obama misleads: Page 1
Obama misleads on immigration at Facebook; Zuckerberg and incompetent/corrupt GOP, Teaparty leaders help - 04/21/11
Barack Obama spoke live over Facebook yesterday at an event sponsored by that company. He misled about immigration and promoted an anti-American bill. He got direct help with his attempt to mislead from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and he got indirect help from corrupt or incompetent GOP and Teaparty leaders:
And I was just wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who have established our country?
The White House transcript is at  and the video is at peekurl.com/vlxqpg5 It's unclear whether the questioner meant "established themselves in our country" or not; if she meant what she said that's straight out of MEChA 101 (El Plan de Aztlan: "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans")
Needless to say, that setup question allowed Obama to mislead about immigration and promote comprehensive immigration reform. And, in so doing, he used several lines that were spouted by George W Bush when he was president. Here's Bush in 2004:
If you can make fifty cents in the interior of Mexico and five dollars in the interior of the United States, you're comin' for the five bucks
And, here's Obama yesterday:
the fact is if folks are making $2 a day back home, and they can make $10 an hour here, they’re going to come here
Apparently there was a COLA increase, or something.
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony earlier today, Barack Obama in effect indicated that his administration will use the Department of Justice to oppose Arizona's new, tough immigration bill if it becomes law. Among other things:
(If the federal government doesn't work towards comprehensive immigration reform) "it will open the door to irresponsibility by others... ...That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe... ...If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country... As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future... ...[I've instructed the DOJ] to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."
UPDATE: Video added.
In yesterday's radio address, Barack Obama said :
So today, I want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the more outrageous myths circulating on the internet, on cable TV, and repeated at some town halls across this country... Let's start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get health insurance under reform. That’s not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table. Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform. And as every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called "death panels" – an offensive notion to me and to the American people. These are phony claims meant to divide us.
Now, see this for an explanation of why Obama is trying to deceive you.
Earlier today, Barack Obama held a town hall about healthcare  and - leaving all other issues aside - he lied:
I don't have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.
As pointed out many times before, that number is off by around 9 million. According to the Census Bureau, only around 35 million Americans - i.e., U.S. citizens - are uninsured. The other 9 million or so are foreign citizens, whether here legally or illegally. Whatever their status, they aren't Americans and they aren't "fellow citizens". If Obama can't be honest about a matter involving millions of people, what else is he misleading you about?
[SEE THE CORRECTION]
During the election, Barack Obama downplayed his attendance record at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, but a March 27, 2004 interview (link) he conducted with Cathleen Falsani - the Religion Columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times - contradicts those claims.
Falsani asked Obama whether he's still attending TUCC, and he replies:
Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service... Ever been there? Good service... I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it's kind of a meditation on race. There's a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.
As detailed here, he told a different story in 2008. In an interview that aired on March 17, 2008, he said:
"You know, I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts, because there was times when, for example, our child had just been born, our first child. And so we didn't go as regularly then."
A July 2008 Newsweek article says:
After he began his run for the U.S. Senate, he says, the family sometimes didn't go to Trinity for months at a time. The girls have not attended Sunday school.
The 2004 interview was conducted after he'd won the Senate race.
CORRECTION: I changed the title and some content of this post; it had orginally been titled "Cathleen Falsani/Chicago Sun-Times waited until after election to release contradictory Obama interview" and that turns out to be false. The "Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service" bit was actually on her site since April 2008 (link) and that's verified by an August post where that quote is bolded. No one else on that thread seems to have picked up on it, and note also that some things posted to FR's 'news' section are shuttled off to the 'bloggers' section by moderators. Then, on October 15 it was posted here. The problem wasn't that Falsani or Steven Waldman of BeliefNet where sandbagging the interview, it was that the McCain campaign was too incompetent to find and/or push contradictions like this.
[At a campaign stop in Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone] asked the Democratic nominee about the North American Union, which he opposes.The NAU is like immigration, in that candidates frequently use misleading language in an attempt to deceive. If Gavrilovic were a real reporter and not just a BHO transcriptionist, she would have asked him about his March statements in Lancaster PA where he more or less confirmed the NAFTA Superhighway, something that's tied to the NAU. He also faked being ignorant of the "Union" part of the NAU term, and he lied about the CFR. And, she'd point out that Barack Obama supports Bush's Security and Prosperity Partnership, something that some consider a precursor to the NAU. Not only that, but he spoke in code when coming out for the SPP.
"I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell that's just not something that's happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?" Obama asked [her]...
The article also provides an example of how BHO has been able to get to where he is: because no one has asked him a good, "prosecutorial-style" question. Simply asking someone whether they support the NAU will always result in statements like those made by BHO above. Better questions need to be asked. Also, the person who asked him about the NAU also shouted "socialist, socialist, socialist – get out of here!" to him, something that only makes him look better to many as the MSM comes to his rescue. Note: per this, BHO's full remarks about the NAU were:
"Well, you know, I am opposed to it if it were happening. But it doesn't seem to be actually be happening. The truth of the matter is there is no plans. I've talked to a lot of people, including folks down in Texas. There's no plan to create a common government between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. That's just not... that's just not happening. I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell, that's just not something that's happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?"There may not be formal "plans", however, many powerful people have made proposals, including the CFR. See also Jim Hoagland/Washington Post: Obama should create North American Union.
Live coverage of the "debate" at Hofstra University between John McCain and Barack Obama commences now.
McCain is taking BHO to task for the "Sarah Palin is a ****" t-shirts and for BHO's implication of widespread rabble-rousing at McCain/Palin rallies.
And, BHO is stumbling. He indeed has a "glass jaw", yet no one wants to take advantage of his lack of experience at being challenged.
Barack Obama has been caught in yet another of his lies. Here's what his "Fight the Smears" website says about his involvement with ACORN (fightthesmears.com/articles/20/acornrumor):
Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.Now, turn to a 2004 article from Social Policy, which was apparently scrubbed from their site . That article was uncovered by this site, which has more:
* Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
* Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
* Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them). It was previously at socialpolicy.org/index.php?id=838. That page now returns a listing of other articles, but an 10/4/08 cache is here. That page requires a login, but if they've removed the original page it probably wouldn't work even if you signed up.
Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for STate Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."
UPDATE 3: See also ACORN Ohio worked *with* Obama campaign on GOTV; ACORN/Project Vote did GOTV in battleground states
UPDATE 2: There's much more on ACORN and Obama here, here, here, and here.
UPDATE: Here's a McCain campaign video about BHO's involvement with ACORN:
According to an October, 1996 page from the New Party (link) and a November, 1996 article from the editor of the Progressive Populist (Jim Cullen, link), Barack Obama was a member of the "New Party". The New Party is a now-defunct, left-leaning alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans that promoted "fusion voting" (newparty.org). It was started by Daniel Cantor (formerly with the 1998 Jesse Jackson campaign), Sandy Pope (union activist), and Joel Rogers (University of Wisconsin professor). According to this, in 1992 USA Today said they were "self-described [as] 'socialist democratic.'". They were involved with the SEIU and with ACORN; regarding the last, BHO is now lying about being linked to them.
While the New Party certainly appears to be quite far-left, the exact links between the NP and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), as outlined here, aren't exactly clear.
See also the many unverified-by-me claims made here; there are too many to list. However, if true, they provide a very clear, long-running link between Obama and the DSA.
UPDATE: See this and this for much more on the Obama-ACORN-New Party-DSA nexus. On a topic unrelated to CPUSA members, Marxists, etc. see this for a new-to-me topic: Obama's apparent friendship with Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who was apparently involved in a sleazy financial scam.
Many of those discussing these "interesting" Obama links then close with, "when will the MSM cover this?" as if that means something. The MSM is not going to cover BHO's links if they can avoid it, and if they have to they're going to lie about them to the greatest extent possible. The only solution is to go out and ask Obama about the links at one of his public appearances. Get his response on video and upload it to a video sharing site. Let Drudge take care of the rest.
A spokesman for the Obama campaign insists his candidate ran as a Democrat in that race and said, "Don't believe the trash you read on the Internet."
Getting out our Clintonian parsing machine, does him running as a Dem preclude him being a New Party member? After all, fusion voting was what they were all about. Certainly someone must have access to contemporaneous records and other statements.
One other thing that's come to light is the photo here showing BHO with other NP members and endorsees; the caption is ambiguous, but they also say (without a photo) that Page 2 of that flier contains this:
New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)..."these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work' said Obama
And, according to this, the New Party wasn't that radical at all. However, he bases that on what they later became, the Working Families Party. The latter group has since endorsed some Republicans.
UPDATE 3: From "New Ground 42/September - October, 1995" in the "Chicago New Party Update" section by Bruce Bentley (chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html, also here):
About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties... Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP... The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat...
UPDATE 4: More here. According to that, the New Party was definitely on the left wing of the Democratic Party. It also discusses the 2002 book 'Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America' by Micah L. Sifry:
Sifry reports a quip by New Party co-founder, Daniel Cantor: "The shorthand strategy for accomplishing all this is to get the Bruce Springsteen, Lauryn Hill, and Pete Seeger vote united in one party." The Peter Seeger vote does sound like shorthand for the old-time socialist Left - but also for far-left-leaning baby boomers in general. Bruce Springsteen and Lauryn Hill point to young blacks and whites on the left, perhaps including, but not restricted to, openly socialist sympathizers. In short, the New Party was a mid-1990s effort to build a "progressive" coalition to the left of the Democratic party, uniting left-leaning baby boomers with minorities, relatively militant unionists, and "idealistic" young people... ...according to Sifry, the party explicitly thought of itself as made up of committed "progressives," rather than conventional "liberals."
UPDATE 5: There are pictures from their newsletters showing that BHO was a member of the NP here.
Live coverage of the John McCain/Barack Obama town hall "debate" - concomitant with me weeping for those who want to turn our political system into something closely approximating the Soviet Union - begins now. The questions I've seen so far are simply allowing them to replay their stock speeches.
You bet BHO supports nuclear energy. His contributors depend on it.
The National Rifle Association is running an advertising campaign (their site) highlighting what they say is Barack Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment". Their various claims involve him wanting to ban handguns, certain types of ammunition, and so forth. Needless to say, the Obama campaign disagrees, and in fact they've gone as far as issue a not-so-veiled threat against the licenses of those radio stations that are running the ad.
Barack Obama Spanish-language ad continues misleading about McCain economy "strong" comment - 09/23/08
Two new related Spanish-language ads from the Barack Obama campaign - unlike their previous effort - don't appear at first glance to contain outright lies in the misstatement of a fact sense. However, they do continue the proud BHO tradition of taking someone's words out of context.
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."This isn't the first time that Obama smeared Limbaugh, and there's much to discuss about this ad. First let's deal with the misleading Rush quotes. The first quote is actually from 1993 (link):
"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."
[The radio ad goes on:] "Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."
"If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine 'cause those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do -- let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."The Obama campaign misquoted Rush by omitting the context; the context certainly doesn't show Rush in a good light, but it's far different from what the Obama campaign is trying to do: pretend that Rush said that all Mexicans are "stupid and unqualified". The BHO campaign is lying.
The second quote is just as bad; it was actually from a satire in which Rush proposed a series of draconian immigration laws, only to reveal at the end that those were the actual laws of the Mexican government (link). "Shut your mouth or get out" was actually his distillation of one of Mexico's laws; see for instance this example of meddling foreigners being ejected from Mexico. For video of Rush's satire, see this.
And, the first quote referred to "Mexicans" in the sense of "Mexican citizens who live in Mexico". Democrats frequently have trouble understanding the fact that (according to our laws), Mexicans can't vote in U.S. elections. Only U.S. citizens can, including those of Mexican descent. Certainly, those U.S. citizens of Mexican descent will sympathize with actual Mexicans, but some in the former camp look down on, say, illegal aliens. Obviously, to the BHO campaign there's little difference between an actual Mexican and a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent.
And, of course, some segment of immigrants do come here to engage in criminal behavior, and all those in the U.S. receive a wide range of public benefits. Those who are low-wage workers - the great majority of illegal aliens from Mexico - do take more than they pay in. And, the crimes committed by immigrants would not occur if they weren't here in the first place. As is their habit, the BHO campaign is trying to shut down a discussion of vital matters rather than having an open debate.
As for who's helping Barack Obama spread his lies:
* The first link is to an Ed O'Keefe post at the Washington Post. Needless to say, he just passes the ad on without doing what I did: spend a few minutes searching. Please write the WaPo and ask them to stop helping BHO lie: ombudsman *at* washpost.com
* Ben Smith of the Politico likewise can't be bothered to do even basic research; he also refers to the largely non-existent "anti-Immigration wing of the Republican Party": politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_vs_Rush_en_Espanol.html
* Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) also can't be bothered to do simple searches: swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/limbaugh_latinos_tv_ad_wars.html
* Eric Kleefeld is yet another searchophobe: tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/obama_spanishlanguage_ad_ties.php
UPDATE: Rush comments on this here; he also calls Obama a liar who took Rush's quotes out of context.
UPDATE 2: The end is nigh! Worthless hack Jake Tapper fact-checks the ad and the BHO campaign's response to his concerns, finishing by saying "the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad" (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html).
* Mori Dinauer passes along the lies (prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=lightning_round_fiorina_gets_w)
* Jeralyn Merritt does the same, only worse (talkleft.com/story/2008/9/17/172619/529)
* Alex Koppelman comes close, but does including Rush's objections to the ad (letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/17/obama_limbaugh/view).
* Eunice Moscoso of the Austin American Statesman does provide the McCain camp response to the ad (defending their previous support of amnesty, a support that continues) but fails to note that the BHO campaign lied. A comment I left has not been approved (link)
* Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal includes some of the response from Limbaugh here, but also downplays the extent to which the BHO campaign took the quotes out of context. A quote I left was deleted; I left it again and that might be deleted as well.
* Beltway lightweight Ana Marie Cox links to the Tapper piece, but fails to note that taking quotes out of context was involved, only saying "An ad attempts to tie McCain to some particularly unpleasant Republicanness [in this case, a closed borders approach to immigration], but it turns out McCain was not at all associated with that particular nastiness." (link)
* Kathleen Hennessey of the Associated Press discusses a BHO campaign stop and works this in as well: One [BHO] commercial airing in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado links McCain to comments apparently hostile to immigrants made by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. (link)
UPDATE 4: Even a day after Jake Tapper called the ad misleading, others are valiantly struggling with the truth.
* Tim Gaynor of Reuters offers "Controversial Obama ad revives immigration issue". He includes the muted response from McCain and correctly points out that, at the end of day, BHO and McCain are basically on the same page on this issue. However, Gayner completely fails to point out the problems with the quotes. A comment I left was not approved. (link).
* "shovelhood" shows the level of thinking at DailyKos by noting that Rush says the quotes were taken out of context... then using other quotes in an attempt to show that Rush is a racist and without dealing with the quotes in the ad. Whether that's an intentional attempt at distraction or an issue with the thinking processes of "shovelhood" isn't clear. Some commenters don't care about the ad being misleading, but a couple do seem to expres qualms about the BHO campaign lying (dailykos.com/story/2008/9/18/154144/680/122/602969).
UPDATE 5: Ed O'Keefe at the Washington Post - the blogger who first started promoting BHO's lying ad - offers a bit of a non-correction correction in "McCain Camp Decries Obama Spanish Ads" (link), which links to both Rush's comments and those from Tapper. I suppose the latter were key; when another member of the "club" points out that you've promoted a lying ad you just have to admit defeat.
UPDATE 6: The end is nigher! In an editorial, the New York Times says "Mr. Obama's retaliatory ad, also in Spanish, was just as fraudulent. It slimed Mr. McCain as a friend and full-bore ally of restrictionists like Rush Limbaugh, even though Mr. Limbaugh has long attacked Mr. McCain's immigration moderation. It quotes Mr. Limbaugh as calling all Mexicans stupid and ordering them to "shut your mouth or get out," which he never did.".
UPDATE 7: Rush offers "Obama Is Stoking Racial Antagonism" here. This has provoked a new round of those willing to lie for Obama at any cost to whatever reputations they had.
* Digby (digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-kettle-by-digby-limbaugh-is-so.html) offers "Black Kettle". It uses the "shovelhood" technique (see above) without even acknowledging the bit about the BHO campaign taking quotes out of context. The quote she provides as a distraction from the original lies is probably taken out of context as well.
* Jonathan Stein from MoJo links to the Rush piece, and continues to take his second quote out of context. (link) Unbelievable? No, just in line with his previous "thinking".
* Adam Serwer first admits that the quotes were taken out of context and that' was "stupid". Then, he launches into the "shovelhood" technique (link).
UPDATE 8: Joe Klein offers "Take It Down, Barack" (link). Klein is such an obsequious hack that even Jake Tapper calling BHO out wasn't enough. It took a far greater authority to spur him to action: "The New York Times editorial board--once again calling a lie a lie--slams both McCain and Obama for their Spanish-language ads about immigration policy. I've given up any hope of McCain running an honest campaign, but if Obama really wants to present an honorable alternative to McCain's non-stop sleaze, he should take down his immigration ad immediately."
UPDATE 9 (9/22/08): * Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune (mdsilva *at* tribune.com) - even after all the above - continues trying to help BHO lie (swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/john_mccain_immigration_reform.html) by saying "McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, has been going after McCain lately on immigration -- attempting to tag the Republican with radio's Rush Limbaugh and intolerant words that the talk show host has had for immigrants in Spanish-language ads airing in hotly contested Western states."
John McCain ad was right and Barack Obama, MSM misled about BHO's kindergartener sex education bill - 09/16/08
"Obama's one accomplishment?This has led to a wide variety of BHO supporters - specifically those in the MSM - calling McCain a liar. To a certain extent, they have somewhat of a point: the bill might not be an "accomplishment" for BHO since he was just a supporter and not a co-sponsor and since it never passed. And, the McCain campaign might not have correctly contextualized some of the other quotes they provide in the ad relating to BHO's educational plans.
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
However, their complaints don't usually involve those points but instead revolve around the middle sentences quoted above; they try to pretend that kindergarteners were just covered by the bill in order to prevent abuse when in fact the bill was much more far-reaching than BHO and his helpers would have you believe. For an example of what Obama would have you believe, see this or this quote from campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki (link):
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."Now, for the truth about the bill, read this:
Within moments of the ad's appearance, the Obama campaign called it "shameful and downright perverse." The legislation in question, a bill [Senate Bill 99] in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, "written to protect young children from sexual predators" and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners...Read the rest, which includes a discussion of how what was originally meant for those in the sixth grade and up was changed to everyone in K-12 because urban areas might require different topics to be covered than more rural areas. The article also includes Byron York trying to get in touch with three of the four original sponsors and for some unknown reason or other not getting his calls returned. Only one of the four spoke with him about the bill:
Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. "The kindergarten ad flat-out lies," wrote the New York Times, arguing that "at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." The Washington Post wrote that "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive." And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot "a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison."
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told [original co-sponsor state senator Iris Martinez] that reading the bill, I just didn't see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. "I didn't see it that way, either," Martinez said. "It's just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current."That doesn't mean that the parts involving kindergarteners wouldn't be restricted to just inappropriate touching. However, the age range was lowered specifically to allow different school districts to offer teaching appropriate to their areas, and thus those in lower grades could be taught much more than BHO is letting on. For a discussion of that, see this or this.
So, I asked, you didn't see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
A list of just some of those who've helped Barack Obama hide the truth about the bill is in the extended entry:
* Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times say the ad "misleadingly accused Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students" (link)
* A New York Times editorial falsely states "At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." (link) What they could have been taught was left up to the localities.
* Following the party line boilerplate, Paul Krugman says 'In reality, he supported legislation calling for "age and developmentally appropriate education"; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.'
* Larry Rohter of the New York Times pretends the ad was implying that "comprehensive" meant that kindergarteners would receive the information as high school students; he's probably the only person coming to that conclusion. He also takes Obama's word for his understanding of the bill rather than discussing what the bill actually says and what others intended by it (link).
* Emi Kolawole of FactCheck correctly points out some of the minor errors in the ad, but says 'It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.' (link)
* Michael Scherer of Time says "[t]he sex-education bill in question had called only for age-appropriate instruction..."
* Brave New Films promotes a Planned Parenthood ad (alternet.org/blogs/video/98697/ planned_parenthood_rips_into_mccain_for_sex-ed_smear_campaign): 'In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.'
* Nedra Pickler and Charles Babbington of the Associated Press claim that the ad "misrepresent[ed] [BHO's] position on sex education for kindergartners." (link). That's not completely inaccurate, but it fails to note that BHO either hasn't read, hasn't understood, or is misrepresenting the bill.
* Joe Garofali of the San Francisco Chronicle falsely states 'Obama doesn't support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. The bill -- which never was passed out of the Illinois legislature --included teaching "age-appropriate sex education" -- you know, what is inappropriate touching, that sort of stuff'. (link)
* Richard Cohen offered "The Ugly New McCain" (link) and called the ad a "lie". That referenced a McCain appearance on The View (!) where Joy Behar called it a lie as well.
* "Hilzoy" of the Washington Monthly pretends it was just about inappropriate touching (link).
* Joe Sudbay tries to pretend it was just about preventing abuse (americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-got-nasty-defending-his-negative.html)
* Democratic consultant Mark Mellman says "There is not an iota of reality in McCain's attack on Obama's supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. As we all know, he voted to help children avoid sexual predators."
* A Tampa Bay Tribune editorial says 'The facts: Obama, while a state lawmaker in Illinois, supported a measure to provide older students with age and developmentally appropriate sex education. Younger children, such as those kindergarten-age, would be taught "age-appropriate" things such as how to protect themselves from sexual predators.'
* A Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial says "There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied."
* Not even understanding BHO talking points, Cox Newspapers columnist Tom Teepen says 'No, as an Illinois state legislator Obama did not push for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners. He supported a proposal for age appropriate sex education -- which, for kindergarteners, would have meant only making them aware of the possibility of sex abuse and teaching them means to counter it.'
* Darrell West from the Brookings Institution falsely states "The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." (link)
* It's an Anderson Cooper from CNN and "FactCheck" two-fer. CNN aired a "Fact Checking" episode that hewed to the party line (link):
[RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT]: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.What BHO says he wants and what was in the bill he voted for are, of course, two entirely different things.
VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them.
You could have seen this coming from miles away. The Census Bureau today released their 2007 statistics on poverty and those without health insurance. Also today, Barack Obama lied when he said:
"Another 816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007 — including nearly 500,000 children — bringing the total increase in Americans in poverty under President Bush to 5.7 million... And on Bush’s watch, 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."
I'll leave checking the other statistics to you the reader, but over 100,000 of those "816,000 Americans fell into poverty in 2007" are actually citizens of other countries, including those who are here illegally. They aren't "Americans" as BHO said, they're Mexicans, Brazilians, Norwegian, etc. Just not Americans, and BHO lied yet again.
Who needs accuracy when you've got hope?
The BHO campaign "creatively edited" a quote to make someone look bad. The DNC lied about a related statistic. Obama lied about the 2006 statistics. He followed the NYT's lead and lied about something else. Yet another healthcare lie. He lied about hate crimes doubling. He offered a stock false choice. He lied about Lou Dobbs. And, well, there are even more but I'll save them for a future post.
Obama campaign creatively edits Jerome Corsi quote; his supposed "widely discredited beliefs"; calls him "Truther" - 08/14/08
The Barack Obama campaign is promulgating to their followers and others a PDF about Jerome Corsi's latest book "Obama Nation"; you can download it here: my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi
Some of their debunking in parts of it may be accurate or not, etc. However, in one section they've "creatively edited" Corsi. From the section called "CONSIDER THE SOURCE: CORSI HOLDS WIDELY DISCREDITED BELIEFS":
CORSI IS A 9/11 TRUTH BELIEVER - THAT AIRPLANES WERE NOT TRULY TO BLAME FOR DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE TOWERS
Corsi is a 9/11 Truther. In a radio interview, Corsi said, "I'm gonna come out with a story, I think is gonna be earth-shaking, and that is from Steven Jones, the physicist from BYU who's been dismissed. Well, he's now gotten samples of the World Trade Center dust, and he's demonstrated the dust has formed these spheres, these iron spheres, that can only be formed under extremely high temperatures. And I know enough about the science to know he's right. The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he's produced. so when you've got science that the hypothesis doesn't explain--evidence--then the hypothesis doesn't stand anymore. It just means the government's explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres--these microcopic spheres--that Steven Jones has proved existed within the WTC dust...In attacking these things, first scientifically...for me, what tips the scales is when you've got science that the conventional hypothesis doesn't explain." [Alex Jones show, 1/29/08]
Oddly enough, the BHO campaign left out part of that quote without providing ellipses. In fact, they left out a whole sentence. Here's the relevant part, with the omitted sentence in bold (source: NYT):
So when you've got science that the hypothesis doesn't explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn't stand anymore. It doesn't mean there's a new hypothesis you've validated. It just means the government's explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation...
With that sentence, his statements take on a more balanced tone; he appears to be calling for real press coverage instead of simply accepting everything the government has said at face value. While some MSM sources have been in the former camp, most have been in the latter. In the NYT's words, "he was planning [on] exposing what he calls the government's inadequate explanations about the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center". There's a huge difference between the wild-eyed truthers who claim for a fact that Bush/Cheney/etc. knew about or planned the attacks and those who rightly question some government explanations that don't add up.
Another entry in that section concerns the North American Union; see the post about Kenneth Vogel for an answer to that. Their entry also quotes Hawkins. They also discuss the NAFTA Superhighway. Apparently their followers are expected to think both are myths and they correctly assume that most of their followers won't know that Obama has come out for Bush's SPP.gov and appears to have confirmed the NAFTA Superhighway.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.In other words, he was intentionally being misleading about his position on the trade deal. This shouldn't be surprising considering the first round of NAFTAGate, and also considering that BHO supports Bush's SPP.gov, aka "NAFTA on Steroids". He even spoke in code when coming out for that secretive and highly questionable Bush trade scheme. The fact that BHO supports Bush's SPP has, as far as I know, never been mentioned by anyone except me and Obama.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake"...
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered...
Related to BHO's latest admission, The Nation's John Nichols isn't happy (thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/330911), but he also offers this questionable bit:
If Obama takes the economic issue that white working-class voters best understand off the table, he creates a huge opening for McCain in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.If he'd said "one of the... issues", that would be correct. However, illegal immigration is a related issue that probably resonates more loudly, but it's one that The Nation supports.
"A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There's a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year... If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it's not surprising that would happen."Those statements are beyond reprehensible, and come close to accusing Dobbs and Limbaugh of breaking the law. And, the reason he did it is because he's completely corrupt, hoping to obtain political power by supporting illegal immigration. Rather than supporting our laws as a U.S. Senator should, he smears those who oppose law-breaking.
Moreover, Obama lied yet again. See how the SPLC's "The Year in Hate" misled about FBI hate crime statistics. See also the FactCheck discussion of one of the February debates:
However, Obama was being overly dramatic when he said, "we have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate."UPDATE: Here's a segment from the Lou Dobbs show on Obama's lie. Note the figures from the FBI that show that Obama lied, and note also that the Obama campaign couldn't tell them where Obama got his statistics:
That's saying a bit much. When we asked his campaign for documentation, they pointed us to the most recent FBI statistics, which actually show that the number of incidents classified officially as "hate crimes" went up 7.8 percent in 2006. (Figures for 2007, which would show what occurred during and after the highly charged debate on the House and Senate immigration bills last year, won't be available until much later in 2008.)
We think a 7.8 percent increase hardly qualifies as a "skyrocket." Looking only at the incidents in which Hispanics were targeted, "hate crimes" rose a bit more, 10.3 percent, but that's hardly a rocket-propelled rise either. Furthermore, the number of anti-Hispanic incidents fluctuates widely from year to year. During the last 11 years, the number of incidents nationwide has bounced around between a low of 426 in 2003 and a high of 597 in 2001, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It was 576 in 2006.
Barack Obama: no evidence of North American Union, confirms NAFTA Superhighway (?), says not CFR member - 04/02/08
In Lancaster, Pennsylvania on 3/31/08, an audience member asked Barack Obama whether he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and asks about the North American Union. He denied being a member of the CFR, and said he didn't see any evidence of the NAU. However, in his discussion of the NAU he described something sounding an awful lot like the NAFTA Superhighway. If you go to one of his appearances, read back his statements (below) and tell him that he came close to verifying something that we're told doesn't exist.
And, if Obama is truthful when he says he sees no evidence of the NAU - for instance as a gleam in the eyes of powerful people - then he's not qualified for major public office. But, we knew that already. Were he an honest and brave politician he'd acknowledge that there are plenty of signs that powerful forces want something like a NAU, and he'd work to oppose them.
Details after the clip (NOTE: see the update).
Regarding the CFR, Obama says he doesn't know whether he's an "official member", but says he's spoken there in the past. He then says:
"the CFR is basically just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy... so there's no official membership... I don't have a card or an [inaudible, perhaps 'special'] handshake or anything like that..."
For the last part of that he was mocking the questioner, causing the audience to laugh right along with him. And, of course, he was lying about them just being a forum; they're obviously much more and almost all top government officials for the past several administrations have been members. In fact, here's CFR member Dick Cheney - standing next to David Rockefeller - laughing about not telling the folks back in Wyoming that he's a member: link.
Obama then pretends not to remember that the final word in NAU is "Union", asking the original questioner for the word. He says he sees no evidence of it taking place. Then, perhaps saying more than his handlers would like him to say, he goes on:
It was based partly on the fact that there's this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate more transportation and travel between Mexico and the intercontinental United States, on up to Canada so people have perceived that this potentially means that somehow there's gonna be this Union like the European Union... there's no evidence that that's taking place.
So, it runs from Mexico to Canada, and will facilitate transportation. Sounds like... an intercontinental trade corridor, no? In fact, it certainly sounds like the NAFTA Superhighway, something that hacks have worked night and day to deny. In fact, most of them, if they acknowledge the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) at all, stop right there and don't go past, say, Oklahoma. But, brave soul that he is, Obama went all the way up to Canada.