truthilicious

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a long-time fan of The Daily Show.  While I disagree with some of the political viewpoints embedded in Jon Stewart’s comedy, I certainly always enjoy the show and actually TiVo it nightly.

With that out of the way, I have been increasingly turned off by both Stewart and Colbert’s Comedy Central shows in recent weeks.  It’s always a given that the Left is going to receive a better shake by those guys, but it has gotten outright disturbing how these shows could virtually pass for light-hearted Obama / Biden campaign ads of late…

…then I saw the first clip below wherein Jon Stewart went for the cheap applause when performing at a college in Boston last week by saying that he just wants to say “F*** you” to Sarah Palin in response to a statement she made that many on the Left have seized upon as a divisive remark against large urban areas.  (story here)

At a recent fundraising event, Governor Palin said:

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe…that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.”

An excerpt of Stewart’s routine is posted here:

Stewart, as well as fellow New Yorker Joy Behar of ABC’s The View both found it convenient to invoke a 9/11 reference recently in response to Governor Palin’s statement, which I find particularly ironic because both have flamed Republicans like Rudy Giuliani for mentioning 9/11 at all.  I guess the double standard is one that suits someone like Stewart particularly well though; after all this is the guy who appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and tore into both Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson saying that their divisive actions were “hurting America.”

I guess it’s okay for Jon Stewart to make vitriolic, divisive remarks though - because in his own words, he’s just “fake news,” and therefore conveniently immune to any of the complicated entanglements of journalistic ethics or common decency.

And around and around we go…

Franklin is on the $100 bill, Washington is on the $1, Lincoln is on the $5… so it seemed like a nice bit of political satire to suggest that Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama could appear as the the face on Food Stamps if he is elected in November, given his “spread the wealth around” liberal views.

But a small GOP-club took that idea a bit too far when they printed a rather offensive picture of Obama on a food stamp alongside a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, a rack of ribs, the Kool-Aid man, and a slice of watermelon (story here).  What’s worse is that members of the group don’t see the racism in the comic.

  Those ribs sure do look tasty though… I miss Summer already…

In spite of the fact that the media has tried to demonize Joe “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher in the wake of the third Presidential Debate by engaging in the typical muckraking journalism reserved only for the GOP and their allies this year, the “inconvenient truth” for the Hopium addicts in the Obama Camp is that Obama clearly says (at the very end of this clip) that “When you spread the wealth around” it makes it better for everyone.

Uh - doesn’t this smack of Socialism?

Many pundits and analysts  have been quick to rush to Obama’s defense - like David Gergen on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” this morning - pointing out that our government just pumped billions into the banks - which is also incredibly socialistic.  That is a very flimsy argument though - when you consider that We the People were sold on a panic scenario - which an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed anyway, but we were forced to accept.  So Mr. Gergen - the fact that we just bailed out a bunch of corrupt corporations somehow makes Obama’s political leanings less Socialistic?

Come on - how dumb do you think we are?

Of course, the Obama camp denies this man’s story - and apparently that denial is “good enough” for most of the mainstream, liberal media.

While much was made in the mainstream (read “Liberal”) media about John McCain’s incredibly brief window into his medical records a while back, the media seems to be strangely unwilling to dig into Senator Obama’s past at Columbia University and Harvard.  This is convenient, because apparently the Senator and his campaign are doing all they can to stonewall any inquiries to that effect.

But slowly there are connections surfacing that go well beyond the Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and even William Ayers debacles.

It seems the Senator from Illinois may have gotten into Harvard with the help of Dr. Khalid al-Mansour - who has ties to both the Black Panthers as well as Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who some may remember as the rich Arab who tried to donate $10 million to post-9/11 rescue efforts but was turned down by Rudy Giuliani because of the Prince’s statements about the attacks and how the U.S. “should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause.”

With the exception of the videos of al-Mansour after the jump, there seems to be very little about him on the Internet.  But it is apparent that, if Obama does have ties to this man, there should be very serious questions asked as to exactly what is the nature of their relationship, and by extension to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Unless someone in the media does their job on this one, we may elect someone to the highest office in the land who is not the person we have been led to believe he is.

Follow me on Twitter! 

While both sides in this year’s Presidential Contest are prone to exaggeration and outright lies, none is harder to swallow than the mantra of the Hopium-heads in the Obama Camp that McCain is a clone of George Bush.

This editorial that was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer provides a concise argument that should dispel the most vile of all lies being spread by the Obama Campaign.

Let’s see is Baraccio can make this argument lie stick…

I received this in e-mail, and thought it was funny:

On television today a Democratic operative pointed out that when Obama holds a rally 25-30,000 people show up, whereas when McCain holds one he only draws 10-15,000.

The Republican spokesman replied, “That’s because McCain’s supporters are at work.”

Za-Zing! 

So, what caused this current economic crisis?  Pretty much everyone agrees that it was caused in large measure by the sub-prime lending debacle… but what caused that?

I have not yet checked all the facts in this video, (and there are a LOT to check), but after watching it, suddenly the Democrats’ willingness to be so bipartisan and to work with W to quickly pass a bailout bill makes a lot of sense… they are the ones who are to blame for it.  We’ve heard so much about how “Eight years of Bush’s econominc shenanigans” caused this fiasco - when the root cause rests with the past 2 Democrats who sat in the White House.

Bill Clinton advocated hard for the bailout on Larry King’s show about a week ago - and now we all seem to know why!

Friday’s highly-anticipated first Presidential Debate at Ole Miss was quite frankly a huge let-down.  For the vast majority of the 90+ minutes, the candidates regurgitated the same sound-bites they have been using over and over again on the stump, with very little new information or insights being shared.  As hard as moderator Jim Lehrer tried, he could not (for the most part) force the candidates to engage in a true debate; they would reply to each other mostly by looking at Jim and saying “Senator Obama” this or “Senator McCain” that… boooooooring.

The main points I took away were that Barack Obama was quick to say (on numerous occasions) that “Senator McCain is right” or “John is right” on points where they agreed. McCain never conceded at all to Obama.  That could either be taken as weakness on Obama’s part, or if you are an Obama supporter you could try to spin it by saying that Obama was “reaching across the aisle” and showed his willingness to be bipartisan.  McCain’s M.O. for the night was to repeatedly state that “Senator Obama doesn’t understand,”  which could either be viewed through the lens of McCain’s supporters as a reinforcement of the Arizona Senator’s obvious wealth of experience vs. Obama’s obvious lack thereof, or by McCain’s detractors as pure condescension.

The primary focus of the evening was to have been foreign policy - arguably McCain’s strength.  However given the current economic crisis, the first several minutes of the debate were focused on the proposed $700 billion bailout plan and how each candidates’ campaign promises would have to change as a result.  Not surprisingly, neither candidate gave much of an answer, with the exception of McCain who stated he’d essentially place a moratorium on all non-essential government spending until the crisis was over; which should resonate well with most Americans.

Was there a clear winner?  The pundits on the Left say it was Obama, and those to the Right say McCain (as if I had to tell you that), but in my view it was very close to being a wash, with McCain coming to life more and more as the debate progressed and the true foreign policy questions were asked.  It was then that the Arizona Senator demonstrated his clear superiority as expected.  I will say that Obama did not wither and die though - he was remarkably poised, but a bit to “macro” with most of his responses.

There are more debates ahead, and of course you will be able to read about them here - so stay tuned!