Biden's Gaffes Being Ignored By Media

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by rival Democrat Barack Obama's campaign.

But the campaign has been silent about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.

"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."

But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed."

The senior senator from Delaware went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.

"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head."

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate last month, his claim to have been "shot at" drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false.

FOX News has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

Meanwhile, the gaffe-prone Biden has again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones - this time in Afghanistan. Biden said he will grill Republican rival Sarah Palin in Thursday's vice presidential debate about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down."

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."

But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

Biden never explicitly claimed his chopper had been forced down by terrorists. Nonetheless,

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Obama-Biden officials have been less than forthcoming about Biden's dramatic war stories.

"They never explained Biden's helicopter story from last week - which is very similar to the story about getting 'shot at' in Baghdad," Rogers said.

Bill Sammon is deputy Washington managing editor for FOX News Channel.

Barack Obama is Unfit to be President

Two of Obama's top adivsors(Jim Johnson and Frank Raines) made millions of dollars running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while the American people suffered. This is who Obama is going to for advice. He allowed one of these to head up the committee to select his Vice President. These are his close allies. Whose side do you think he is going to be on?

Tony Rezko is now residing in prison for fraud and corruption. He is Barack Obama's friend. Obama accepted thousands of dollars from Rezko. Obama: "I trusted Tony Rezko." Can we trust Barack Obama?

William Ayers led Weather Underground, a terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon. Obama worked alongside him for many years in Chicago. Obama called him his "friend". Obama launched his state senate campaign at Ayers house.

Obama called Rev. Wright his "spiritual advisor." Rev. Wright claims white people created the AIDS virus to kill black people. He said America is a horrible country and "God Damn America!" For over 20 years, did Obama receive good advice?

Obama voted "present" over 130 times while in the State Senate. He couldn't decide between "yes" or "no" and he wants to be president.

While in the Senate, Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. Can we trust him not to do the same now? He has proposed over $850 BILLION in new spending. FACT. How do you think he is going to pay for it? By raising taxes. He has also said he will raise the capital gains and death tax, among others. He has plans to enact a windfall profits tax on oil. The exact same thing Jimmy Carter did 30 years ago, and we saw how badly that turned out.

Obama has said repeatedly he would sit down "without preconditions" with the President of Iran, who has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and said he would wipe them from the face of the earth. Obama wants to reward these statements by giving this person a global platform to spew this propaganda by sitting across the table from "without preconditions". Poor judgment.

Obama was nearly the only state senator that opposed the Born Alive Act that would grant human rights to babies that have survived an abortion. Opposing this bill means the babies would be allowed to be left alone in a dark room to die. Obama continually stated that he did not fight to oppose this bill, until audio was recovered with him doing just that.

It's simple: Barack Hussein Obama just doesn't get it. He is the biggest celebrity in the world, but HE IS NOT READY TO LEAD. He is not qualified to be President. Quite frankly, electing Obama is not only unwise; it's dangerous.

Obama's Voting Record EXPOSED

Here are some issues that have been pulled straight from Obama's voting record, not his rhetoric. Obama cannot hide from the facts. He continues to deny several of these things, but as John McCain said, "Look at our records." Well I did, and here it is:

BARACK OBAMA

In the Senate, he OPPOSED a ban on not only Partial Birth Abortions, but LIVE BERTH ABORTIONS as well. In other words, if Obama had his way, it would be ok to kill a baby that is up to 9 months old in the womb. That is a full grown baby. Obama thinks it is ok to terminate that life. My friends, for a man who preaches love and kindness, that is INHUMANE CRUELTY. This is not a matter of pro choice or not, this is FAR beyond the measures of being pro choice.

In the Senate, he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This Act provides rights to babies that survive a LATE TERM abortion. Full grown babies. Obama thinks it is ok to kill these babies AFTER they have been released from the womb. Loving? Harmony? I think not.

And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions.

In 2005 Obama voted AGAINST a bill that would have increased oil and gasoline production in the Gulf of Mexico (AMERICA). In other words, a bill that would have provided for jobs for AMERICA and lowered our dependency on foreign oil, which in turn would have LOWERED gas prices. Now he says he is going to do all he can to lower gas prices? Put up or shut up Obama. You had a chance and (BIG SURPRISE) you chose to help out the countries in the Middle East instead of the US.

Barack Obama has missed 178 votes (38.3%) during the current Congress Senators are elected to VOTE on the issues. This guy has MISSED over 38% of the votes. He wants to be president and he's not even concerned enough to show up and do his job.

OBAMA CHOSE NOT TO VOTE ON A KEY BILL THAT WAS PASSED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS THAT WOULD ADD SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT, THUS BETTER PREPARING OUR COUNTRY TO HANDLE A CRISIS ATTACK SCENARIO. AND THIS IS THE GUY YOU WANT TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF???? This amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was made in order to implement the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. Different versions of the bill were passed in the House on Jan. 9 and in the Senate on July 9. A modified version of the bill, with conference report changes, was revisited on July 27 and passed by a vote of 85-8. The bill requires the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircrafts and establishes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This panel, suggested by the 9/11 commission, is responsible for advising the president and senior White House officials maintaining respect for privacy laws and civil liberties. Other provisions of the bill include grants to states, urban areas, regions, or directly eligible tribes to be used to improve the ability for first responders to react to and prevent terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The bill also outlined details regarding the detention and treatment of captured terrorists. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on August 3.

He voted AGAINST A BILL THAT WOULD SUPPLY OUR TROOPS WITH THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AROUND THE WORLD. This was not a vote for funding the war, or a peticular battle, but just a bill that would give our troops such things as body armor, armored vehicles, etc. Whether he wanted the war or not, the bottom line is/was we are/were there and he voted AGAINST giving them the things they need to protect themselves, therefor COSTING AMERICAN LIVES.

This is only the beginning. Periodically I will continue to post some of Senator Obama's voting record. The man can give great speeches, but goodness, he sure knows how to do a HORRIBLE job as a Senator. Can he be expected to do any better as President? The next time someone tells you they like Obama...ask them why? And see if you get a REAL answer.

Obama Plans $850 Billion in NEW Spending: THE PROOF

Obama's Spending Plans are an outrage. And here is the proof, straight from the sources:

If Obama Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing Over $850 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term:

Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year–Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)

Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years–Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year–Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)



Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “[I]ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion. “Barack Obama’s economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan To Stimulate The Economy,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08)

Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year–Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)

Obama’s National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year–Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years. “Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.” (Obama For America, “Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama’s Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion. “Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aide Iraqi Refugees. “He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems. “As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs–Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800 Million Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama: “We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build — or come to the brink of building — a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Renewing American Leadership,” Foreign Affairs, 7-8/07)


For a country that is already WAY in debt,especially in light of the new Wall St. bailout, do you really think we need a President who is going to spend OUR tax money like this? Obama's budget would be the largest spending spree this country has seen since the creation of FDR's "New Deal" policies, which is what put our country in debt in the first place.

Politico Raves About McCain's Debate Performance

John McCain was very lucky that he decided to show up for the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Friday night. Because he gave one of his strongest debate performances ever.

While Barack Obama repeatedly tried to link McCain to the very unpopular George W. Bush, Bush’s name will not be on the ballot in November and McCain’s will.

And McCain not only found a central theme but hit on it repeatedly. Obama is inexperienced, naive, and just doesn’t understand things, McCain said.

Sure, McCain is a pretty old guy for a presidential candidate, but he showed the old guy did not mind mixing it up. He stood behind a lectern for 90 minutes without a break — you try that when you are 72 — and he not only gave as good as he got, he seemed to relish it more.

At least twice after sharp attacks by McCain, Obama seemed to look to moderator Jim Lehrer for help, saying to Lehrer, “Let’s move on.”

True, the majority of the debate was fought on McCain’s strongest ground: foreign affairs. And true, McCain’s feet were not held to the fire as to why he urged the postponement of the debate in order to secure a financial bailout package in Washington, but then decided to show up without any such agreement in hand.

But it didn’t seem to matter much. McCain just pounded away on his central argument: Obama just didn’t “understand” how to deal with Pakistan; how dangerous it is to meet with foreign leaders without preconditions; how serious the Russian invasion of Georgia was; the price of failure in Iraq.

“He doesn’t understand, he doesn’t get it,” McCain said of Obama, also saying, “There is a little bit of naiveté here.”

It was as if McCain was paying Obama back for that moment in Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention when Obama said McCain would not serve America well, “not because John McCain doesn’t care; it’s because John McCain doesn’t get it.”

But McCain seemed to get it Friday night. He certainly knew enough to try to turn his age into a plus and not a minus. “There are some advantages to experience, knowledge and judgment,” McCain said.

And when McCain delivered a scripted zinger — “Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate; it's hard to reach across the aisle when you’re that far to the left” — Obama replied: “Mostly that’s me opposing George Bush’s wrongheaded policies.”

Obama eventually realized that McCain had to be attacked not just for his ties to George Bush but also for his own record, and Obama accused McCain of saying the Iraq war “was going to be quick and easy” and that weapons of mass destruction would be found.

“You were wrong,” Obama said.

But McCain attacked back. “I understand why Sen. Obama was surprised and saddened that the surge succeeded beyond his wildest expectations,” he said.

McCain seemed to be enjoying himself. He smiled a lot, mostly when Obama was talking, though his smile was really more like a smirk.

Debate audiences are the largest audiences the candidates get — far larger than their announcement or convention speeches — and millions of Americans were seeing the two candidates up close and at length for the first time.

Both avoided their negative stereotypes: Obama did not seem aloof or condescending. McCain did not seem erratic or wild. You could imagine either one of them in the Oval Office, but only one is going to get there.

“I don’t need any on-the-job training,” McCain said. “I am ready to go at it right now.”

He certainly seemed like it Friday night.

Des Moines Register Declares McCain Winner of First Debate

Here is the article from the Des Moines, Iowa paper, an unbiased source:

It was one of the most substantive debates in recent presidential campaign history and John McCain won it.


The Arizona senator was cool, informed and forceful in Friday’s first presidential debate of the general election campaign.


He repeatedly put Barack Obama on the defensive throughout the 90 minutes session. Obama did little to ease voter concerns that he’s experienced enough to handle foreign and defense policy. That was his number one task Friday night and he failed.


Instead he was often his old meandering self, unable to state a quick, forceful position. Polls taken in the coming days should show McCain holding on to his trump card in the race - the view that he’s better equipped to be commander in chief.


He condescendingly called Obama “naive” at a couple points in the debate, like an old master lecturing a young understudy. Obama never seemed able to attack back.


McCain’s victory came at a good time for him in the race. He has fumbled around for a week on questions involving the economy and the federal bailout of Wall Street. His vice presidential candidate has become a running joke of late night comedy shows. As a result, his poll numbers sagged.


The debate came against the backdrop of a close presidential election at a time when the country faces its greatest economic crisis since the 1930s and some of its greatest military threats since World War II. The nation’s adversaries - Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Taliban terrorists - seem to be on the ascendancy.


It has rattled Americans and between the two, McCain came off as the most reassuring. The crabby, grumbling, hotheaded McCain was nowhere to be seen. Instead we saw a calm, seasoned commander in chief . If you looked at your television and squinted slightly, you could better picture him addressing the country during a time of national crisis than Obama. Obama was often left flashing his smile and shaking his head at McCain.


McCain was expected to win on questions of foreign policy and national defense. That’s been his background. Where he routed Obama was on economic and spending questions as he repeatedly accusing Obama of using earmarks and wanting to spend too much.


When Obama tried his line about how McCain voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, McCain slapped back by ticking off a lit of issues where he has disagreed with Bush - like torture, conduct of the war in Iraq and federal spending and Guantanamo Bay. McCain never got rattled or flustered, he just constantly stayed focused on the attack.

McCain Beats Obama in First Debate

"Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate," ... "It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left"-John McCain

It was very clear that John McCain was the winner tonite. Obama, first of all, came across very rude. He tried to interrupt and talk over McCain several times whenever McCain had nailed him on an issue. Obama was sweating and stuttering through a majority of the debate. McCain had Obama on the defensive through most of the debate. McCain's experience shined, especially through the last ten minutes of the debate.

McCain said, "Look at out records." And think we should. Obama has talked a good game, but his record tells a much different story. He voted to raise taxes 94 times. How is that helpful? He wants to sit down with the man who called Israel a "stinking corpse."

Barack Obama doesn't understand. He just doesn't get it. I hope the American people saw the truth tonite.

"So let me get this right, we sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says 'we're going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' and we say, 'no you're not.' Oh please"--John McCain

It seems they have:
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN 72% 44,182
OBAMA 25% 15,406
NEITHER 2% 1,434

Total Votes: 61,022

Obama's SHOCKING New Plan Revealed!

This is breaking news that is beginning to circulate and I have heard hints of this within the past couple days, and recently I received this email, nearly confirming my suspicions:
>
> ...from excellent sources within the DNC:
> On or about October 5th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing
> health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur
> after the VP debate on 10/2.
>
> I have already seen a few short blurbs about this - the 'health problem' cited
> in those articles was aneurysm. probably many of you have heard the same
> rumblings. However, at this point, with this inside info from the DNC, it looks
> like this Obama strategy will be a go. Therefore, it seems that the best
> strategy is to get out in front of this obama maneuver, spell it out in detail,
> and thereby expose it for the grand manipulation that it is.
>
> So, let's start mixing this one up and cut the obamites off at the pass - send
> this info out to as many people as you can - post about it on websites and blogs
> - etc etc



Now I don't know if this is 100% true or not. However, I do know that it is certainly being considered. Does Obama think we are that stupid? Does he really believe we will fall for this? WE MUST EXPOSE THIS SHAM NOW!! Start spreading the word. The American will not fall victim to anymore of Obama's Party Politics.

Country First. John McCain.

-Lee Vogler

Points for the Day: Obama, Rezko and Raines

"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."

And perhaps you guys have heard of Tony Rezko?

Obama: "I trusted Tony Rezko."

Really? He's in prison right now for fraud and corruption. Obama trusted Rezko. Can we trust Obama?

Obama Is More Concerned With Winning Elections, Rather Than Help You; Once Again, McCain Puts COUNTRY FIRST

The country is in turmoil. Wall Street is in chaos. No one seems to know what to do.

John McCain has answered the call. At a time when he certainly could be out campaigning and definitely preparing for the scheduled debate with Barack Obama on Friday, he has decided to suspend his campaign and head to Washington in an effort to solve this economic crisis. He has decided once again to put COUNTRY FIRST and politics aside.

We have seen this before. Preparing for Hurrican Gustav, McCain went down to the gulf to see first hand what was going on. He then cancelled the first day of his own convention. Meanwhile, Barack Obama was giving stump speeches in swing state Ohio. Do you think Obama would have cancelled his convention?

Prior to that, McCain suggested that both men participate in Town Hall Debates across the country, answering questions of the people. Obama first said that he would, but then later backed down. Just another example of McCain putting COUNTRY FIRST and Obama playing poltics.

And now this. McCain has taken down all his poltical ads, and haulted all events. He has asked for both sides to come together and help the country solve this mess. Meanwhile, Obama was in swing state Florida delivering a stump speech hammering McCain. Do you see a pattern here? Even after being asked to post-pone the debate until a bill was passed in Congress, Obama bucked the idea. He couldn't possibly post-pone this debate he has been prepping for all week! That would be so unbeneficial to him. My goodness, that would be putting his COUNTRY FIRST!!

You see, Barack Obama isn't interested in what is actually best for this country. He is only interested in what is best for him. Why waste time going to Washington when you can speak to thousands of potential voters in Florida? Why worrie that our country is financially in crisis and running out of time to solve it, when you can keep giving rousing speeches? Who cares that people have nowhere to live and no jobs to support themselves when you can send a shiver up Chris Matthews' leg with one of your speeches?

Please, I am asking you to realize what this man is. He is not hope. He is HYPE. He doesn't care about the average citizen. He is concerned with his LEGACY. He worries more about his place in history, than he does about your place in society. Now is not the time to feed someone's ego. We need a real leader. We need someone who will take action, not wait for public opinion polls. We need John McCain!

If you live in a swing state, please go out and tell your friends the truth!! I understand some of you do not like to share your views with others, but now is not the time to sit back and hope someone else will do it for you. Now is the time to act! Let's follow John McCain's lead and do something!! Let's not be like Obama and talk a good game, but let's take action!

STAND UP AND FIGHT!!

FIGHT FOR EACH OTHER!!

WE'RE AMERICANS and WE NEVER GIVE UP...WE NEVER QUIT!!

STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!

NOTHING IS INEVITABLE IN THIS COUNTRY. DO NOT LET THE MEDIA TELL YOU WHO SHOULD WIN!!

WE DECIDE...NOT THEM!!

To Pennsylvania: You Will Lose Your Jobs Under Obama/Biden

The Coal industry is a big way of life in Pennsylvania and Joe Biden wants to erradicate it. Do you really want the economy in Pennsylvania to plummet? It seems Obama/Biden does.

Do you want jobs and new jobs that will last? Vote for McCain/Palin.

The video Obama doesn't want you to see

Obama LIES about Sex Education Bill

On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right
What was that Illinois sex-education bill really about?

By Byron York


In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”

Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”

Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”

The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair?

21st-CENTURY SEX EDUCATION
The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.)

When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”

According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:

The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”

The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:

Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…

The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:
Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…

The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:
Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.


TOUCHY SUBJECT
After the ad controversy erupted, I asked the Obama campaign to suggest who I might interview for more information. I particularly wanted some sort of contemporaneous account showing that Obama voted for the bill because of its inappropriate-touching provision. The campaign suggested I call Ken Swanson, who is head of the Illinois Education Association and a 20-year veteran of teaching sixth-graders.

“The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults,” Swanson told me. “Certainly, it was never intended to be some sort of inappropriate information that might be appropriate for junior high or high school students.” McCain’s accusation, Swanson told me, was “bogus.”

I suggested to Swanson that the bill seemed to provide for HIV education for youngsters before the sixth grade, and perhaps as early as kindergarten. “As I recall the discussion, there was a conversation where in different places in the state — that was something that should be left to local circumstances,” Swanson told me. “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community. I don’t recall anybody, from our perspective, having a one-rule-fits-all vision.”

Swanson suggested that if I wanted to know more I should get in touch with the bill’s sponsors. There were five — State Senator Ronen, as well as Sens. M. Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett, Iris Martinez, and Jeffrey Schoenberg. All were from the greater Chicago area. But getting in touch with them was easier said than done.

Ronen has left the Illinois state senate. When I called her home, I reached a woman who did not give me her name but told me she knew how to reach Ronen. I gave her my information, but there has been no call back, nor has Ronen answered a number of follow-up calls.

An assistant in Garrett’s office helpfully gave me the senator’s cell-phone number, so I was able to have a few brief conversations with her. In one, she said she couldn’t talk and asked me to call back in a few minutes. I did, and then did again, and ended up doing so several times over an extended period, all without an answer. The next day, I reached Garrett again, who told me that since the debate took place five years ago, she couldn’t speak about it “unless I have the bill in front of me . . . I’d be happy to do that if I could just print out the bill . . . I just want to be sure I get it right.” We agreed that I would email her the bill, but after I did, she didn’t answer the phone. She still hasn’t.

I’ve gotten no response from Crotty or Schoenberg.

That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”

When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”


After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

“Absolutely not.”

“THAT WASN’T WHAT I HAD IN MIND”
The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind. We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.”


Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

McCain Mania and Palin Power

Man, it's spreading!!! As one of the 23,000+ people at the McCain/Palin rally in VA last week, I can most definitely say that the tide is turning. But as McCain supporters we must not rest easy now. NOW more than ever, we need to get out the vote. Go to college campuses and spread the word (they are not ALL liberals,lol). Go to your local churches and urge the pastors to speak on behalf of McCain. Post bumper stickers and yard signs everywhere you can. Send text messages to friends and family to remind them that Obama opposes offshore drilling and nuclear energy expansion, even though we are paying $4 a gallon for gas. Do not let people get sucked into these false emails that are being passed around about Sarah Palin.

The far left is becoming increasingly worried. They are stooping to even lower levels than before. Obama has sent a pack of 30 lawyers up to Alaska to try and dig up whatever they can on Sarah Palin. Maybe they will tell us what she used to eat for lunch in High School:-)

We MUST do every thing we can to help John McCain and Sarah Palin reform Washington. If you live in Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado and/or Minnesota, I am especially talking to you. Do not think your vote won't matter. Do not think the things you say and do to others won't have an effect. PEOPLE LISTEN TO THEIR PEERS.

The time is now! STAND UP!! STAND UP!! STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND SARAH PALIN!!!

Another "Great" Endorsement for Obama

I guess that speech Obama gave overseas made an impact huh? He certainly made an impression on British comedian, and MTV VMA host, Russell Brand. Brand made a plea for Americans to elect Obama, and said that people who were not ready for him to be President were "racists". Um, really? Maybe we're just not ready for an inexperienced tax and spend liberal in the White House.

He then went on to say that George Bush was a "retard" who wouldn't "be allowed to handle a pair of scissors in England". Scissors? It doesn't appear that Brand has ever seen a pair of scissors.

Oh he wasn't done. He then claimed that Bristol Palin having a baby was a "P.R. stunt" and that her boyfriend is the perfect example of why you should have safe sex. "Use a condom or become a Republican!" Wow. Whose idea was it to have this guy host anyway? He also stated that Sarah Palin was a "VILF..a Vice President I'd like to....fondle....". That's about the only thing he said that halfway made sense.

So who is Russell Brand? Well besides being a horrible host at this year's VMAs, he is an actor/comedian from England who has yet to really break big in the U.S. He was the host of a MTV dance show about 8 years ago, until he was fired for showing up to work the day after 9/11/2001 dressed as Osama bin Laden. Yes, Brand dressed as bin Laden the day after 9/11. So why was this guy hosting the VMA's again?

Is this someone we should be listening to? First of all, he is NOT EVEN a U.S. citizen. How much weight does the advice of someone from England who dressed as bin Laden hold to Americans? Hopefully, not much. If anything, I see all the celebrity hooplah around Obama, especially when it comes from whack jobs like Brand, having a backlash effect on him in the election. The McCain camp has already done a pretty good job as painting him as a celebrity, so I'm sure this isn't going to help.

The Fight is On

Wow. The GOP week has ended, and what a finale huh? After a rough and tough Wednesday night that featured Rudy G, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, and of course, the rousing finish from VP candidate Sarah Palin, it was time for John McCain to take the stage.

Sarah Palin definitely set the bar high for McCain after her phenomenal speech that was viewed by nearly 40 million people, but McCain delivered. No one expects McCain to move the tides with his speeches. He himself admits to not being a great orator, but it was THE MESSAGE. He was on point in his message. He was not overly negative of his ooponent, but he did point out some differences. He made a point to go out of his way to show that he was different from the past 8 years. He accepted responsibility as a party for some of the country's problems.

He gave a very "Country First" speech that hightlighted his amazing life story and showed his Maverick streak. He said that we need to all come together and work as one.

He stressed that he works FOR NO PARTY, but he works for the American people. For the people who have said that they "missed the John McCain of old", well baby...he was back tonite and in FULL FORCE.

McCain the moderate. McCain the Maverick. Whatever you want to call him, McCain is back. The original change agent in Washington is showing everyone now why he earned the reputation in the first place.

Some people, like Senator Obama, use "change" to promote their political careers. Others, however, like McCain, have used their careers to promote change.

Their seems to be a new mantra growing through the Blogosphere and the rest of the country to sum up this election and that is:

HERO vs ZERO

I'm pretty sure that HERO explains itself. It would be a vote for a man who has given his entire life to this country in one way or another.

Then that leaves us to Barack Obama. What has he led? NOTHING. When has he led? NEVER. How much executive experience does he have? ZERO.

The choice is clear:
Can we afford to roll the dice on this "feeling" that Chris Matthews and the rest of the media feels up their leg? Can we assume that this "messiah" will deliver on his lofty rhetoric?

I think it's safe to say that maybe Barack Obama's motto should be corrected from "Change" to "CHANCE".

In review:
Considering that the first day of this convention was wiped out by Hurricane Gustav(which seems like a distant memory now), this was a full force storm in it's own right. 3 days of heavy hitting and new ideas.

And I'll finish this with John McCain's closing remarks:
I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.

Fight for what's right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God Bless you.