On September 12, Barack Obama declared he was going to “take off the gloves” (at the least the fourth time he has made that claim this campaign season) and begin his campaign anew, dedicating himself to the home stretch with a renewed purpose and an eye on the November 4 prize.

The “final stretch” was beginning, and, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe declared in an email, the campaign was going “to aggressively claim the “change” mantle,” in part by “respond[ing] with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and….tak[ing] the fight to him” (taking care, of course, to “do it on the big issues that matter to the American people”).

As a show of his new resolve and dedication, Obama released an ad that same day which made the brand new claim that John McCain is old and out of touch because he doesn’t use a computer or send emails. (Never mind, of course, that the reason for that isn’t McCain’s age or in-touchness, so much as it is the fact that the injuries inflicted on him by his Vietnamese captors over thirty years ago rendered him permanently unable to type.

Never fear, though — there was more to this strategy than the single, faux pas-ridden ad released on the day Mr. Obama declared was “the first day of the home stretch.” Not only was McCain to be ridiculed for the fact his war injuries left him unable to use a computer, but he was to be exposed as having voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time! That’s new, right? Well, only if you call “a factoid Obama has only made 7,000 times before” a new message.

In fact, the more Mr. Obama’s “new” campaign themes came out, the more it became apparent that what the Democrat nominee’s campaign strategy is going to be this last two months before the election is simply this: talk about John McCain, and continue doing his best to convince Americans across the spectrum that their lives are, in fact, terrible.

Read More →

For a sense of how badly the Associated Press tried to twist some of Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) words on foreign policy from this evening’s interview with Charles Gibson, please bear with me through the following example.

The police in this country are charged with enforcing laws – if an individual, say, murders one of their fellow men, then the police are expected (required) to arrest the perpetrator for murder.

Now, let’s say a policeman (let’s make him a chief, just for fun) sits down for a media interview about, among several topics, police homicide policy. The reporter conducting the interview asks the chief about his department’s responsibilities when it comes to arresting an individual when, in fact, they have murdered another individual.

The chief, of course, speaks a bit about the investigative and evidentiary processes, and concludes by acknowledging that a known guilty party would, in fact, be arrested for murder.

Just to see how consistent this policy is, the reporter asks the chief, “Even if the murderer were, say, the President of the United States?

“Of course!” responds the law enforcement officer. “Our responsibility is to enforce the laws of our respective jurisdictions to the best of our abilities and in accordance with our oaths, regardless of the personal identity or position of a person who commits a crime.

Now, imagine for me that the Associated Press shot this over the wires as fast as it could, with the following headline:

Police Chief leaves open option of arresting President of United States for murder

Scratching your head yet? Yep — I was too, when I saw the equivalent of the above example come over the wires from the AP this evening. In her interview with Gibson, the story says,

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally. “We will not repeat a Cold War,” Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain’s vice presidential running mate two weeks ago.

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”

“I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help,” she said.

That response — which was an absolutely correct promise that the U.S. will support its allies abroad (those few we have left, according to Obama&Co.) and not shirk its oaths and treaty obligations — garnered the following headline from the AP:

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

What is the AP so afraid of in Governor Sarah Palin that they see the need to resort to headlines as blatantly fake as this?

Update: Then again, I suppose Palin Accuracy is not the AP’s strong suit these days anyway….

“I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Thus begins an article that today shares its seventh anniversary with another attack on the Pentagon — and, of course, on the World Trade Center.

On September 11, 2001, the New York Times ran a fawning 2,000 word profile of Ayers, whose glamorous, high-profile history as a domestic terrorist during the early ’70s earned him sufficient notoriety among the liberal intelligentsia that, thirty years later, his stature was still significant enough to warrant a book deal and those 2,000 glowing words in America’s newspaper of record — a place where positive press does not come cheap.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at,” is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Now, of course, Ayers is a member of the Establishment, though he still responded to the Times reporter’s questioning whether he would commit his past terrorist acts again by saying, “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”

Seven years ago today, 19 radical Muslim terrorists hijacked four airliners packed with innocent people and with fuel — and turned three of them into bombs, used successfully on their targets, two of which were buildings also full of civilians.

Seven years ago today, an Unrepentant Domestic Terrorist, whose organization claimed responsibility for 12 domestic bombings, and who still finds “a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,” was fondly profiled in the issue of the New York Times that was sitting on newspaper stands all over New York City and beyond when terrorists piloted two airliners, whose flight crews they had murdered the flight crews with box cutters, into two New York skyscrapers, killing thousands of innocent American civilians.

Bill Ayers is, of course, regarded by some as “a respectable figure in mainstream liberal Chicago.” The house in which he gave the Times the interview, in fact — described by the author as a “big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago” — has been used to host political fundraisers and to launch political careers, as well as for other activities.

However, as this Times article reveals, Bill Ayers is a Terrorist — and, in his own words, is one who not only “[doesn't] regret setting bombs,” but still “feel[s he] didn’t do enough.”

The symbolism behind the article’s 9/11/01 release is incredibly appropriate, as Ayers is morally and legally the equivalent of those 19 foreign-born terrorists who committed that terrible series of acts seven years ago.

Judging by the glowing review of Ayers’ life of fame and notoriety, it’s probably far from a stretch to say that if Mohammed Atta and his fellow 9/11 suicide killers were still alive twenty-three more years from now, the Times would likely dispatch a reporter to their homes to write fawning reviews of their previous acts and their current unrepentant statements.

That’s the word on the even more reclusive than usual leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Korea Herald, South Korea’s English-language daily, reports:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il had surgery after suffering a stroke sometime after Aug. 14 and is recovering, officials at the nation’s top intelligence agency were quoted as saying yesterday in their report to the National Assembly’s Intelligence Committee.

The author, Lee Joo-Hee, credits the information above to “Rep. Won Hye-young of the main opposition Democratic Party,” who in turn cited information provided the Intel Committee by “a National Intelligence Service official” during a “closed-door briefing session.”

Clearly, the U.S. isn’t the only county with opposition pols who jump at the chance to dump information received in closed-door intelligence briefings to the press at first chance.

But I digress. Circumstantial evidence clearly backs up the case that, at very least, something is amiss with Kim Jong-Il, whose absence from this week’s celebration of the country’s 60th birthday — despite a claim made Wednesday by North Korea’s number two man, Kim Yong-Nam, to Japan’s Kyodo News Agency that “there is no problem” with the North Korean leader.

A cursory review of North Korean state news reveals that Kim’s last reported appearance was August 11, when he inspected an army unit, meaning today marks a full month since the dictator was last known to have appeared publicly.

Read More →

Moe has a far more extensive takedown of this just below this post.

However, I felt the need to weigh in briefly with a couple graphics and an observation (besides the obvious, which is that the Left still hurtles wild-eyed accusations of “Bush Cult of Personality!” at us, while creating symbols, salutes, and charms and symbolically changing their middle names to match that of the man they seek to compare to Jesus).

The “Change Ring” of Obama can be seen in more detail in the larger image at right. Now, I realize that the goal was to create a charm or pocket adornment that was made from the Greek letter Delta (Δ), the physical (or calculable) symbol for “Change.”

However, all I can see when I look at it is a giant representation of one of Obama’s massive ears.

What’s that you say? Ears and other physical features are off limits now?

Well, that‘s new. After all, they sure seemed to be fair game for the last seven years.

Anyway, that’s what I see. Now let me take this entirely inappropriate buildup and make this into an open thread by asking what you see.

UPDATE: They’re selling a button now. How nice.

This morning, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) used his one minute on the floor of the House of Representatives to say the following:

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, um, that the parties have differences, but if you want Change, but if you want change, you want the Democratic party, uh, Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus who our, uh, minister prayed about, uh, Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Video below:

After being torn to pieces for the sins of being white and Jewish in his primary earlier this year, Cohen knows at least as much about differences within the Democratic Party as he does about differences between the parties — and it’s a testament to his unwavering loyalty that he is still speaking out in favor of Barack Obama after undergoing that experience earlier this year.

It’s a pity Jesus Barack Obama didn’t bother show the same level of loyalty to the white, Jewish Cohen, when the latter was being raked over the coals this primary season by contenders for his House seat who believed they were better suited to represent his majority-black district than he simply because they were neither white nor Jewish, while Cohen had the misfortune (or diabolically-plotted advantage?? We may never know…) of being both.

Read More →

The number of uninsured U.S. residents dropped by almost 2 million people in 2007, according to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007(pdf),” a U.S. Census Bureau report released August 26.

In 2006, 47 million people, or 15.8% of the population, were uninsured. In 2007, that number fell to 45.7 million, or 15.3% of the population.

During that time, the number of people with health insurance increased by 3.6 million, from 249.8 million in 2006 to 253.4 million in 2007.

The difference between the 3.6 million more insured figure and the 1.3 million fewer uninsured comes, of course, from overall population changes during the time of the study, as Census Bureau researchers used data from the annual Current Population Survey of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. in compiling their figures.

Apparently those figures — +3.6 million and -1.3 million — did a number (pun intended) on Barack Obama (D-IL), as the freshman Senator responded to the Census Bureau report by saying:

Today’s news confirms what America’s struggling families already know — that over the past seven years, our economy has moved backwards…

…an additional 7.2 million Americans have fallen into the ranks of the uninsured. This is the failed record of George Bush’s economic policies that Sen. McCain has called ‘great progress’”

Emphasis added.

Now, it’s no big secret where Obama is getting this number; after all, he simply had to lift it from the New York Times‘ editorial of the same day, which said:

Read More →

From the Hotline:

McCain’s camp said this weekend that he viewed the gov’t takeover of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac [Ed.-This has been masterfully chronicled and analyzed by Francis Cianfrocca at RedState] “as distasteful but essential” (New York Times), while Obama said he would be “reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact” (release).

Allow me to translate the Obama response for you:

“In order to avoid the repeated embarrassment we have brought on ourselves in the Obama campaign with our repeated need to revise and extend our remarks on seemingly every topic to which we must quickly react — a phenomenon recently seen in our changing responses to John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, as well as in our bumbling attempts to alter our reaction to Russia’s invasion of Georgia once McCain made a far clearer, more sensible statement on the issue — we will be waiting until John McCain has issued his answer, and until the public has responded favorably or unfavorably to such, before opening our traps and saying a single word.”

Let’s file this one under “Taking Cues from the Adult in the Room,” shall we?

As I recounted below, Barack Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he considered joining the U.S. military after graduating high school, but decided against it because the U.S. wasn’t “engaged in an active military conflict at that point.”

The full quote is as follows:

You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school.

And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.

Now, there is technically no overt, provable lie in the above statement. Instead, all we have to go on is circumstantial and historical evidence — such as the fact that this supposed desire to serve his country never made it into either of his lengthy memoirs, and the fact that the Selective Service registration requirement was suspended at the time he is speaking of in the above quote.

Read More →

Asked by George Staphanopoulos this morning whether or not he had ever considered serving in the military, Democratic presidential nominee and freshman Senator from Illinois Barack Obama had the following to say:

“You know, I actually did. I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school.

And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.

Interestingly enough, that claim never made it into either of the two memoirs Obama penned, despite the aggregate 848 pages the presidential candidate (and his ghostwriter) spent talking about himself within those two books.

Then again, Barack Obama was not a presidential nominee at the time that those books were published. Given the radical changes Obama has attempted to make since he became a serious contender for the Democrat presidential nomination – let alone since becoming the nominee – on such issues as Iraq (and on the ‘surge‘), abortion, the DC gun ban, FISA and telecom immunity, welfare reform, the death penalty for child rapists, debating John McCain “anywhere, any time,” the financing of his campaign, and many others, I think it’s probably well beyond safe to assume that this is yet another concocted revision of history being floated by Obama in a desperate attempt to capture voters on the right side of the aisle.

Unfortunately, lying about wanting to join the military (but deciding against it because “we weren’t engaged in an active military conflict at that point” – as though the community organizer would have dived into the service had there been a chance to actually face combat) isn’t likely to win over too many pro-military voters on the right, given who the GOP nominee is.

Even if this is simply an attempt to fight Obama’s self-imposed appearance of a lack of patriotism, making a claim like this gives off the appearance of dishonest opportunism at best. The United States is at war, and Obama is the only member of either ticket to have no “skin” in the game.

Read More →

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.”

That statement, from Sarah Palin’s convention speech last night, clearly did not sit well with the Obama campaign. The following email was sent to the Obama campaign’s email list at 5 this morning under campaign manager David Plouffe’s (rhymes with “Muff”) name:

I wasn’t planning on sending you something tonight. But if you saw what I saw from the Republican convention, you know that it demands a response.

Of course it does — at 5:11am, apparently. Anyway, continue, Mr. Plouffe.

I saw John McCain’s attack squad of negative, cynical politicians.

And I saw a convention hall full of good natured folks who, though they lacked the religious fervor of their Denver counterparts attending last week’s DNC, were more positive than they’ve been in the year-plus of this campaign, and were being entertained by very positive, even humorous speakers throughout the day.

They lied about Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign.

I understand that pointing fingers and screaming “Lies! All Lies!” is as much a hallmark of leftist “debate” as vigorous attempts to silence the opposition by force, but a single example of a “lie” told last night about Barack Obama and his outside-the-beltway, new-politics running mate Joe Biden is, as usual, missing from this shrill missive.

But worst of all — and this deserves to be noted — they insulted the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.

You know that despite what John McCain and his attack squad say, everyday people have the power to build something extraordinary when we come together. Make a donation of $5 or more right now to remind them.

Will a $5 donation to Obama purchase enough of an Indulgence to allow “ordinary people” to “go back to [their] lives as usual,” “cling[ing] to guns and religion,” etc.?

Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack’s experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed.

Let’s clarify something for them right now.

Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.

Size added, emphasis not — he actually bolded that line about Community Organizers and how important they are.

This simple email shows that a seismic shift in initiative and momentum has taken place in this race. For the last week, the Obama camp was on offense, belittling Governor Palin’s experience, referring to her only as a “former mayor” and comparing her responsibilities ten years ago as Mayor to Obama’s current position as figurehead and spokesperson for a national campaign.

The tables turned last night when, in the course of a single speech, the Obama campaign went from full charge into an all out, rear-covering retreat, having been beaten back into a corner from which they are now struggling to lash out to defend their candidate’s pre-elective-office experience as being both important and relevant (two things it certainly is not).

Read More →

Erick said it. Ben said it. Moe said it (and said even more than that). Now, it’s my turn to briefly comment on the Event of the Evening.

I was fortunate enough to watch Sarah Palin’s convention speech from a seat inside the aptly-named XCel Energy Center tonight, and have but one thing to say: Mission Accomplished.

Palin hit every topic and note she needed to tonight, from hitting back at the Obama campaign’s attemtps to compare his current occupation with hers ten years ago (“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities“) to praising a part of John McCain’s history that every Republican can appreciate and get behind (“though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, “fighting for you,” let us face the matter squarely — there is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you…in places where winning means survival and defeat means death…and that man is John McCain“).

As I said on Pajamas TV this afternoon, this speech was going to be historic regardless of how it turned out. Never in my memory — if in history — had a speech by a Vice Presidential nominee been so anticipated, so pre-scrutinized, and so sure to be picked apart piece by piece, line by line, syllable by syllable, and gesture by gesture.

The Palins had been set upon by every television and print outlet in America’s “mainstream” since her announcement as John McCain’s running mate last Saturday, with everything from her family situation, to her husband’s past (did you hear he got a DUI 20 years ago? You know — the same time that Barack Obama admits he was using cocaine), to her church, voting registration, and passport issue date being not only criticized, but hammered in the least civil and fair ways possible.

This was her first — and, perhaps, only real — opportunity to bypass those media and speak directly to the American people in an attempt to make a positive enough first impression to convince them that she was not only admirable in her personal and professional life, but ready for the job of Vice President — and, if the worst should happen, President.

In my view, she succeeded. Well done, Governor — and Vice Presidential nominee — Palin. Well done, indeed.

Re: Protest Video

By the way, are those Guy Fawkes masks? Don’t they know that’s so 16th century?

Barack Obama shot off at the mouth at a Sunday evening speech in Michigan, saying the following:

We are going to change our foreign policy, because I am tired of listening to folks who talk tough and act dumb.

If John McCain wants to have a debate about foreign policy, I am happy to have that debate.

If Barack Obama making recklessly aggressive statements and bragging about how eager he is to debate the Republican nominee sounds familiar to you, well, you’ve been paying attention to the former community organizer’s braggadocios speeches over the last few months.

On May 16, Barack Obama bravely declared that he would debate John McCain “anywhere, anytime.”

“If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, in Iran, in the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have,” said Obama to an adoring audience of “objective reporters” in Waterstown, South Dakota. “I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush…and I think their policy has failed.”

Of course, the McCain campaign responded to this with an immediate call for ten town hall-style “debates” — a style and quantity unheard of in recent presidential campaigns, when most candidates want to be able to limit the damage that can occur as a result of going off-script at any time.

The Obama campaign responded with a North Korea-style offensive, refusing to participate (clearly, they too have heard Obama speak without a TelePrompTer — it is not pretty) but claiming that it was the McCain campaign that actually declined the opportunity.

“It’s disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign decided to decline this proposal,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, who was either the most confused man on the planet at the moment he released that statement, or simply a bold-faced liar (those aren’t “new” in politics, Barry, just FYI).

In Springfield, MO at the end of July, Obama did the same thing, comparing himself to Wild Bill Hickok and blurting out, “I’m ready to duel John McCain on taxes right here, quick draw.”

Again, the McCain campaign responded with an offer of real debates – and again Obama holstered his pistol and spurred his horse out of town before being made to back up his lip.

For a good ol’ boy who claims to want to change so much, and to be so eager to put his words, ideas, and “experience” to the test against the GOP’s nominee, Barack Obama sure does a whole lot of what he claims to be tired of: “talk[ing] tough and act[ing] dumb.”