. Obama demonstrated his enthusiasm for outright falsehoods, over and over again.

The lies ranged from the silly to the intricate. At one point, Sen. Obama insisted that John McCain's campaign has produced "100% negative" campaign ads. When Sen. McCain tried to interrupt and say that wasn't true, Obama said, "Absolutely it is." So Sen. McCain is guilty of negative campaign commercials "100 percent" of the time, Sen. Obama? Really?

I have a transcript of the extraordinary campaign ad that the McCain campaign produced and aired nationally the day that Obama gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The spot was voiced by Sen. McCain himself.

Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. You know, too often, the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight, Senator: a job well done. I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

What a blistering, negative ad, huh? Believe me, the Obama campaign hasn't spent one dime on any kind of message that contained that kind of class and grace directed towards Sen. McCain. For Obama to suggest that a campaign capable of that kind of positive message in the middle of a hard-fought campaign has been "100 percent negative" is simply a downright lie.

When Obama's vote for the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act came up in the debate, Obama lied again. He claimed: "There was already a law on the books that required lifesaving treatment, which is why.I voted against it." At no point in history has Sen. Obama or his colleagues ever cited this 1975 law as a reason for voting against the bill in Illinois. More importantly, the law only protected "viable" infants - and left the meaning of "viable" up to the abortion doctor who just failed to kill the baby in the womb. More lies.

And finally, one of the biggest lies of all, that Republicans failed to reign in wild, foaming-at-the-mouth supporters who screamed, "Kill him" when Obama's name was mentioned. When Obama brought this allegation up during the debate, he repeated a charge that, according to the U.S. Secret Service, appears to be the fabrication of a small-town newspaper reporter named David Singleton.

When the agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton read the reporter's claim, that a man was heard yelling, "Kill him" after a congressional candidate mentioned Obama, he was "baffled." After all, Agent Bill Slavoski was at the rally along with an "undisclosed" number of additional Secret Service agents. He told the Pennsylvania Times-Leader, "We have yet to find someone to back up the story." The office actually conducted an investigation and interviewed countless witnesses. "We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it."

In other words, the only person at that rally in Scranton with thousands of witnesses who claims he heard someone threaten Sen. Obama, Scranton Times-Tribune reporter Singleton, was the only person in a position to make that charge in a newspaper column, something he did with great enthusiasm. His bizarre (and apparently ridiculous) claim was dutifully reported by the Associated Press, ABC, the Washington Monthly, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. Lies, lies and more lies.

And Obama perpetuated the lie during the debate by chastising Gov. Sarah Palin for not doing anything about it! I don't know what is going to happen on November 4th. But I think it's going to boil down to whether or not enough Americans have been fooled by this serial liar. For the sake of our country, I sure hope not.

Source




Liberals Lie, Conservatives Die... Laughing

by Burt Prelutsky

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember "To Tell the Truth," a TV game show on which three contestants tried to convince a panel that each of them was the one telling the truth about himself when in fact two of them were lying. Lately, the Democrats have been reminding me a lot of those two contestants. Instead of competing for small cash prizes, though, these hack politicians are vying for votes.

For instance, Barney Frank, who has always looked and talked like a cartoon character, has begun behaving like one. He keeps insisting that he had nothing to do with the sub-prime debacle. He bases this outlandish claim on the fact that the Democrats were in the minority on the House Finance Committee until January 31, 2007, when he became the chairman. Even if we choose to overlook the obvious fact that he did nothing to avert the disaster during the year-and-a-half he and his liberal colleagues held the reins, the truth is that the Democrats brought on the financial catastrophe by forcing the major lenders to do business with black and Hispanic deadbeats, and by intimidating the gutless Republicans on the Committee with threats of outing them as racists if they didn't play ball.

But when it comes to lying, even Mr. Frank, formerly at the epicenter of a homosexual prostitute ring in Washington, can't compare with Joe Biden. But, then, neither could Pinocchio or Baron von Munchhausen. When you realize that the vice-presidential debate took only 90 minutes, and that Gwen Ifill and Sarah Palin used up roughly 50 minutes with their questions and answers, Sen., Biden had a mere 40 minutes in which to cram in over a dozen lies. It's one of those mind-boggling records, like Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak, that may never be broken.

For openers, Biden is not in favor of clean coal as an alternate fuel. He has voted against its use every chance he's had during his 36 years in the Senate. And while I don't know in what cave Biden has been hiding, he must be the only person in America who didn't hear Barack Obama state that, without any preconditions, he would sit down with Mahmud Ahmadinejad. But that was only after he informed us that Iran was a small country and in no way a dangerous one. Furthermore, instead of presuming to inform Gov. Palin that Ahmadinejad is not really Iran's head honcho because it's a theocracy, he should have mentioned it to his running mate, inasmuch as Obama never mentioned sitting down with the mullahs.

When Biden said that McCain, like Obama, voted against funding the troops, he lied, knowing full well that McCain only refused to vote for the funding bill so long as it was tied to a timeline for withdrawal. Leave it to the Democrats to tell the Islamic terrorists to hang tough because, come hell or high water, we'll be gone on a certain date. They may not know how to wage war, but they sure know how to wage defeat.

Biden also lied when he said that McCain would raise taxes on people's health insurance, and when he announced that Gen. David McKiernan said that principles of the surge could not be employed in Afghanistan, and again when he insisted that we spend more money in three weeks fighting in Iraq than we've spent altogether in Afghanistan.

Finally, Biden lied when he claimed that McCain weakened the regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But perhaps that wasn't exactly a lie. Maybe he just confused John McCain with Barney Frank or Maxine Waters because they look so much alike.

It's not easy determining which of the numerous lies Biden rattled off in his allotted time was the most blatant, but my vote would probably go to his claim that he didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq. If I remember correctly, his explanation was that he was only authorizing President Bush to continue seeking a diplomatic solution, although it would be the first time in history that a president has ever required a vote in order to conduct diplomacy. I swear I could actually see Biden's nose growing after that one.

My biggest laugh of the night came when Biden, who lives in a very large house in a very pricey part of Delaware, suddenly tried to pass himself off as a regular guy talking about the middle-class folks in his neighborhood and his homies down at the local Home Depot. The truth is, a family of five could eat for a year on what this man has spent on hair plugs and having his teeth painted. So far as I can tell, the only difference between the Democrats and Burger King is that Biden and friends don't offer cokes and fries with their whoppers.

Source




Deceit and hysteria from Obama supporters

by Charles Krauthammer

Let me get this straight. A couple of agitated yahoos in a rally of thousands yell something offensive and incendiary, and John McCain and Sarah Palin are not just guilty by association -- with total strangers, mind you -- but worse: guilty according to The New York Times of "race-baiting and xenophobia."

But should you bring up Barack Obama's real associations -- 20 years with Jeremiah Wright, working on two foundations and distributing money with William Ayers, citing the raving Michael Pfleger as one who helps him keep his moral compass (Chicago Sun-Times, April 2004) and the long-standing relationship with the left-wing vote-fraud specialist ACORN -- you have crossed the line into illegitimate guilt by association. Moreover, it is tinged with racism.

The fact that, when John McCain actually heard one of those nasty things said about Obama, he incurred the boos of his own crowd by insisting that Obama is "a decent person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president" makes no difference. It surely did not stop John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace.

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

Herbert is not the only fevered one. On Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek fell over themselves agreeing that the "political salience" of the Republican attack on ACORN is, yes, its unstated appeal to racial prejudice. This about an organization that is being accused of voter registration fraud in about a dozen states. In Nevada, the investigating secretary of state is a Democrat. Is he playing the race card too?

What makes the charges against McCain especially revolting is that he has been scrupulous in eschewing the race card. He has gone far beyond what is right and necessary, refusing even to make an issue of Obama's deep, self-declared connection with the race-baiting Jeremiah Wright.

In the name of racial rectitude, McCain has denied himself the use of that perfectly legitimate issue. It is simply Orwellian for him to be now so widely vilified as a stoker of racism. What makes it doubly Orwellian is that these charges are being made on behalf of the one presidential candidate who has repeatedly, and indeed quite brilliantly, deployed the race card.

How brilliantly? The reason Bill Clinton is sulking in his tent is because he feels that Obama surrogates succeeded in painting him as a racist. Clinton has many sins, but from his student days to his post-presidency, his commitment and sincerity in advancing the cause of African-Americans have been undeniable. If the man Toni Morrison called the first black president can be turned into a closet racist, then anyone can.

And Obama has shown no hesitation in doing so to McCain. Just weeks ago, in Springfield, Mo., and elsewhere, he warned darkly that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten you by saying that, among other scary things, Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills." McCain has never said that, nor anything like that. When asked at the time to produce one instance of McCain deploying race, the Obama campaign could not. Yet here was Obama firing a pre-emptive charge of racism against a man who had not indulged in it. An extraordinary rhetorical feat, and a dishonorable one.

What makes this all the more dismaying is that it comes from Barack Obama, who has consistently presented himself as a healer, a man of a new generation above and beyond race, the man who would turn the page on the guilt-tripping grievance politics of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I once believed him.

Source





"Getting" Joe the plumber

The star of the final Presidential debate Wednesday night was not Barack Obama or John McCain. It was Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher from Ohio. Joe the Plumber came to the attention of the candidates when a video of him questioning Obama about his tax policy made news. Video of Obama's response that when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody, spread like wildfire across the internet, to some cable news shows, and to John McCain's attention. Since Joe was a big focus of the debate, and a big hit with Republicans, the Obama thugocracy (as tagged by Michael Barone) wasted no time targeting him.

Some liberal bloggers went after Joe the Plumber saying he didn't even make $250,000 and that he would receive a tax cut under Barack Obama's plan, supposedly proving "Joe the Plumber" was a Republican lie. Here is what Joe said in the exchange with Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about 250, 270-80 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more isn't it?" So much for the Republican lie. Joe told Obama that he was planning on buying a company, which he hoped would put him in that $250,000 or more income range in the future, which prompted Obama's response about spreading the wealth around. By choosing that line of attack, those on the left proved what many of us on the right already believed - that they don't "get" the basic concept of the American dream.

The American "dream" is about aspiring to improve your lot - to take advantage of the freedoms this country affords those who are willing to work hard, invest time and energy and often to take risks, to achieve success. In the response of liberals trying to blunt the effect of Obama's spread the wealth comment they revealed their inability to understand that basic concept. Obama did the same in the full response he gave to Joe's question. Obama stressed over and over again not what his tax plan would do to those who have begun to experience the success of the American dream, but only what it would do for those behind them. The idea that increasing taxes on the rich could negatively impact the not yet rich is a completely foreign notion.

In addition to those who tried to make hay out of the fact that Joe doesn't yet make $250,000 (which they would have known if they had actually listened to his question), the Obama thugocracy went after him any other way they could. First they questioned Joe's political affiliation, some saying he had given to Republicans in the past and others saying he was not registered to vote at all. Then they moved to his personal financial and legal records - first digging up a tax lien against him, then pointing out that he didn't have a specific license (something required for commercial work, not residential).

Joe "not the plumber" Biden, evidently listening to the talking points and not to Joe the Plumber's question, thought that Joe the Plumber made $250,000 and therefore wasn't really a "real" plumber at all. On NBC's Today show Biden said, "John [McCain] wants to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber. I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year." God love'em.

On Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Joe the Plumber said Obama's plan to take more money from those who are successful is "scary" and a "very socialist view" and a "slippery slope." If he continues to talk like that, and if he continues to resonate with Americans, there is no telling what we will learn next about Joe Wurzelbacher. Is he Trig Palin's baby daddy? Does he wear silk undergarments? Is he really bald? The point those on the left now trying to destroy Joe the Plumber don't get is that it doesn't matter. Not only do their nasty attacks on him discourage anyone else from becoming involved in public political debate, but nothing they could dig up on him would matter anyway.

Whether Joe the Plumber is a Republican or a Democrat, a decided or undecided registered or unregistered voter, gay or straight, a wearer of boxers or briefs, a huge GOP donor or even the secret love child of John McCain doesn't matter, because it doesn't change what Barack Obama said. Of his own free will, Obama admitted that he believes his tax plan is a good thing because when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody.

Those of us who have believed Obama's policy proposals to be a socialist redistribution of wealth had everything we believed confirmed, straight from the horse's mouth. That is what was so shocking about the video exchange between Obama and Wurzelbacher -- what Obama said.

Obama told Joe that it is okay to soak those making more than $250,000 because then you can "spread the wealth" around and everyone will benefit. That is redistribution of wealth - taking from the rich (and from the kinda rich) and giving to the not so rich and the poor. And Obama admitted it. Out loud. On video.

Joe the Plumber is not going to be making tax policy (unfortunately), so even if he was a plant or a liar or Trig Palin's daddy or John McCain's love child doesn't matter because it would not change what Barack Obama said. If the scenario described by Joe was real or fabricated would not even change the fact that Obama, the man asking to be allowed to reshape America's economic policies, said out loud what his philosophy on taxes is and it amounts to redistribution of wealth.

James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report said that in Obama's statement he was "playing into the most extreme stereotype" of the Democrat party "that is infested with socialists." He pointed to what he called McCain's best line in the debate, "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around."

Pethokoukis then pointed to something from a Gallup poll from June: "When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly - by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."

That attitude may have changed a bit since June, considering the recent credit crisis and anger toward Wall Street fat cats. But even if it is not still an 84-13% split, it is almost certainly still a substantial majority. No wonder those on the Left have decided Joe the Plumber must be destroyed. What they don't get is that he is not what will cost them votes - Obama's own words are.

Source






Ayers Is No Education 'Reformer'

The new media spin is worse than Obama's original evasion

By SOL STERN

One of the most misleading statements during the presidential debates was when Barack Obama claimed that William Ayers was just "a guy in the neighborhood."

But that piece of spin is nothing compared to the false story now being peddled by Mr. Obama's media supporters that Mr. Ayers -- who worked with the Democratic nominee for years to disperse education grants through a group called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- has redeemed his terrorist past. In the New York Times, for example, Frank Rich writes that "establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform."

I've studied Mr. Ayers's work for years and read most of his books. His hatred of America is as virulent as when he planted a bomb at the Pentagon. And this hatred informs his educational "reform" efforts. Of course, Mr. Obama isn't going to appoint him to run the education department. But the media mainstreaming of a figure like Mr. Ayers could have terrible consequences for the country's politics and public schools.

The education career of William Ayers began when he enrolled at Columbia University's Teachers College at the age of 40. He planned to stay long enough to get a teaching credential. But he experienced an epiphany in a course offered by Maxine Greene, who urged future teachers to tell children about the evils of the existing, oppressive capitalist social order. In her essay "In Search of a Critical Pedagogy," for example, Ms. Greene wrote of an education that would portray "homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder's choice." That was music to the ears of the ex-Weatherman. Mr. Ayers acquired a doctorate in education and landed an Ed school appointment at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).

Chicago might seem to be the least likely place for Mr. Ayers to regain social respectability for himself and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. After all, the Windy City was where their Weathermen period began in 1969, with Mr. Ayers, Ms. Dohrn and their comrades marauding through the Miracle Mile, assaulting cops and city officials and promulgating slogans such as "Kill Your Parents." But Chicago's political culture had already begun to change by the time the couple returned in 1987. And the city would change even more dramatically when Richard Daley Jr. became mayor in 1990.

Daley the son has maintained as tight a rein over the city's Democratic Party machine as did his father, doling out patronage jobs and contracts to loyalists and tolerating as much corruption as in the old days. But unlike his father, he was ready to cut deals with veterans of the hard-core, radical left who were working for their revolutionary ideas from within the system they once sought to destroy from without. There is no lack of such veterans. One of Chicago's congressmen, Bobby Rush, is a former chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party; Louis Gutierrez, a former leader of a Puerto Rican liberation group, the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, is another.

In this Chicago, where there are no enemies on the left, Mr. Ayers's second career flourished. It didn't hurt that his father, Thomas Ayers, was the CEO of the Commonwealth Edison company, a friend of both Daleys and a major power broker in the city.

Mr. Ayers was hired by the Chicago public schools to train teachers, and played a leading role in the $160 million Annenberg Challenge grant that distributed funds to a host of so-called school-reform projects, including some social-justice themed schools and schools organized by Acorn. Barack Obama became the first chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization in 1995. When asked for an opinion on the Obama/Ayers connection, Mayor Daley told the New York Times that Mr. Ayers had "done a lot of good in this city and nationally." In fact, as one of the leaders of a movement for bringing radical social-justice teaching into our public school classrooms, Mr. Ayers is not a school reformer. He is a school destroyer.

He still hopes for a revolutionary upheaval that will finally bring down American capitalism and imperialism, but this time around Mr. Ayers sows the seeds of resistance and rebellion in America's future teachers. Thus, education students signing up for a course Mr. Ayers teaches at UIC, "On Urban Education," can read these exhortations from the course description: "Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression -- we have the resources and knowledge to fight and overcome these things. We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems globally. We cannot be child advocates . . . in Chicago or New York and ignore the web that links us with the children of India or Palestine."

The readings Mr. Ayers assigns to his university students are as intellectually diverse as a political commissar's indoctrination session in one of his favorite communist tyrannies. The list for his urban education course includes the bible of the critical pedagogy movement, Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed"; two books by Mr. Ayers himself; and "Teaching to Transgress" by bell hooks (lower case), the radical black feminist writer.

Two years ago Mr. Ayers shared with his students a letter he wrote to a young radical friend: "I've been told to grow up from the time I was ten until this morning. Bullshit. Anyone who salutes your 'youthful idealism' is a patronizing reactionary. Resist! Don't grow up! I went to Camp Casey [Cindy Sheehan's vigil at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas] in August precisely because I'm an agnostic about how and where the rebellion will break out, but I know I want to be there and I know it will break out." (The letter is on his Web site, www.billayers.org.)

America's ideal of public schooling as a means of assimilating all children (and particularly the children of new immigrants) into a common civic and democratic culture is already under assault from the multiculturalists and their race- and gender-centered pedagogy. Mr. Ayers has tried to give the civic culture ideal a coup de grace, contemptuously dismissing it as nothing more than what the critical pedagogy theorists commonly refer to as "capitalist hegemony."

In the world of the Ed schools, Mr. Ayers's movement has established a sizeable beachhead -- witness his election earlier this year as vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of education professors and researchers. If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, the "guy in the neighborhood" is not likely to get an invitation to the Lincoln bedroom. But with the Democrats controlling all three branches of government, there's a real danger that Mr. Ayers's social-justice movement in the schools will get even more room to maneuver and grow.

Source

(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 blogger.com 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.)