Missouri Governor Fears Obama Attack on Freedoms

The following comes directly from Missouri Governor Matt Blunt

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

-This is nothing new for the Obama Campaign...we need to keep our eyes on this.

Understanding The Cause of the Financial Crisis

JETMAN!

Link to video - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7637905.stm

fact checking the debate

click title for original article

First, let me say that the real debates were from the merchants of spin directly following the debate. Journalism is dead and objectivity died with it, it's almost as if they could skip the damned debates and just let the talking heads fight it out.

OBAMA: "Sen. McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who is one of his advisers, who along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran—guess what?—without preconditions."

MCCAIN: "Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve face-to-face meetings between the president of the United States and (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad. He did not say that. He said there could be secretary-level and lower-level meetings. I've always encouraged that."
THE FACTS: Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions. McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.

In a foreign policy forum on Sept. 15, Kissinger said: "I am in favor of negotiating with Iran." He went on to say, "I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level" and the U.S. should go into the talks with "a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."

Barry can't figure this preconditions thing out, can he? He can't even understand what Henry Kissinger, how's he supposed to understand difficult foreign matter? Either that, or Barry was intentionally misleading here.

OBAMA: "John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion" in tax breaks.

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies is simply part of McCain's overall corporate tax reduction plan and does not represent an additional tax benefit. In other words, the corporate tax reduction applies to all corporations, oil companies included. Both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating oil and gas tax loopholes.

How is this a post partisan candidate? Seems to me that this is the same old politicas of derision that has been practiced forever. Why mislead the people? If your ideas are so wonderful, why mislead?

OBAMA: "We're also going to have to look at, how is it that we shredded so many regulations? We did not set up a 21st-century regulatory framework to deal with these problems. And that in part has to do with an economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad."

THE FACTS: Some of the abuses that occurred stemmed from the 1999 repeal of a Depression-era law that separated banks from brokerages. In legislation supported by former President Clinton and Robert Rubin, now a top Obama adviser and treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, this separation was ended—allowing banks and insurance companies to sell securities.

But while regular banks were strictly regulated by the government, Wall Street banks and other non-bank institutions—many of the same institutions whose abuses led to the current crisis—were allowed to operate with less regulation.

The fact of the matter is, there is plenty of blame to go around, but the root cause was planted in 1977 and the Carter Administration. Forcing banks to lighten stringent lending policies to create low income home owners laid the foundations for this crisis. Clinton put Carter's bad ideas on steroids in the 90s, as always government is the problem, not the free market.

MCCAIN: "Sen. Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez and (Cuban President) Raul Castro without precondition."
OBAMA: "Now, understand what this means, 'without preconditions.' It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. ... There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime."

THE FACTS: Obama was asked in a July 2007 debate whether he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries the U.S. regards as rogue nations. Obama replied, "I would," adding that it was ridiculous to think that America is punishing such nations by refusing to speak with them. Time and again since then he has been forced to defend the statement, both by Democrats during the primaries and by Republicans.

Obama has tried to draw a distinction between a precondition and preparation. He has argued that he wouldn't demand that a foreign leader give in on some fundamental issue before the two sides met to discuss the dispute. But he has said "preparations" would require diplomatic contacts to gauge whether a formal meeting would be useful and to lay the groundwork for those talks.

"Preparations"? Barry is so dangerous.

Priest Accused of Selling Coke...From His Rectory!

Click the Title for Original Story

Look, innocent before being proved guilty...I don't even want to believe this one. I mean if you're down with the powder hows about leaving the priesthood? Doesn't the Catholic Church have enough PR problems to deal with as it is?

On a side note, check out that picture I found...that's what a kilo brick looks like...now you can have a visual image when you hear about those drug raids on the news

Charlie Gibson is a Misinformed Douche...That's Right I Said It!

Click Title for Source Material

Source Credit - Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post

Is there anything wrong with tough questions? No. There is something wrong with unfairness though.

I beg anyone reading this to read the transcript or youtube Charles Gibson's first interview with Obama.

If you read the transcript, you will not find the constant challenging, the grilling, the accusations of "hubris" or examples of Mr. Gibson taking Obama's words out of context (factcheck.org check Palin's "task from God" comments).

If you watch the video, you'll notice quickly that Gibson's posture is quite different. Gone is the condescending posture and lowered glasses and in its place you will see warm comfort. In my mind, Gibson went from respectable to hack over the course of these two interviews.

Gibson's "gotcha" moment on "The Bush Doctrine" has turned into Gibson's gaffe moment. I hand this blog over to The Washington Post and their respected columnist Charles Krauthammer.

""At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"

Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com "

It Would Appear That the McCain Computer Illiterate Ad Was a Mistake

Click on Title for Original Story

All Credit to Jonah Goldberg

So the Obama Campaign has decided to attack McCain's computer savvy, which in my view is unfair. McCain doesn't really need the world wide web in his life, but that's not the point. Read the following transcript from National Review:

"Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg]
Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

"Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. "

yeah, well i guess obama's campaign should have googled this before making the ad...this is on Drudge and you will be hearing about it all weekend...huge gaffe.