While reading some comments posted recently, it came to my attention that some people still believe that Barrack Obama is demonstrating his moral integrity by making a big issue of not accepting donations from "federal registered lobbyists".  But is he keeping his promise by accepting donations from the spouses of the big Washington lobbyists?  Or is he keeping the promise that you understood by accepting money from lobbyists registered in State capitals?  Do we need a leader that will require that we hire our own attorneys to read between the lines of his statements?  Symbolism over substance, change we can believe in!

Read about it here.

"The campaign has no problem accepting money from the spouses of Washington lobbyists. A database search conducted for this column by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign-finance issues, found that more than 20 spouses of prominent Washington lobbyists have donated to the Obama campaign, including the wives of Dan Glickman, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America; Norman Brownstein, a prominent Denver-based lawyer who has lobbied for Oracle, Toshiba, and Comcast; and Stuart Pape of Patton Boggs, Washington’s foremost lobbying firm, who has lobbied for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and the Smokeless Tobacco Council.

The campaign accepts money from lobbyists registered in state capitals. It accepts money from partners at law firms that engage in lobbying. It accepts money from the C.E.O.’s, chairs, and officers of corporations, but not their lobbyists. Obama has received more than $627,000 in contributions from employees of Goldman Sachs, including, for example, $2,300 (the maximum contribution allowed) from the likes of managing director George Butcher. But Michael Berman, a registered lobbyist (and a former adviser to Walter Mondale), cannot give money to Obama because his firm, the Duberstein Group, has lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs on energy and tax issues. Aren’t such policies a little inconsistent with the ban? “Maybe,” said the senior Obama official. “But it’s important symbolism.” "

That our computers and e-mail would be hacked for political rather than national security purposes.  And they were right!

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

As if the rumors weren't enough, a patriot has released a video recording of a Democrat party war room conference. 

Yes. More evidence of bias.

http://www.nypost.com/seven...

September 15, 2008 --

THE suits at Disney-owned ABC are too chicken to re-air or release on DVD their $40 million docudrama that accused Bill Clinton of squandering many chances to capture Osama bin Laden before the Twin Towers attacks.

That's the charge of John Ziegler, director of a new ABC-bashing documentary titled "Blocking 'The Path to 9/11.' " It focuses on why ABC delayed airing and severely re-edited its ambitious miniseries "The Path to 9/11" in 2006 after a furious Clinton and his cronies strong-armed the network.

Ziegler alleges that ABC's grand plan was to re-air the show, which starred Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg, every year around 9/11 but dumped the idea in 2007, fearing that it would hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations - and will now never air it again. He charges that Disney chief Robert Iger told shareholders that it was "simply a business decision" not to issue a DVD - an "odd declaration" because a home video would help recoup the company's $40 million investment.

"Disney caved and committed perhaps the most blatant, underreported and significant act of censorship in modern American history," says Ziegler. "What Disney actually did here was to take a dive on their own movie . . . They preferred the scenario of unilateral disarmament, not to mention throwing away $40 million, to rebutting and embarrassing the Clintons.

"Numerous entertainment organizations . . . pretend to defend free speech but have been shockingly silent on this issue, apparently for fear of appearing to protect 'conservatives,' " he adds, charging that it's "disgracing the memories of those who died on 9/11 and setting ourselves up for making the same mistakes again."

Reps for Disney and ABC had no comment, but one insider told us, "It's still a major hot potato for them."

In Colorado?  This soon after the Democrat Convention?  Gee, I was sure this would be a solid blue state. 

As it becomes more apparent each day that the main stream media (including the Bakersfield Californian) is in the tank for Obama and not asking the question of why is Joe Biden suddenly qualified to be President when, in 1987, he was deemed incapapable of holding the office due to the huge amount of lies he was telling and his documented plagiarism.  But, luckily for the American people, here is one newspaper that is reminding us of this man's qualification killers.  Watch the video, then look at the number of lies in it listed in the article above.

"There were a number of lies in this outburst and it was not long before they too were enumerated:

• Biden got in trouble in 1965, during his first year in law school. He wrote a paper in which he lifted five pages verbatim from the Fordham Law Review. He was given an “F” in the course. He managed to avoid being bounced from law school, retook the course and earned a B.

• He claimed that he was “the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship.” He didn’t. He did have a half scholarship that was need-based.

• He did not graduate from law school in the top half of his class. He graduated 76th out of 85 — and he was near the bottom of his class all three years.

• If he won the moot court competition — and he claimed at the time that he actually did — he did not put it on his resume, surprising for a man prone to so egregiously exaggerating his accomplishments.

• He did not win the award for being the outstanding student in the political science department at Delaware, and he graduated with one degree, not three. He had a “C” average and graduated 506th in a class of 688." 

He was chosen for his so called "foreign policy experience", but how can any foreign leader listen to what he says to them and not think that he is lying to them?  And what kind of trouble will that get our country into? 

Obama may be thinking his VP choice is a little *too* experienced and might need to be thrown under the bus.  Hillary can only smile at this.

S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion

"South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate " whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.” 

Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.

Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.

“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said. 

Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway." "

http://www.politico.com/blo...

Obviously, there are still those in the higher echelons of the Democratic party that can't help themselves and continue to reveal what can only be assumed is their true feelings.

But, but, but the main stream media is independent isn't it?  They can't be in bed with the Democrats!

"Joe Biden appeared this morning on Meet the Press, moderated by Tom Brokaw. In the opening series of questions, Brokaw probed Biden about the effect of Governor Sarah Palin's inclusion in the presidential campaign.

Brokaw asked generally how Biden would handle his upcoming debate with Palin, underscoring his question with the premise that it might be a delicate situation debating a woman. Biden responded with a rambling answer in which he stated that he debates women all the time in the U.S. Senate and had previously run against a formidable female opponent in one of his Delaware Senate races. Biden went on to say that he would have an easier time debating vice presidential runners-up Tom Ridge and Mitt Romney since he was familiar with their policy positions. Biden said he did not know Governor Palin's policy positions (and even seemed to claim he had not seen Palin's entire RNC speech).

Literally seconds later, the questioning turned to Palin's immediate ability to energize the base - and in particular to draw women to the campaign. Biden repeated the standard party line that Palin's policies were generally out of touch with many women, and in particular she was "diametrically opposed to [Senator] Hillary" Clinton on policy.

Two things. First, it is implausible (and in fact political malpractice, to borrow a term) to consider that Joe Biden does not know Sarah Palin's policy positions nine days after she was tapped by John McCain. Has Biden not watched any television in the meantime? And if he has not yet boned up on his counterpart's policy positions, then when is he going to get around to it?

Secondly, Biden contradicted his own ignorance about Palin's policy positions by almost immediately claiming that those same policy positions were "diametrically opposed" to those of Senator Hillary Clinton.

And most significantly, Brokaw did not challenge Biden on either point."

 http://newsbusters.org/blog...

Has the mainstream media ever pressed Biden for an explanation for these comments?  I don't think so. His free ride since being named as Barrack Hussein Obama's running mate continues.  I guess that since he didn't use the term "macaca", it's not really an issue.

http://forums.the-dispatch....

At a campaign stop in Iowa earlier this year, Joe Biden painted the car accident that claimed the lives of his wife and daughter as being caused by a truck driver who "drank" his lunch.  Even though the investigation cleared the truck driver and Biden knew it. 

“I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on December 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly – and I never pursued it – drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries.”

As the chief deputy attorney general, Jerome Herlihy was assigned to the incident. Two days later, he issued his report, clearing Dunn.

A story headlined, “No Charges Due for Trucker in Biden Deaths,” in the Evening Journal read: “[Herlihy] said there was no evidence that [Dunn] was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes. In addition, Herlihy said, witnesses to the crash near Hockessin provided no basis for a prosecution.”

 A man that can lie so casually and without shame is nothing if not dangerous.

Does anybody remember this statement about Barrack Hussein Obama by Democrat Joe Biden?

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." 

So who are the inarticulate, dim, and unclean African-Americans Biden was comparing the Messianic candidate to?  All the other African-Americans that are considered mainstream by Biden's standards, I suppose.  But, I think we'll be waiting a long time for anyone in the mainstream media to press him on that question.