Cindy McCain blasts Gwyneth Paltrow for what she compared to surviving war

http://twitter.com/#!/EdMorrissey/status/471828453550194688

"Did you order the ban hammer?"

"YOU'RE GAIA-DARNED RIGHT I DID!"

#GwynethJessup— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 29, 2014

Actress Gwyneth Paltrow is catching criticism and mockery for a quote that was recently published:

http://twitter.com/#!/NYDNgossip/status/471822735111647232

Did Paltrow really compare Hollywood celebs putting up with nasty online comments to surviving a war? You be the judge:

She also compared enduring the wrath of Internet commenters to surviving a war.

“You come across (online comments) about yourself and about your friends, and it’s a very dehumanizing thing,” the star said. “It’s almost like how, in war, you go through this bloody, dehumanizing thing … My hope is, as we get out of it, we’ll reach the next level of conscience.”

Among those who didn’t appreciate Paltrow’s comments was Cindy McCain, wife of Arizona Senator and former GOP presidential nominee John McCain:

http://twitter.com/#!/cindymccain/status/471822686222823427

Paltrow recently complained that working moms have it so much easier than rich actresses who work a few months a year, and she’s now elevated the stress of her “craft” to war-like levels.

http://twitter.com/#!/RONDA_from_NASH/status/471823376328425472
http://twitter.com/#!/rahalonline/status/471827013242978306
http://twitter.com/#!/abzgvq4/status/471824251310579712

Great advice.

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2014/05/28/gwyneth-paltrow-is-a-joke-cindy-mccain-blasts-actress-for-what-she-compared-to-surviving-war/

Barack Obama: Elitism or the Condemnation of Intellect?

During this remarkable U.S. election season, talking points, laced with politically jargoned rhetoric have entered our ears and appeared before our eyes- thanks to the reporting of today’s numerous media sources and user blogs.

Anyone who has attempted to keep stride with the ever morphing events, within and between the presidential campaigns, has by now become acquainted with such keywords and phrases as, “earmarks,” “energy independence,” and “reform.” Additionally, another phrase has become a staple within mostly conservative circles and used as a rhetorical weapon against the opposition- “elitism.”

For the record, a rough definition of a person who embodies elitism is one who believes that he or she is of superior distinction and thus entitled to be treated and considered favorably.

Specifically, elitism is the word that has been pinned to the backside of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. And that pesky little tail has been left to dangle in the minds of voters.

However, this election will not make the first time that many conservative politicians, and citizens alike, have labeled their more liberal counterparts as “elite.” Although ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who first pegged Barack Obama as “elite,” following a speech in San Francisco where he referred to people living in rural America as, “bitter, and clinging to guns and religion.”

The Full Quote:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate, and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Barack Obama – 4/6/08

It is obvious to understand why many Americans felt incensed by the above speech. On the surface, it appeared to be judgmental and divisive. However, is it possible that some Americans were upset by Obama’s remark because it hit too close to home?

Art Imitates Life – when in doubt, expound with a movie reference…

Entertainment notwithstanding, all we would need to do is watch the biographical movie, “Boys Don’t Cry,” to witness art imitating life. “Reel” life: where intolerant and disenfranchised communities, such as Richardson County, Nebraska, depicted in the movie, do exist. Of course, the movie in question is an extreme example, perhaps even a controversial one when used in this context, but still relevant.

Barack Obama has been called a rockstar, a snob, and most outrageously, “The Messiah.” Such accusations stem from Obama’s education, to his capacious and reflective oratory style, and popularity.

In May, John McCain urged Barack Obama to take a trip with him to Iraq. The objective would have been for McCain to prove to Obama that U.S. efforts have helped to stabilize Iraq. Obama declined the invitation, but in July, took a trip of his own to several countries in the Middle East, Including Iraq, and Europe.

Due to his popularity overseas, Barack Obama was notably depicted as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” by the McCain campaign. The message was relayed in an ad that aired after his trip to Europe, where he delivered a speech before a crowd of 200,000, in Berlin, Germany.

In August, while Barack Obama and family were on vacation in Hawaii, the RNC sent copies of what was called the “Barack Obama’s Hawaii Travel Guide,” to reporters. In the mock travel guide, a spotlight was focused on the Punahou School, the college preparatory institution that Obama attended in his youth. Conclusions were drawn, indicating that the RNC lampooned Obama’s education in its parody travel guide.

On a side note, Barack Obama attended the aforementioned college preparatory school from grade 5, until he graduated from high school. As a young adult, he attended Columbia and Harvard Law School, where he rose to be president of The Harvard Law Review.

Undoubtedly, the life of Barack Obama represents a classic case of the ever romanticized “American Dream,” no?

We should be comfortable asserting that most every American who was raised by responsible parents, regardless of class, was encouraged to study and do well in school. We should be willing to further assert that those same American children were also encouraged to attend college with goals of absorbing the relevant academia necessary for achieving their personal “American Dream.”

If we are honest with ourselves and subscribe to the above, we will fail to understand how conservatives, the RNC, some of our personal acquaintances, as well as our fellow late-night message board warriors have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is indeed, an “elitist.”

Many Republicans and conservatives have reveled in the pick of Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential Candidate on the Republican ticket. Numerous reasons account for the support Palin has received from conservatives and the GOP. One reason Sarah Palin admirers give to explain their support for her is her “everyday people” appeal. These voters prefer the simple talk of Sarah Palin and John McCain to the poignant speech of Barack Obama- which is of course, their choice. However, much of the McCain/Palin supporters’ beliefs travel beyond the realm of preference- many of those supporters actually condemn the intellect of Barack Obama. This is evident with such statements as, “He (Obama) has so much to say but I just can’t be bothered to try to understand it.” Or, “He (Obama) can’t just say what he needs to without blathering about.” These are actual quotes from everyday people.

Since when has being a highly educated person become something to look down upon in America?

Is it because some of us feel inferior when faced with the apparent intellect of others?

How could this attitude affect how our children view education?

Curiously, a contour of conservative values is self-reliant independence, yet many conservatives demonize education- the fundamental vessel for success in America. How sad and unfortunate it is that so many would rather elevate their egos with the illusion of “relating” to their “neighborly-like” presidential pick, instead of embracing a fine product of education- Barack Obama.

Should Republicans and conservatives support Barack Obama for president? No. They should also cease insulting their own personal intellect and patriotism by condemning a genuine manifestation of the “American Dream,” which is Barack Obama.

Obama’s Tax Plan Exposed, The Destruction of Small Business And Why McCain Won the Presidential Debate October 15, 2008

In this third and final debate, the key issue was the economy, primarily the clarification of the tax plan of each candidate.  The key was not those impacted among individual employees, but how businesses would be impacted, specifically small businesses.

Obama, while saying he will only increase taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, includes American business in his cross hairs.  And while $250K seems like a large sum, most small businesses operate well in excess of that amount and will be severely impacted.  The distribution of the tax will be uneven and specifically unfair to those businesses that are more capital intensive and have more employees.

In response to our original article, many expressed concern because Obama did not state clearly whether he was speaking of taxing gross or net business income in the debate. Some believe Obama is trying to be intentionally misleading on the issue, so we decided to clarify.

What we have found in our research is that Obama does say, buried deeply on his website, that the amount to be taxed would be the business’ net profit, not the gross receipts.  If it had been gross receipts, that would have shut the doors on many small businesses in America overnight.

Still, there is a major concern with his plan, because what Obama qualifies as a small business is totally suspect. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration, have average incomes in the millions of dollars and can employ hundreds. This site provides a summary.

So, if the Small Business Administration data is correct, how can Obama claim that 90-98% of American small businesses would be excluded from his tax increase?  The lie in Obama’s plan is that he is including sole proprietorships which aren’t really businesses; they are just individuals filing taxes that are not on a W2. That includes the maid, a lone painter, etc. These are businesses by tax qualifications only, not true businesses in any sense of the word.  They do not employ anyone, and they do not provide the same benefits to the nation as real businesses which employ people that also contribute to the tax base.

Let’s examine this.

First, Obama attempts to delude people that make less than $250,000 that they will benefit under his tax plan.  The plan, at first, does seem beneficial for the person in a normal job working for a US-based company.  It is true that most of those people do not make more than $250K, so they would get a tax cut.  Great plan, right?  Think again.  How many of these people work for small businesses?  If you do, you definitely should consider how Obama’s plan to increase your employer’s taxes could cost you a raise or even your job.

Second, and most importantly, when Obama speaks of taxing only those that make more than $250,000, he groups in what he claims are small businesses that have a net profit of over $250,000.  He has often referenced statistics stating how this applies to small businesses in America.  These statistics are not only misleading, they are an outright lie and the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign.

Obama states that at least 90% of small businesses make less than $250K, but the huge flaw in that statistic is it includes the sole proprietor.   These people are not making more than $250K on average any more than the average person does in any other job in America.  They are not considered a “business” for any other reason than they do not get paid via a W2 (with automatic deductions).  They do not operate as a true business, they do not employ others, and they essentially are not a business at all in any real sense of the word.

Joe the Plumber and Small Businesses

What we are most interested in are small businesses that provide jobs, and how those businesses will be impacted.  We want statistics that isolate small businesses that employ people, genuine small businesses.

The expert on small business in America is the Small Business Administration.  This SBA does a great job at summarizing the incomes and employment limits for many businesses to qualify as a “small business”.  None are as low as $250,000, some employ hundreds, and all would pay significantly higher taxes under Obama’s plan.

Obama claims that the companies, even though their taxes will rise sharply, will pay lower taxes than under Reagan.  That is a lie as well.  The rate could potentially be well north of 50% if you count Social Security contributions (a point that Obama conveniently glosses over).  Then consider the added expense of health plans (which Obama wants to force upon all businesses).  It is the highest tax rate since the Carter years, and we all know how that turned out…record unemployment.  Tack on the cost of health care and you have a small business disaster waiting to happen.

Why is this dangerous and why is it easy for Obama to mislead the average citizen?  The concept of taxing a business based on its net income sounds good to the average American when you throw out what seems like a large number to most of them.  Most don’t earn that much money, so we are just taxing the rich, right?

Wrong, a company’s net income is not what the proprietors take home.  It is extremely different from earned wages.  It is the money left after expenses for the prior business year, such as salaries paid, equipment depreciated, etc.  Most businesses reinvest large portions of their profits to grow the business, or in some cases, to just keep up with inflation.   If there are no profits, there is no money to invest.

In addition, the distribution of the tax does not take into consideration that businesses are vastly different from one to the next.  Some are more capital intensive, some employ more than others and others operate in areas with a significantly higher cost of living (New York versus Mississippi for example).

Continue on next page…

McCain Says It To Obama’s Face, And Wins Final Presidential Debate 3, October 15 2008

During the past two weeks, Obama made a wish, he said McCain should “say it to his face”.

The format of this third debate gave Obama his wish, and it was clearly a case where Obama will remember the adage, “Be careful what you wish for”, because he got exactly that. This format allowed more of the type of interaction between the candidates we favor. McCain was able to attack Obama face to face. And instead of Obama’s usual calm smile, he wore a nervous smirk through much of the debate.

McCain was able to unnerve Obama by attacking him on the issues. He hit Obama on the spending that he constantly promises without defining clearly how to pay for it. He confronted Obama about his associations with ACORN and Ayers, the terrorist in Obama’s past. And he clearly had Obama retreating on issues about his tax increases, CAFTA and energy independence. He even got Obama to say he was considering off shore drilling.

Obama was not the calm, “promise the world” candidate he had been prior to this debate. He could not attack the issues the same way, which had been to just promise more than his opponent. In this debate, on each promise he made, McCain called him on the issues. One clear example is the promise to only tax those that make more than $250,000 while promising health care for everyone even with pre-existing conditions. Something we know does not work from real life experience in Massachusetts.

McCain nailed Obama on a quote he made about “spreading the wealth around”. Obama tried to defend it, but came across as an errant Robin Hood. He once again threw out his intentionally misleading statistic that 98% (It was 98% this week, it was 95% last) of all businesses make less than $250,000. That statistic includes self-employed individuals, so it is a complete lie.

Most businesses that have more than two employees would be in the category that sees their taxes increase under Obama’s plan. And McCain was able to call Obama on this, using a plumber wishing to purchase a small business as an example of a man that would lose in Obama’s plan.  Obama tried to say that the business would not be taxed because he only would tax the “rich”. And McCain’s response was to congratulate the plumber on being “rich”. It was a subtle and superb comeback and it cut Obama to the quick. Obama’s qualification of “rich” includes many that no one would consider “rich”

Liberals will try to find the bright moments for Obama to attempt to declare him the winner, but in this debate, there weren’t many. His promises didn’t add up and McCain was nailing him on it. Obama did have one bright spot on health care, but it was once again using his usual tactic of promising the world to everyone.  McCain was quick to point out that tax increases on small businesses while forcing them to add health care benefits they cannot afford isn’t going to add up on a calculator.

Both candidates have cuts they promise, but Obama’s plans just have no compromise. They are all based on welfare programs and investing in our future. It is a great concept to invest in your future, but you “invest” when you have the money to invest. “Invest”ing money you do not have is gambling, on margin. The US here needs to stabilize its costs before it can “invest”. And there is not a fast solution in government that will reduce those costs that adds the types of expensive programs Obama endorses. It was plain in this debate, McCain was not going to roll over, and just let Obama go unanswered and unquestioned.

“That one”

This time “That One” had to stand up and answer some hard questions, and he was nowhere near as effective or believable in the process.

Obama and McCain were very close in the first debate. Obama clearly won the second. McCain clearly won the finale. It is our opinion, however, from what we have seen discussing the issues with people, the debates do not shape the election much. The candidates can confirm your opinion, but sway few. If Obama had won this debate, it may have swung more neutral voters his way, but he did not. So, we don’t believe he gains anything.

We believe McCain will gain 2 points or so in the polls, but it won’t be enough to swing the final vote Republican. This debate did, however, finally show the kink in the Obama armor. When hit point blank with the questions about how he will pay for his programs without hurting small business, he crumbled. That proves he is not the guardian of the middle class he claims to be. He is the defender of the public programs like welfare that have proven so very costly for America in the past.

We will be back to cover the issues in more detail after we get a chance to fully review the transcript of the debate.

Part II: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position

A Strong Military in a Dangerous World

In a dangerous world, protecting America’s national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

While we agree Senator, how many more billions do you think we have to spend on the military and Iraq? Have you thought about asking the Iraqi’s for financial assistance, cuz we are broke guy.

John McCain is committed to ensuring that the men and women of our military remain the best, most capable fighting force on Earth – and that our nation honors its promises to them for their service.

We hope you have a bigger wallet than we do Senator. Darn it, wished I married a beer magnate’s daughter. Great tasting and less filling. Whoops, wrong beer, sorry.

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country’s vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is clearly talking the talk, and you do have a background in the military, so certainly we can respect your opinion on the matter much more than that of Obama. But these are all things we know and we are going broke defending ourselves.

John McCain understands national security and the threats facing our nation. He recognizes the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violent Islamist extremists and their terrorist tactics, and the ever present threat of regional conflict that can spill into broader wars that endanger allies and destabilize areas of the world vital to American security. He knows that to protect our homeland, our interests, and our values – and to keep the peace – America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world.

We agree to a degree Senator, but the primary reason we need the strongest military in the world is because our national interests are way too dispersed because we don’t use our own resources. We can’t go to war with the entire world every single time our national interest is threatened. We have to make it our national interest to not have to.

John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation’s obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This sounds like spending John. Big spending. If you are worried about the spending by Obama, we wouldn’t be talking about a military expansion.

Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics

The attacks on September 11th represented more than a failure of intelligence. The tragedy highlighted a failure of national policy to respond to the development of a global terror network hostile to the American people and our values. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS COLE indicated a growing global terrorist threat before the attacks on New York and Washington. On the morning of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden’s declaration of war against the United States hit home with unmistakable clarity.

America faces a dedicated, focused, and intelligent foe in the war on terrorism. This enemy will probe to find America’s weaknesses and strike against them. The United States cannot afford to be complacent about the threat, naive about terrorist intentions, unrealistic about their capabilities, or ignorant to our national vulnerabilities.

In the aftermath of 9/11 John McCain fought for the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission to identify how to best address the terrorist threat and decrease our domestic vulnerability. He fought for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of the U.S. Northern Command with the specific responsibility of protecting the U.S. homeland.

We are figuring this worked Senator along with other policies because we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since. We think you should bring that up clearly in the debate, although we are thinking you may not want to because it might be seen as taunting the terrorists.

We admire your experience in this area and endorse a continuation of a plan that appears to be working.

As President, John McCain will ensure that America has the quality intelligence necessary to uncover plots before they take root, the resources to protect critical infrastructure and our borders against attack, and the capability to respond and recover from a terrorist incident swiftly.

He will ensure that the war against terrorists is fought intelligently, with patience and resolve, using all instruments of national power. Moreover, he will lead this fight with the understanding that to impinge on the rights of our own citizens or restrict the freedoms for which our nation stands would be to give terrorists the victory they seek.

But how do you address Guantanamo and what do you want to do with captured terrorists? Our legal system isn’t going to address terrorism. It will just make lawyers defending them rich.

John McCain believes that just as America must be prepared to meet and prevail against any adversary on the field of battle, we must engage and prevail against them on the battleground of ideas. In so doing, we can and must deprive terrorists of the converts they seek and counter their teaching of the doctrine of hatred and despair.

As President, John McCain will take it as his most sacred responsibility to keep America free, safe, and strong – an abiding beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

The battleground of ideas is getting pretty sparse right about now. We would like to see a few.

Effective Missile Defense

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

We don’t think Russia and China will be nuking us any time soon. Korea maybe, but we think we have enough deterrents against them, considering several of our missiles could blow away their entire population.

John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries. America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust in the “balance of terror” to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our homeland.

With all due respect Senator. We have enough missiles.

Continue on next page…

Part I: Obama Versus McCain on National Security, Obama’s Position

This is a continuing series on the Primary Issues of the Presidential Election 2008. | Read Round One: McCain Versus Obama on the issue of Health care. | Round Two: Their take on the Iraq War. | Round Three: Obama Versus McCain on Free Trade. | Part One of Round Four on Natural Resources and Fossil Fuels, here. | In Part Two, we think the Democrats, Republicans And We All Are Misguided. | Part Three: McCain’s Position. Hypocrites Need Not Apply!! | Part Four: Obama Will Save The World, But the US will Go Broke in the Process | Round five: Is the US the Melting Pot or the Stagnation Pot? The candidate’s position on Immigration | Round Six: On the Issue of Abortion | Round Seven: McCain Versus Obama on Social Security: Obama Needs a Fundraiser, McCain Missing in Action | Part one of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, Obama’s Position | Part two of Round Eight: McCain Versus Obama on National Security, McCain’s Position

Since 9/11, there has been much political talk about national security. There is much talk by the Democrats about the failings of the Bush administration and much talk from the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being soft on security issues.

Before we begin discussing the issue, we would like to make one salient point, we have had no significant terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. We consider that, regardless of what either side claims or says, a very important statistic.

The positions on both sides are lengthy. Unlike some issues, where the two sides seem to avoid the issue entirely or only gloss over it, this issue appears to draw major attention.

Obama’s Position is the most lengthy, here it is dispersed with our comments.

“After 9/11, our calling was to devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad,” Barack said. “Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won.”

How does the President misrepresent our enemies? Would it be to affiliate with terrorist organizations like the Weather Underground?

“Obama declared that the war in Iraq and Bush’s failed foreign policy had made us less safe than we were before 9/11, and outlined a new, comprehensive strategy to fight global terrorism:

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences…

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”

If Bush is giving terrorists what they want, why have there been no major terrorist attacks on US Soil since 9/11?

“The Senator’s plan has already drawn glowing reviews from leading foreign policy experts.”

Mind giving us one that isn’t a Democrat supporting your candidacy or one of your advisors?

Lee Hamilton, former Democratic Congressman, Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, Member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council:

Senator Obama presented a thoughtful, substantive and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This is an important contribution to the national dialogue on this leading issue.

Did you expect a top Democrat to support McCain, or were you hoping we wouldn’t look it up?

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret); Commander, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s Task Force West; Director Strategy Policy and Assessments, United States European Command:

Defending America will require taking the fight to the terrorists, and drying up support for terrorism and extremism worldwide. Senator Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy shows that he is committed to developing the capabilities required to defeat terrorists on the field of battle, and that he has the vision to defeat the terrorists in the battle of ideas.

Isn’t Gration one of your political advisors? Would you expect him to speak negatively of your plan acting in that position?

Samantha Power; author of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide; Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy:

At a time when Americans are despairing over the Bush Administration’s handling of terrorism, Barack Obama has offered us a smart, tough and principled way forward. Where Bush overstretched our armed forces and sent them into an unnecessary war, Obama would heed the military’s pleas for counterinsurgency resources and beefed-up civilian capacity. Where Bush lumped US foes together, Obama would pry them apart. And where Bush threw out the rule-book, Obama would again make America a country that practices what it preaches.

A clearly liberal author? Wow, we would not expect her to support a liberal agenda.

Do you have anyone of any consequence at all that is not completely biased towards your campaign backing your strategy?

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home.

Aren’t you just following the dozens of calls for her release since her initial detention?

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland. Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And you were just ending your tenure with a radical group working alongside terrorists.


Continue on next page…

They Say McCain’s Life Expectency Is Short, But What About Obama’s? Joe Biden For President?

In discussing the election with people we know lately, including liberals, the discussion has occasionally turned ugly. A troubling topic has come up many times, so we realized that this was more than just a passing thought.  Many people honestly believe Obama will be assassinated if he wins the Presidency. Our first reaction was, “Yeah, right”. This is the 21st century not the 1960s. The color of your skin doesn’t matter anymore.

But as we dwell on the thought a bit, we got frightened by the implications. Then, we decided to see if there were any details about such opinions on the Web.

The first article we stumbled on was this blog on which a young black woman states that there is fear in the black community that Barrack could be murdered.  Her statements bring home that there is a fear in the black community for Obama’s life.

Now, we do not believe the color of Obama’s skin would be the sole reason for such an attack, but after our research, we do believe assassination attempts could be possible. Associations between Obama and terrorists are easy to make. His name sounds eerily familiar to Osama’s. And his middle name is Hussein. His overall name sounds more like the name of a man identified in the 9/11 attacks than a man running for President of the United States. We realize that this is just coincidence, but we would not put it past some to make the associations.

This article has moved to its new home, The Lie Politic. Please continue reading by clicking here and you will be redirected to the new site. Thank you!

ABC’s Charlie Gibson/Barack Obama Interview 10-8-08

Integrity Watch: Hey McCain…. Say it to His Face

Tuesday, October 7, 2008, Barack Obama carried himself with fluid ease and grace during the second and most recent presidential debate. He seemed to wear a steady, almost amused expression throughout the evening. Could it have been because he was calmly laying in wait of McCain to mention his association with William Ayers?

Obama seemed to grow more amused still, as the debate drew closer to the end. Was it because he realized that McCain would likely sidestep the issue altogether, which in turn could create quite the advantageous situation for Obama?

Such an advantageous moment arose when Barack Obama was interviewed by ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Wednesday night. Due to the recent effort of the McCain campaign to convince voters that Barack Obama is the wrong type of American, thus cannot to be trusted, Gibson questioned Obama as to whether he was surprised that John McCain failed to mention Obama’s relationship with William Ayers during the last debate. Obama replied with this:

“Well, I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.”

What a beautiful and brilliant move on Obama’s part.

In this play, Obama issues a clear challenge to McCain. He’s basically sayin’ *(wink)* to him, “Put up, or shut up.” Obama’s statement, no doubt, implies that he is willing to address the issue. It places McCain in a very precarious position, for certain. Ick!

I mean…really? What in creation is a maverick to do?

Let us assume that John McCain does not want to incorporate the subject of William Ayers into the next debate. What will he do, or not do, in the meantime?

Will McCain and Palin, in respect of campaigning, stop the terrorist association speech, and officially reprimand the vile rhetoric ascending from the crowds?

If the Straight Talk Express mutes its mention of Obama’s association with William Ayers over the next week leading to the debate, the GOP base might view McCain as folding under Obama’s challenge- “…he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.”

How does a bona fide alpha maverick justify backing down?

Not to mention that McCain suddenly opting out of the hate would present a clear admittance of guilt and evidence of wrongdoing in the minds of undecided voters. Tisk.

On the other hand, if McCain and Palin continue to incite lunacy along the campaign trail, and McCain again fails to mention Ayers during the final debate, it could serve to solidify the belief that John McCain and integrity, (are more than likely), not mutually exclusive. John McCain has accused Barack Obama of nothing short of travesty in the company of his followers, yet he cannot bring himself to take up the matter with the man, himself.

Of course, finally, if McCain decides to answer Obama’s challenge by introducing the William Ayers association into next week’s debate, voters may possibly see it as a desperate and misplaced move. After all, as Obama remarked to Gibson about McCain, “…he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.”

Really, Obama looks like Joe Pesci (Casino) right now…”Listen to me Anthony. I got your head in a ******* vise.”

Well, figuratively speaking, that is.