More Wingnut E-Mails

I've begun ignoring these things for a while, but every once in a blue moon, I get all riled up when I receive a bullshit e-mail like the one that just popped up in my box from a friend (he likes to poke the bear sometimes), knowing I'd respond to it... and reply to everyone else on the list.

To: Broadway Carl
Subject: Obituary-Very Interesting!
Born 1776, Died 2008

It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election: 

Number of States won by:
Obama: 19
McCain: 29 

Square miles of land won by:
Obama: 580,000
McCain: 2,427,000 

Population of counties won by:
Obama: 127 million
McCain: 143 million 

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2
McCain: 2.1 

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. 

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." 

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. 

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. 

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. 

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Well... you know me. I couldn't just let it sit:

To: [Wingnuts]
Subject: Re: Obituary-Very Intersting! REAL NUMBERS AND REAL FACTS 

Here are some real numbers and some real facts in response to this email: 

Number of votes received:
OBAMA: 66,882,230
McCAIN: 58,343,671 

Number of States won:
OBAMA: 28
McCAIN: 22 

Population of States won:
OBAMA: 210,846,555
McCAIN: 95,538,235


I won't go on, but you get the point. This email is obviously false. Oh, and by the way, this email has been going around since the 2000 election. Whoever decided to resend it just substituted Obama's name for Gore and McCain's name for Bush. 

So by all means, "pass this along to help everyone realize how much is at stake," knowing that fear mongering, political smear jobs and bald-faced lies are the greatest dangers to our freedom. 

Is that all you got?

Smear E-Mail Redux - Obama & McCain On The Issues

Here we go again. Another Obama smear e-mail, this time comparing the supposed stances each presidential candidate. Once again, the list of unverifiable information in the e-mail is astounding. But I'll go through them by actually doing as little research, as the sender of this e-mail most likely has not.


2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON TALKING POINTS

ISSUE: Favors new drilling offshore US
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

False. Obama opposes offshore drilling as the sole solution, but said he would consider a compromise if it were part of an overall comprehensive policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and point us toward a path of new, renewable sources of energy.

From CNN.com 8/3/08 - Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.
..."I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral. "What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.
"If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

And let's think about this logically. The oil companies currently own approximately 63 million acres of offshore leases that they are available to drill on and currently do not drill on. Even if they started drilling today, which is what John McCain proposes, there wouldn't be a drop of oil produced from any of the sites until 2017, nine years from now, and not a drop of usable oil because of the lack of refineries until 2030. That's twenty-two years from now... is that going to help short-term gas prices? And ultimately, if the oil companies did drill and got the oil out of the earth, it is now their oil, which goes on the global market. It isn't going to be sold exclusively to the United States. So to say that offshore drilling is going to reduce our prices is a false argument.


Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it.
JOHN McCAIN -Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

Okay gang, everyone say it with me. Judges do not make laws. Congress makes laws. Judges interpret the laws. Now if you want to get into a philosophical argument about Obama and McCain's stances on Roe v. Wade (I like to call it a patient's right to privacy not a woman's right to choose) then have at it. But for someone like McCain who vowed to appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, isn't that the same as saying that his judges would "interpret" the law to his liking?

OBAMA: When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 89-92 Oct 1, 2006

Served in the US Armed Forces
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

True. Duh... what does that have to do with anything? Is this to infer that McCain would support the troops and Obama wouldn't? The same McCain that voted against funding the troops in the middle of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over a dozen times and didn't even have the guts to vote on the new GI Bill, deciding instead to skip the vote, that John McCain?


Amount of time served in the US Senate
JOHN McCAIN - 22 YEARS
BARACK OBAMA - 173 DAYS

False. I don't know when this e-mail was originated, but Barack Obama won his senate race in November of 2004 and was sworn in as a US Senator in January of 2005. I know that math is hard for some Republicans but just for the record, today is August 31, 2008. I think that's more than 173 days. He also spent 8 years as an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004.


Will institute a socialized national health care plan
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

Sigh... Yes, those evil social programs like Medicare and Social Security and public schools, and police and fire departments and the post office... boy they've made our lives a living hell, haven't they? And oh, by the way, every member of Congress including John McCain gets affordable health insurance... the kind that Barack Obama wants everyone to have. You can see his detailed health care plan here.


Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy.
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. See Obama's stance on abortion here.


Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. Since when does "being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" constitute "immediate" pull out? This is just another scare tactic for those who believe Iraq is the central front on terrorism (Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we got there). but even if you debate that issue, here is what Barack Obama said:

Barack Obama offered his "Plan for Iraq" in an op-ed in today's New York Times, affirming that he would begin a "phased redeployment of combat troops" that would remove them in 16 months, by summer of 2010.

You can read the Times Op-Ed here. Also, since it seems that the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq are in negotiations for a timeline for US troop withdrawal, then I suppose Obama was right after all.


Supports gun ownership rights
JOHN McCAIN - Yes
BARACK OBAMA - No

Here are a quick couple of quotes regarding Obama and his stance on gun ownership rights:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

"...I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions."

And seriously, does anyone really oppose registering and licensing guns for law abiding citizens, while at the same time, trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? Haven't we had enough random bell tower, college campus shootings?

You can view Obama's more detailed stance on gun control here.


Supports homosexual marriage
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. From CNN.com:

Barack Obama opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights." Says the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Advocated legislation that sought to expand federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Says the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy needs to be repealed.

John McCain also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment.


Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
JOHN McCAIN -No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False, as you will see in the related issue below. You can also see Obama's detailed economy plan here.


Voted against making English the official language
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

True. Here's the reason.

"I believe the American people understand in order to succeed in our society, immigrants need to learn English. But the amendment would do a number of things that are problematical. The first is that it is contrary to the provisions of law that exist in many States. For example, in New Mexico, you have in their State Constitution, a provision that says that many of the documents within that State have to be provided in both English and Spanish. The same thing is true for the State of Hawaii. I believe this is a States rights issue, and those constitutions of those States ought to be respected. I do not believe it is a matter we ought to be imposing here from Washington DC. Also, this amendment would undo an executive order conceived by President Bill Clinton and implemented by President George Bush. Both recognized it is important that people who have limited English proficiency receive the kinds of services so they can understand what is going on in terms of the interface between the Government and themselves."

Common sense, no?


Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
JOHN McCAIN - No
BARACK OBAMA - Yes

False. This is simply a twist of the wording to confuse the reader into thinking that any illegal immigrant can apply for Social Security benefits. What the bill was actually about was to reduce fraud and prevent identity theft by undocumented workers. What it would have done was to deny benefits accrued to those who paid into the system after they became legal. Barack Obama voted yes to kill the bill on the basis of the following:

"Americans understand that for years there are undocumented workers who have tried to follow our laws and be good neighbors and good citizens, and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund.
Once that person regularizes his or her status, and as they proceed down the path to earned citizenship, they should have the benefit after having followed the law and made those contributions. That is fairness.
We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions.
The amendment proposes to change existing law to prohibit an individual from gaining the benefit of any contributions made while the individual was in an undocumented status. I oppose this amendment and believe it is wrong."

And by the way, it's also false because McCain voted WITH Obama to kill the bill as well.



*******
The second part of this e-mail deals with the claim that Obama would kill us on the tax front. This has been debunked at FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group.

They write:

"Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate."

I'll provide their answers here to the following claims as well but feel free to check the link above.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

MCCAIN - 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA - 28% on profit from ALL home sales. (How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.)

False. The claim that Obama would impose a 28 percent tax on the profit from "all home sales" is false. Both Obama and McCain would continue to exempt the first $250,000 of gain from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) which results in zero tax on all but a very few home sales.

It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that." Furthermore, he has said only couples making $250,000 or more (or, his policy advisers tell us, singles making more than $200,000) would pay the higher capital gains rate. That means the large majority of persons who pay capital gains taxes would see no increase at all.

DIVIDEND TAX

MCCAIN - 15% (no change)

OBAMA - 39.6% - (How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.')

False. Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes could almost double!

Patently false. The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. The comparative rate tables this e-mail provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as we explained in an earlier article March 13 about another false e-mail from which these tables are copied. It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Furthermore, Obama proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in this bogus table.

The false numbers in the e-mail were copied from a similar smear accusing Bill Clinton of the same thing in 1999. It was just copied Obama's name was inserted. Shameless.

INHERITANCE TAX

MCCAIN - 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA - Restore the inheritance tax Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxes.

FALSE! The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.
The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.
Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA

New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet. New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!

FALSE! The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."

Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

**************

Here's a chart from the Washington Post that breaks down Obama's and McCain's tax plans by income demographic. While both Senators are proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families, Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy.

Notice the misleading final line of the chart stating McCain's "Average Cut" would be more than Obama's. Well sure it is when you're giving a 4.4% tax cut to those making almost $3 million per year and a 0.2% tax cut for those making under $20,000 per year. (Click on chart for full size.)

And one last thing regarding the final asinine line of the e-mail: "New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!"

Someone should tell the citizens of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and a host of others that they're apparently living in a third world country because they receive universal health care!

Another Smear E-mail: Democrats Kill More Soldiers

Ok, this is a good one. My friend sent me this email he received from a relative who was doubting its validity and forwarded it to me since he knows I've been checking these things out lately. But this one is a doooooozy!

The e-mail claims that you'll be shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!, at the statistics of US military losses by any cause. And that's the kicker. ANY CAUSE. But let's play their little game. Here's part of the e-mail:

Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007

Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause.

1980 .......... 2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 .......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Year)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year)
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,213 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 (Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 (Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 (Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 (Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 (Clinton Year)
1999 .......... 1,984 (Clinton Year)
2000 ...........1,983 (Clinton Year)
2001 ............ 890 (George W Year)
2002 .......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 .......... 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 .......... 1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............ 919 (George W Year)
2006............. 920 (George W Year)
2007............. 899 (George W Year)

Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths
George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths

Well, that seems interesting doesn't it? And some would wonder how this can possibly be? The answer: because it's a lie.

If you Google the title of the list "Military Losses 1980-2007," the first site you come to is FreeRepublic.com, a right wing website and a post titled "VERY Surprising Military Death Statistics, 1980 - 2007". The e-mail is basically a cut and paste of this webpage with a little added commentary to force a false discussion and skew it towards a neoconservative viewpoint.

What these imbeciles hope to accomplish is that all these "amazing" statistics will be so shocking to you that you'll just forward the e-mail in disbelief. After all, if they provide a link to the stats that they're using, then there's no need to double check, right? ... Right?

Take a look at the list again. Why is 1982-83, and 1985-87 missing from the list? Maybe this line in the in the e-mail will give us a clue:

"And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter , there were 2,392 US military fatalities! From what? How?"

Well, as in most hazardous jobs around the country and around the world, there's a little something called "accidents" that people deal with in their daily lives. Here's the listing of the reasons for 1980's casualties:

Accident: 1,556
Homicide: 174
Illness: 419
Self inflicted: 231 (I'm guessing this one is suicide or it would be listed as accidental.)
Terrorist Attack: 1
Undetermined: 11

That's how President "Nobel Peace Prize" Carter ended his "reign" - with one soldier's death caused by a terrorist attack.

Now let's look at the missing Reagan years:

1982 - 2,319 Deaths, 1,495 accidental
1983 - 2,465 Deaths, 1,413 accidental
1985 - 2,252 Deaths, 1,476 accidental
1986 - 1,984 Deaths, 1,199 accidental
1987 - 1,983 Deaths, 1,172 accidental

All these numbers show that Carter's 1980 number is not an anomaly, it's the average. But let's take a look at another breakdown - during Reagan's years the number of military deaths by hostile action was 58. The number of deaths by terrorist attack was 293.

Since the author of this e-mail took the added measure of comparing Bush's numbers to Clinton's, let's look at the ACTUAL numbers taken from the link provided by the very creator of this e-mail. Here are the discrepancies:

Clinton's years -
1993 - Author's Number 1,213
1994 - Author's Number 1,075
1995 - Author's Number 2,465 -- Actual Number 1,040
1996 - Author's Number 2,318 -- Actual Number 974
1997 - Author's Number 817
1998 - Author's Number 2,252 -- Actual Number 827
1999 - Author's Number 1,984 -- Actual Number 796
2000 - Author's Number 1,983 -- Actual Number 758


That makes Bill Clinton's grand total 7,500.


Now let's take a look at George W. Bush's numbers according to the author's own link:

2001 - Author's Number 890 -- Actual Number 891
2002 - Author's Number 1,007 -- Actual Number 999
2003 - Author's Number 1,410 -- Actual Number 1,228
2004 - Author's Number 1,887 -- Actual Number 1,874
2005 - Author's Number 919 -- Actual Number 1,942
2006 - Author's Number 920 -- Actual Number 1,858
2007 - Author's Number 899 -- Actual Number not listed in link as it ends in 2006.

The Pentagon has not released figures for 2007 yet, but according to other sources, the US casualty rate for 2007 was 1, 014.


So Clinton's EIGHT (1993-2000) year total =7,500
George W. Bush's SEVEN year (2001-2007) total = 9,804
And 2008 seems like a very long year.

By the way, here are Reagan's and GHW Bush's totals:

Reagan's EIGHT year (1981-1988) total = 17,201
George HW Bush FOUR year (1989-1992) total = 6,223


Military deaths under the eight years Clinton Administration caused by hostile action or terrorist attack = 76

Military deaths under the six years (2001-2006) GW Bush Administration caused by hostile action or terrorist attack = 2,658

Further research shows that this e-mail is not so new. It's probably been circulating for about a year and a half. Here are the Snopes.com and Urban Legends debunking of the numbers, similar to what I did above.

The kicker is one of the final statements toward the end of the e-mail:

I hope that during the time between now and November, intelligent Americans can decipher: the facts from the spin, the spinners from the leaders, those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, and the dividers from the uniters.

Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.

With that statement I couldn't agree more. All that needed to be done was about 10 minutes worth of research to see that these numbers are false, skewed to favor partisan politics and ultimately and unfortunately an abomination and an insult to those that have lost their lives doing what they've been told to do and defending what they believe in.

So please, do what the author says - but don't just listen to what our candidates for President have to say, follow it up with some research of your own from credible sources. I know you'll be surprised by what you find.

New Yorker Obama Cover: "The Politics of Fear"

I only came upon this about a minute ago, but I can't decide how I feel about it yet.


I know it's supposed to be satirical, but I think The New Yorker swung and missed.

Notice that the Obamas are in the Oval Office, Bin Laden's portrait hangs on the wall, the American flag is burning in the fireplace and the "terrorist fist jab" is thrown in for a nice touch. I wonder why he didn't include the Obama daughters in burkas?

Artist Barry Blitt has yet to decide if this was a mistake or not, though he defends the cover.

"I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is."

And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

Yeah, I've decided. It's tasteless. I'm not just saying that because I'm an Obama guy, it's just that it's over the top and since the right wing is trying to portray Obama in this light already, the irony and satire will be lost on those to whom it was meant for.

And as Reef at Kos put it so succinctly, "They got the new McCain Manchurian Candidate cover lined up for next week right?"

UPDATE (7/15/08, 10:20pm): From the Rude Pundit:

"...the Rude Pundit's problem with the whole Barack-as-Muslim and Michelle-as-Black-Panther plus burning flag and bin Laden's picture in the Oval Office isn't that it's particularly offensive. It's that it's just not very funny. It's not even enough to make you go, "Hmmm." You glance at it once and think, "Yeah, some people think that, don't they? That's a shame." And there the whole joke ends. There's no more levels to it. It's like an Upper East Side version of South Park, an elitist attempt at crude humor, like an ironic fart at a wine tasting.

...Here's the thing: anyone who doesn't see the cover art as satire already believed that Obama was a terr'ist out to secretly destroy American and get rid of apple pie and porn. No one's gonna look at the cover and say, "Well, right there, it proves Obama hates this country."

Unfortunately, right after I read that last line, I saw this.

Ex-convict G. Gordon Liddy, who masterminded Watergate break-in of the DNC headquarters in 1972, and who for some reason people take seriously and give him a radio show, said the following to a caller:

"Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right."

Go read the rest of the Media Matters article if you're the least bit interested in increasing your blood pressure by seeing what kind of shit comes out of this toady's mouth as well as the mouths of all Republican water carriers on the airwaves.

I've also heard differing opinions on the New Yorker cover from, "It's offensive" to "It's brilliant satire." But is it brilliant if it has to be explained?

A Korean Vet Visits My Blog

I received a comment today regarding last week's post, "The Obama Smear E-Mail Campaign Continues." Mr. Bert Kortegaard didn't seem to like the title of my post, found it offensive and biased. Unfortunately, his website (links included by Mr. Kortegaard) don't contain any contact information in order for me to respond.

Here's his comment and my response. I hope he decides to come back to read my response.

Bert said...

The title of this blog site is at least as offensive as any of its posts.Senator Obama doesn't need to be smeared,he's provided quite enough information to discredit him, himself. It's much like saying criticisms of Vietnam Protesters http://www.kmike.com/VietnamProtesters.htm
or Jane Fonda http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hanoijan.htm
are smears. The origin of this particular complaint need to be tracked down, but the blog title is too biased, imo.

BertKortegaard
http://www.kmike.com/b606.htm
http://www.kmike.com/wantuck1.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/
July 9, 2008 2:18:00 PM EDT

My response:

Broadway Carl said...

Mr. Kortegaard,

You say that my post title is offensive, but you don't explain why. You say that Senator Obama has discredited himself, but you don't explain how.

I don't know if you've bothered to look up my previous posts regarding the e-mailed Obama smears that have been circulating for quite some time now, such as "Obama is a Muslim", or "Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance" or "Obama swore on the Koran" or "Obama will stand with the Muslims", ad infinitum, but if you had, you'd see that all those previous e-mails smears have been debunked.

When I received the latest of e-mails regarding Obama's alleged "dismissal" of a handicapped Vietnam Veteran and didn't immediately find a reputable source to debunk the e-mail, I decided to try and find out for myself.

As of this writing (July 9th, 2008 8:54pm EST) I have yet to receive a response to the e-mails I've sent to the supposed writer of said accusation; whether he wrote it or not or if the writer's name was used deceptively, whether the incident actually happened, specifically where and when this incident allegedly took place, and other factors to either prove or disprove the validity of the e-mail. My post has stated nothing but the fact that I am searching for the truth - the facts - of this supposed interaction.

I have tried to go about this as objectively as possible, including the e-mails that I sent to those who might be able to help with more information, being polite and respectful in my correspondence. Yet, there are those who may not agree with my political affiliation or Senator Obama (I am assuming you are one of those people) who will take offense to what I consider a very objective post, no matter how I may phrase it.

I come to this conclusion based on your inclusion of web addresses citing Vietnam War protesters and Jane Fonda as part of the reason for America's loss in the war and using that opinion in an attempt to compare what you consider to be facts regarding Obama, his background and his record. One thing has nothing to do with the other. (And on a side note, do you really believe that if there were no Jane Fonda and no war protesters that the end result in Vietnam would have been any different?)

You may be of the opinion that the title of my post is somewhat biased, but I will assume that the e-mail I am researching is a smear based on the fact that there was neither any information nor any reference material attached to the e-mail for verification. My opinion will remain that way until I can find proof otherwise. In my world, frame of mind, thought process or whatever you want to call it, one bases their accusations on facts, and the e-mail I received contained none. It was just a story.

My question to you, if you would be so kind to answer is: On what basis do you make your decision or judgement on Senator Obama? Is it something that you know about him that I don't? Or is it based on something you may have heard or read?

Granted, I'm truly upset that he chose to vote in favor of today's FISA compromise bill, in contradiction to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Is he therefore discredited, or is he being a politician trying to win an election? After all, Senator Obama did say that he would vote against telecom immunity, but if amendments in opposition to immunity failed, he would vote in favor of the FISA bill. He didn't break his word.

I thank you for visiting my blog and for leaving your comment. I hope to hear from you again.

UPDATE (7/10/08 1:25am): I just realized that Kortegaard is actually offended at the title of my "blog site"! "Broadway Carl's Blog-O-Mania" is offensive! Wow! I never knew. I just scanned his comment over again and assumed he was offended at the "biased" post title, but according to him, the blog site title is "at least as offensive as any of its posts." Well, if you can't get past the title...

Regarding the title, it was always a working title until I found something more catchy, but nothing ever popped up and now it's been more than a year and a half, and some 1,000-odd posts later, so I guess I'm keeping it. But offensive? Let's see, "Broadway Carl"... that's me. I chose the "Broadway" part because I work on Broadway and the "Carl" part because... it's part of my name. "Broadway Carl's Blog" just didn't seem to pop. "Blog-O-Mania" sounded more fun. Maybe it's the "Mania" part. Or the "O".

I suppose it's "at least as offensive" as a terrorist fist jab. I thought it was pretty tame, as opposed to... oh, I don't know... "Hanoi Jane & The Dirty Fuckin' Hippies' Psychedelic Blog-O-Roonee." But I guess I can't tell anymore - I'm too biased.

Correcting The Record

A couple of days ago, I received two more Obama e-mail smears in my inbox sent to me by a good friend who knew I'd get riled up about them. For the record, he doesn't believe them either but gets a kick out of me going off on a rant.

Now that I've had time to calm down and process the information, I decided to rebut the e-mail with one of my own, defending Obama's true positions and debunking the smears with the truth, complete with links for all the naysayers to look it up on their own, all the while trying to be polite and not calling them out for the idiots they are. I sent it to everyone on the forwarded list, and then some (including Obama supporters and non-idiots) in an attempt to start an e-mail blast of my own.

Here is the email:
*****************************
From: Broadway Carl
To: Undisclosed list
Subject: Re: THE TRUTH - Obama "saluting the US flag" and "standing with the Muslims"

Hi,

Most of you don't know me, but I received this email with all of your emails attached to it so I thought it would be nice to respond to all of you.

I know we're in the habit of receiving emails like this "Obama not saluting the flag" email and assuming that every time we get an email, it MUST be true. Just like the "forward this email and Bill Gates will give you $100,000". Or "If you don't forward this email, bad luck will befall you and your dog will crap on your carpet".

We all know those emails are false, and all you have to do is look it up on this amazing internet we have and be able to find out in about 5 seconds if they are true or not. Unfortunately, if you have a preconceived notion of someone or something in particular and want to believe it, then you will. We all have an inclination to believe or not believe something based on how we feel about something rather than based on fact.

So I decided to look up the “Obama doesn't salute the US flag" to see if it had ANY merit whatsoever. Just as I suspected, it does not.

According to Snopes.com:

Back in October, 2007, one of the hottest e-mail forwards was a picture capturing Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama standing in front of a US flag (at an Iowa political event) with his hands clasped in front of him during the playing of the US National Anthem (while other persons on the platform with him stood with their hands placed over their hearts.) This photographic brouhaha soon mutated into a FALSE claim that Obama “refused to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance” and the into the EVEN MORE FALSE claim that “he refused to recite the Pledge” at all – rumors which the Obama campaign soon provided evidence to negate.

While this controversy was all the rage on the Internet, political columnist John Semmens included a bit at the end of one of his satirical “Semi-News” columns (found on the website THE ARIZONA CONSERVATIVE) offering a mock explanation from the Senator about his non-hand-over-heart stance, poking fun at Obama by having him voice the opinion that “the American flag is a symbol of oppression” and that the US national anthem is too “bellicose” and should be replaced by something gentler like “I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing.”

This bit of satire evidently came off as too believable to some readers, as it has since been excerpted from Semmen’s column and forwarded via e-mail (WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION) as a genuine statement from Obama. However topical it might be, it’s just a bit of political commentaty-cum-humor, though, not the Senator’s own words.

So it took me longer to type the last three paragraphs out than it did to look this rumor up and find out it was false. And I’m letting you know the truth, COMPLETE WITH LINKS to verify that I’m not just making it up. You’re just one click away from seeing it for yourself and not just taking my word for it.

Here is another email I received. It’s a touching email about “John McCain’s Sons” and their military pedigree. At first glace, and about a 5 second check to verify it, the story seems to check out. Great! Good for John McCain and his sons. I’m sure he’s very proud of them. But then this touching email gets trashed by someone writing the following:

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services?

This is for all you Barack voters.
From Barack's book, Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

Laura

I don’t know who “Laura” is, whether she was the originator of the email or just someone passing it on, but here is THE TRUTH on this one. And all you had to do was actually look it up in the book which Laura claims the quote came from.

In this section of the book, Senator Obama was speaking about immigrants and citizenship. He often makes speeches to new citizens taking the oath after going through what they had to in order to become legal US citizens. And he speaks of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed in confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. Here is the actual passage from the book. Notice it contains no specific mention of “Muslims”:

"Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: "I am your friend," "[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization," and "You embody the American dream." They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." [Page 260-261]

Senator Obama was speaking of legal US citizens, immigrants who came to the US looking for a better life, legally emigrating here and that he would support them just like any other US citizen, as is their right. Anyone see the word “Muslim” in that quote? Me neither.

As far as Obama not serving in the Armed Services, well that’s another matter entirely. Obama is 46 years old. I think that means he missed the draft during Vietnam, and isn’t our Army an “all-volunteer” army as our current administration continually reminds us? If serving in the armed forces was a pre-requisite for an elected official, then George Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, and a host of others, would never have been elected to office.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but that isn’t the reason I’m defending him here. The reason is that this upcoming presidential election is probably one of the most important of our lifetime, and no matter who you support, you should base your actions on facts, not rumors or email smears. Some of you are going to believe what you want to believe and I know that this won’t change your mind. But others might realize that you can’t believe everything you read in an email, or what you see on the evening news, and you might want to take just a couple of minutes to look things up for yourself.

If you’ve sent emails like “Obama is a Muslim” or “Obama won’t salute the flag” to some that aren’t on the list above or emails similar, I hope you’ll forward this one just like you forwarded the last one. To make a monumental decision like who you want to run our country and how you want the world to view us should be based on the issues and policies and not if someone wears a flag pin or not, or if someone’s wife plagiarizes cookie recipes.

And to whoever originated this email, thanks for inspiring me to find out the truth for myself, base my decisions on facts and to have the inclination to email everyone back to correct the record.

Thanks for reading – and please, forward this to anyone you know to correct the record. You wouldn’t want them to think you were a liar, would you?

By the way, I’m still waiting for my $100,000 check signed by Bill Gates.

************************End E-mail******************************

I would ask you that if you are reading this and haven't received my e-mail personally (which is traveling worldwide at this very second!) that you please copy and paste and send to your friends, family, co-workers, colleagues, pen pals, softball buddies, bowling team, garden club, movie club, book club or next door neighbor.

I'm sure they'd like to find out the truth for a change.

Another Obama E-Mail Smear...

...landed in my mailbox today. It's the "Obama won't put his hand over his heart or recite the Pledge of Allegiance" smear, complete with picture.

Sigh. What a sad state of affairs when the patriotism of someone is questioned by whether or not they wear an American flag lapel pin or put their hand over their heart during the National Anthem.

Here is the quote from Snopes.com:

The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photo claimed that Sen. Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Click on screen capture for further Flag Code from experts.)







And just for fun, here's Dan Abrams schooling Rep. Jack Kingston for the same ridiculous smear. When are these idiots going to realize that patiotism is judged by your actions, not what you wear on your lapel or what magnet you put on your car?

By the way, the title of the e-mail is "A picture is worth a thousand words." Well, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but the truth is priceless.

The Obama E-Mail Smear Campaign

I received this e-mail from a friend who knew it to be false but thought I'd like to take a look at it. He asked the person who sent it to him not to send stuff like this again. Good for him.

This e-mail has been around for at least a year. I remember getting it long ago, maybe before I started this blog and never really wrote about it, until now.

Here is the unedited e-mail I received, misspellings, capitalizations and all.

THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO. THIS COUNTRY WASFOUNDED 'ONE NATION UNDER GOD'. ALMIGHTY GOD, NOT THE GOD OF THE KORAN.

We checked this out on 'snopes.com'. It is factual. Check for yourself.
********************************************************************************
Who is Barack Obama?Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita ,Kansas .

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. Hismother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'And that he now is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, "a black is proud based church " that through it's minister is associated with Louis Farakam's Nation Of Islam.

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran (their equivalency to our Bible, but very different beliefs).

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

It's very interesting to me that whoever started this e-mail even linked Snopes.com at the top. So the first thing I did was click on the link and type "obama muslim" in the Snopes search window. Here's what I found: (click on the screen capture for full size)

How very sad that the idiots trying to perpetuate these smears won't even take the time to click on a link provided to them to disprove the lies in the very e-mail that tries to maintain the smears. But that's what these evil bastards count on: ignorance, laziness, fearmongering, racism and stupidity.

From the Snopes article: (click on the screen capture for full size)





So please, forward THIS post to everyone you know who is too lazy to look it up for themselves the next time you get trash in your inbox.

Naomi Klein: Islamophobia - Updated

Klein has a great article in the Nation Magazine regarding the Obama Muslim smear tactics and questions not the right of him to challenge the false allegations, but the silence by Obama and others in condemning anti-Muslim racism. If the attacks were smearing Obama for being, oh, let's say Jewish, would there be outrage? You bet your AIPAC ass there would be!

Hillary Clinton denied leaking the photo of Barack Obama wearing a turban, but her campaign manager says that even if she had, it would be no big deal. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

Sure she did... The obvious difference is this: when white politicians go ethnic, they just look funny. When a black presidential contender does it, he looks foreign. And when the ethnic apparel in question is vaguely reminiscent of the clothing worn by Iraqi and Afghan fighters (at least to many Fox viewers, who think any headdress other than a baseball cap is a declaration of war on America), the image is downright frightening.

The turban "scandal" is all part of what is being referred to as "the Muslim smear."...

...Occasionally, though not nearly enough, Obama says that Muslims are "deserving of respect and dignity." What he has never done is... denounce the attacks themselves as racist propaganda, in this case against Muslims.

...Obama has the power to be more than [a] victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign. The next time he's asked about his alleged Muslimness, Obama can respond not just by clarifying the facts but by turning the tables. He can state clearly that while a liaison with a pharmaceutical lobbyist may be worthy of scandalized exposure, being a Muslim is not.

UPDATE: Good follow up by a Nation reader-

02/28/2008 @ 4:28pm

While Naomi Klein's point is well taken--being called Muslim should not be considered a slander--I think she is not giving enough credit to Obama, nor is she putting these false rumors in the proper context.

In terms of Obama's response, he has not just said that Muslims deserve respect, he has also--on a number of occasions--spoken out against the scapegoating of Muslims, along with the scapegoating of immigrants and gay people. While not an explicit repudiation of the notion that being called Muslim is a slander, it is pretty darn close.

And in terms of the context: the subtext of these rumors about Obama's religion is that he is a "Manchurian candidate" who supports Islamic extremism and terrorism. This is also the subtext of the stories about the Nation of Islam, Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground and Obama's supposedly "racist" church. The claim that he is Muslim is rarely made in isolation from these other claims, and therefore should not be considered in isolation from this broader--truly slanderous--context.

Amanda Armstrong
Chicago, IL

The Racist Base of John McCain

This from Josh Marshall yesterday on TPM:

Don't insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain's plan for this race doesn't rely on hundreds of Cunninghams -- large and small -- across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it's the only way John McCain have a real shot at contesting this race.

If McCain really wants to repudiate this stuff, he can start with the Tennessee Republican party which dished all the slurs and smears about Obama being a Nation of Islam-loving anti-Semite, just today.

That's right. McCain supporters in Tennessee are painting the worst picture of Obama because they know it's the only chance they have to beat Obama in the general election. It's only going to get ulgier as this race is still young, but I don't think the American people will stand for it this time.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Obama Wears Traditional American Dress

In the aftermath of the latest attempted smear of Barack Obama (showing him wearing the traditional Somali nomadic cultural garb, now called the "dressed" photo), Clinton denied knowing anything about where the photo came from during the CNN Ohio debate, assured debate watchers that she was sure it didn't come from her campaign and that if it did, those responsible would be held accountable. Obama, taking the classy, high road took Clinton at her word and let the matter drop.

However, in a daring move to diffuse the "photo" smear to those that would be prejudiced against it, Obama wore traditional American cultural wardrobe consisting of a "suit and tie."

Ann Coulter Is Truly Insane

Wingnut Ann Coulter spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. She is certifiably insane. Here is one of her comments:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot'–so…"

No, no really...she actually said that. Here it is - see for yourself.

The audience's reaction? Audible "Oooh"s.. and then laughter, cheers and applause. Applause?! ...APPLAUSE!
After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I couldn't help but feel torn. I laughed at the thought that this was the best that CPAC had to offer and I was outraged at the fact that yet another Republican smear was going to permeate the simple minds of the country and before you know it, John Edwards drops out of the race after falling behind in the polls because 35% of the country thinks he's a closeted homosexual.

Oh, Ann, Ann, Ann. It's a shame that you have to resort to these type of attacks for lack of any substance. But then why would you be any different than any other Swiftboating Republican hack? You're their Queen. The drones swarm to you in order to propagate the species.

From Think Progress: The Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued the following statement:
“We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics,” continued Solmonese. “If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference was attended by 2008 Republican Presidential candidates: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and former Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Vice President Dick Cheney also attended the event.

I believe that Mr. Solmonese's request is a valid one, and can't possibly be ruled unreasonable or out of the question. Surely the "liberal media" in this country have jumped all over Queen Ann to condemn her comments as despicably bigoted and trashy. Without fail, Vice President Cheney, who attended the conference, and who is the father of a pregnant, lesbian daughter, would make a statement disapproving of Coulter's smear... No? No one?

Wait a minute... why didn't I initially hear about this on televised news? Why did I hear about this on the Internet? Oh right, we were inundated with Anna Nicole's funeral all day long. You know, important stuff.

What vexes me about Coulter's statement is that, once again, if the very pointy shoe was placed on the other foot, if a Democrat had made a similarly disgusting remark, the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world (and the Coulters too for that matter) would attack like the hyenas they are and the said bigot would be exiled to a remote island or launched away on an ice floe.

I keep waiting for the day when Queen Ann goes too far in her attacks, even for neocons, and says something like: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, but it turns out you get a cap popped in your ass if you use the word ‘nigger'–so…"

Then perhaps finally, she'll no longer be able to hold a job in which she can spew her hate, except for maybe standing in the middle of a corn field scaring the crows away. Unfortunately, it's more realistic to assume that there would just be another media blackout to further protect the likes of Ann Coulter.

Also read: Steven Weber - My Date With Ann

UPDATE:
NY Times: Republican Candidates Criticize Slur by a Conservative Author
John McCain (who did not attend CPAC): “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.

Rudy Giuliani: “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Ann Coulter's e-mailed response: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

She just doesn't get it. And she never will.

UPDATE II:

Glen Greenwald: Terrible Hatred and Anger on the Left

Don Hazen: Ann Coulter's 'Faggot' Remark Smears Mitt Romney Too
Bob Geiger: Will Republicans Apologize for Hanging with Hatemongers this Week?

Let the Smearing Begin

It's incredible, isn't it? The candidates are barely out of the gate, some of them haven't even announced they are running yet, and already the rumors are flying. I'm not even going to dignify calling them rumors, they are smears. Dirty, disgusting lies aimed to cast doubt toward anyone credible. Do you think these lies would start if the candidates had little to no chance of succeeding? If so, then where are the Dennis Kucinich smear campaigns? No offense to Dennis, I like him, but we all know he has very little chance of making it in his presidential bid.

Here's Barack Obama, defending where he went to school when he was six year old... SIX!... and no, he's not Muslim and no, he didn't go to a madrassa. Unbelieveable!
And where did we first hear the smear? From a right wing web based magazine Insight. And how did it initially spread? The female Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan on KSFO in San Francisco. And who picked up the story? John Gibson on FOX NEWS, another right wing freak.

But let's not stop there. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Not only can they spread the smear that Obama is Muslim and was taught at a madrassa, but they can also say that the Hillary Clinton Campaign is where they got the info from. These people have no morals, they are no worse than the scum on the bottom of my shoes.
Oh, Melanie Morgan then says she got the story wrong, it wasn't the Clinton Camp that started the smear, it was the JOHN EDWARDS Camp. TRIFECTA! Boy, these people are rotten to the core.
From the minute this story came out, it was debunked; ABC and CNN even sent producers and crews out to INDONESIA to check out the school, and found what they'd find in a "normal" school: kids learning math, science and English. Spongebob on the walls.

Has no one learned from the John Kerry swiftboating smear? Does no one remember that John McCain's own party smeared him in calling his adopted Bangladeshi daughter his own "illegitimate black child" when he was running against George the Liar in the Republican Primaries? Doesn't that disgust you? Don't you remember decorated war veteran Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, being linked to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden in TV smear ads by Saxby Chambliss? Isn't that vile to you?

Wake up sheeple! This kind of crap CAN'T work anymore. We must not allow ourselves to fall into the pit with these snakes.

By the way, fair warning to all: usually, I try not to use foul language on this site (although I have a sailor's mouth), but I find I've been censoring myself more and more these days. Well, NO MORE! If I think it, I'm going to post it, so I apologize in advance for offending anyone with future racy language. And boy, is it going to be racy! I'm going to call these people what they are and I'm not holding back. So hold on to your keyboards, its going to be a foul mouthed ride!